diff --git a/markdown/alinks.md b/markdown/alinks.md
index 4655e76d8ec3778d5ecdfc17a67ace399cb3893a..630d10d2e977e92d9e04abb81ca37106a528be6d 100644
--- a/markdown/alinks.md
+++ b/markdown/alinks.md
@@ -8,7 +8,10 @@ Click on the flag to go back to _**"An Anarchist FAQ"_** main page
## Anarchist News
-**_Webpages for breaking news of anarchist and radical actions and ideas._**
+**_Webpages for breaking news of anarchist and radical actions and ideas._**
+All the links marked like this are not available anymore, they're still here
+for _historic_ purposes, also some of them are availabe through [Archive.org
+WayBack Machine](http://www.archive.org/web/web.php)
[A-infos: Anarchist News Service](http://www.ainfos.ca/)
[A-Infos: Anarchist News Service ](http://212.204.198.111/)
@@ -32,7 +35,7 @@ for individual countries and North American regions and cities. Some Indymedia
sites are better than others, so be warned!
[anarchoMEDIA - Anarchist/Anti-Authoritarian News and Resources for
-Ireland](http://www.anarchomedia.cjb.net/)
+Ireland](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anarchomedia.cjb.net/)
Name says it all!
[Anarchist news dot org | News for anarchists and their
@@ -90,7 +93,8 @@ history. Excellent resource.
Page](http://www.eskimo.com/~galt/revolt.html)
The nice anarchist webpage based in Seattle, USA.
-[ Anarchism](http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/spp/charlie/grand/anarchy/who.html)
+[
+Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/spp/charlie/grand/anarchy/who.html)
Good academic introduction and description of anarchism and anarchist ideas.
[The Seed home page](http://Web.cs.city.ac.uk/homes/louise/seed2.html)
@@ -99,7 +103,8 @@ Uk Alternative Information page. Links to many UK based anarchist resources.
[An Anarchy Home Page](http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ctb/anarchy)
Links to anarchist and anarchist (and non-anarchist) related sites.
-[ANOTHER GODLESS ANARCHIST](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~subvert/)
+[ANOTHER GODLESS
+ANARCHIST](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~subvert/)
Excellent webpage containing an extensive series of links on anarchism,
anarcho-syndicalism and much more!
@@ -108,20 +113,22 @@ Individualist Anarchist web-page. Useful resource on the minority trend within
the anarchist movement.
[Anarchy Punk !!!REVOLUTION NOW!!! Ska Anti-
-Facism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1543/)
+Facism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1543/)
Anarcho-punk web-site.
-[Andrew's Course in Anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5362/index.html)
+[Andrew's Course in
+Anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5362/index.html)
Introduction to anarchism. Basic, but generally good.
[BURN! Nothing ever burns down by itself.](http://tierra.ucsd.edu/)
Excellent site on anarchist art. Has anarchist posters from the Spanish
Revolution and Paris '68 among other things. Recommended.
-[ Anarchist Sampler](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/index.html)
+[ Anarchist
+Sampler](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/index.html)
Excellent collection of anarchist quotes on a wide range of subjects. Includes
the excellent essay [Between Anarchism and
-Libertarianism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html).
+Libertarianism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html).
[Mark/Space: Anachron City: Library: Keywords: anarchy](http://www.euro.net
/mark-space/Anarchy.html)
@@ -133,14 +140,15 @@ Introduction to the ideas of **The Platform**, the Platformist tradition and
the anarchist groups which apply it today.
[Anarchist Information -
-Australia](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/andex.html)
+Australia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/andex.html)
Australian anarchist web-page.
[cat@lyst Main Menu](http://reflect.cat.org.au/)
A Temporary Autonomous Zone based in Sydney, Australia. Low tech grass roots
net access for real people. Also to be found [here](http://www.cat.org.au)
-[The Resistance Page]( http://members.xoom.com/red_page)
+[The Resistance
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/red_page)
Has extensive and well organised links to various anarchist topics.
[@net](http://www.anarki.net/index.html)
@@ -150,7 +158,8 @@ Anarchist computer network based in Australia.
New York based anarchist information bulletin for networking East and West
alternatice oppositions.
-[AERO Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3351/)
+[AERO Home
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3351/)
Anarchist Education Resource Organisation Home page. has links to introductory
texts on anarchism.
@@ -158,7 +167,7 @@ texts on anarchism.
Good resource for anarchist links and articles.
[ Collectivist
-Libertarianism](http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Collectivist_Libertarianism/)
+Libertarianism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Libertarian/Collectivist_Libertarianism/)
List of anarchist webpages (shame about the name).
[Emma's Place - Another fun anarchist site](http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/)
@@ -168,39 +177,46 @@ anarchists are not serious revolutionaries all the time. Has the infamous
herbal tea joke... Plus the **Anarchist Encyclopedia Project** and other
useful pages.
-[ECOMMUNARD](http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4544/)
+[ECOMMUNARD](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4544/)
Eco-anarchist web-page.
-[Freedom now](http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3150/Anarchy.html)
+[Freedom
+now](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3150/Anarchy.html)
Increase your liberty by visiting this site.
-[Dave X. Pooh's Area](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6532/)
+[Dave X. Pooh's
+Area](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6532/)
Nice introduction to anarchism, plus links on other subjects.
-[BUNYIP WEBSITE a mutual aid site](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3066/)
+[BUNYIP WEBSITE a mutual aid
+site](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3066/)
Name says it all. Worth checking out and has links to many important issues
(such as Australian Aboriginal issues).
[Anarchism Study Group]( http://concordia.pirg.ca/anarchism/)
Excellent webpage about finding out about anarchism, based in Quebec, Canada.
-[Anarchist Study Resources](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/)
+[Anarchist Study
+Resources](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/)
Contains links to many anarchist articles (plus one by Lenin!). Also contains
-the e-zine [Slavery!](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/slavery.html)
+the e-zine
+[Slavery!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8827/slavery.html)
-[Struggle in Ireland](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4716/)
+[Struggle in
+Ireland](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4716/)
An anarchist analysis of struggles for freedom going on in Ireland.
-[anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5224/)
+[anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5224/)
Short and to the point introduction to anarchy and anarchist ideas.
[Information about
-Anarchism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/)
+Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/)
Anarchist articles and links. Contains a chapter of Bob Black's new book
**Anarchy after Leftism** plus other articles on anarchist theory and history.
Plus really cool anarcho-Simpsons graphic!.
-[fnord forever!](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1313/)
+[fnord
+forever!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1313/)
Sennaca's Anarcho-Communist Page.
[Feenicks' Anarchist PAGE](http://www.ozemail.com.au/~feen/politics.html)
@@ -210,35 +226,38 @@ Information and links on a range of subjects, such as Bolivian miners!
Links to various anarchist pages and articles.
[the Worldwide Cooperative Anarchy
-Movement](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5956/)
+Movement](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5956/)
Name says it all!
-[Anarchist Propaganda](http://black.cat.org.au/aprop/)
+[Anarchist
+Propaganda](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://black.cat.org.au/aprop/)
Archive of anarchist articles and information on many subjects useful for
anarchist activists.
[The Libertarian Socialist
-Navigator](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/)
+Navigator](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/)
Good introduction to anarchism and anarchist ideas. Has a section on anarcha-
feminism.
-[World Wide Anarchism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4243/)
+[World Wide
+Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4243/)
Extensive links to anarchist sites.
[ Entrance to Anarchy: the only
-solution](http://www.freespeech.org/anarchytos/)
+solution](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.freespeech.org/anarchytos/)
Information about anarchy and anarchism. Nice (but graphic intensive!)
-[What's anarchy?](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9857/index.html)
+[What's
+anarchy?](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9857/index.html)
Find out what anarchy is and why you should be an anarchist (its shorter than
the FAQ!). Plus links to **Calvin and Hobbes**!
[Above Suspicion; Stealing from the Store of Pre-Packaged
-Culture](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
+Culture](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
Anarchist articles, rants and links.
[Anarchist Web Directory
--Home](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7094/index.html)
+-Home](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7094/index.html)
Articles and images about anarchism, plus an extensive links page
[Home page for Proudhon](http://flag.blackened.net/)
@@ -253,13 +272,15 @@ Excellent collection of anarchist webpages (individuals and groups).
Religious anarchist webpage. Jesus as anarchist-socialist!
[ An Eco-Anarchists Page (Environmental
-Anarchism)](http://www.angelfire.com/ca/ecoanarchist/index.html)
+Anarchism)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/ca/ecoanarchist/index.html)
Name says it all. Find out about eco-anarchism.
-[Home of the Watermelon Poet](http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1196/)
+[Home of the Watermelon
+Poet](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1196/)
Eco-anarchist look at poetry, politics, our environments and more.
-[Song of the March Hare](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5309/)
+[Song of the March
+Hare](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5309/)
Good anarchist webpage with a slight **Alice in Wonderland** feel about it.
Excellent link pages.
@@ -271,7 +292,7 @@ perspective.
Mutual Aid website!
[Bellatria and Pucks Home
-Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8728/)
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8728/)
Yet another anarchist webpage at geocities! Good links.
[Anarchist Action Network](http://www.zpub.com/notes/aadl.html)
@@ -279,17 +300,19 @@ Sick and tired of anarchists and anarchism being misrepresented in the media?
Then visit this webpage -- time to secure justice and fair treatment for
anarchy! Excellent site.
-[The Sieve: Steve K's Home Pages](http://www.duke.edu/~sdk2/)
+[The Sieve: Steve K's Home
+Pages](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.duke.edu/~sdk2/)
Anarchist texts and links to anarchist and other sites
-[Anarchocommie's Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
+[Anarchocommie's Home
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
A Communist-Anarchist's home page, strangely enough! Links and essays.
[Rebels Home Page](http://www.theft.demon.co.uk/)
Sheffield (England) based anarchist webpage.
[So many porcupines, so little
-time...](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7579/)
+time...](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7579/)
A webpage with more than a dash of anarchism about it.
[Social Anarchists International](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/)
@@ -298,7 +321,7 @@ Webpage about social anarchism. Includes a mirror of the FAQ.
[Spiritual Anarchy](http://cavern.uark.edu/~dksander/anarchy.html)
Interesting selection of links to anarchist and non-anarchist webpages.
-[mobtown.org](http://www.mobtown.org/)
+[mobtown.org](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mobtown.org/)
This is a resource of activists, anarchists and anti-authoritarians (among
others) in the Baltimore metropolitan area in the USA.
@@ -313,11 +336,12 @@ FAQ.
Find out about anarchism in Australia. The Melbourne node of the Australian
@Net anarchist computer network. Excellent site!
-[New Tolpuddle Anarchist](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/)
+[New Tolpuddle
+Anarchist](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/)
Australian based anarchist page. Has information on anarchism, law, religion
and other strange Associations.
-[Anarchos](http://www.web.net/~anarchos/)
+[Anarchos](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.web.net/~anarchos/)
Nice looking webpage on anarchism. Seems to be mainly Social Ecologist in
nature.
@@ -325,20 +349,23 @@ nature.
perspectives](http://salzman.physics.umb.edu/AnarchismEtc/AnarchismEtc)
Collection of interesting articles and essays on anarchism and other subjects.
-[ Libertarian Communist Scrapbook](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6874/)
+[ Libertarian Communist
+Scrapbook](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6874/)
Contains interesting articles on Libertarian Communism.
-[That Funky Poetic Anarchist]( http://members.xoom.com/AnarchoPoet/)
+[That Funky Poetic
+Anarchist](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/AnarchoPoet/)
Anarchism, poetry and other stuff.
-[lazosubverto's Home Page](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3374/index.html)
+[lazosubverto's Home
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3374/index.html)
Situationist-anarchist webpage. Looks impressive!
[ nothingness.org ](http://www.nothingness.org/)
Very impressive anarchist webpage. Contains a Situationist International
Archive, "Mr. Block" cartoons and much much more.
-[Anarchism](http://www.syntac.net/hoax/anarchism.html)
+[Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.syntac.net/hoax/anarchism.html)
Excellent selection of links to various anarchist authors. Very well laid out.
[ Real Anarchy](http://pages.whowhere.com/lifestyle/a--person/index.html)
@@ -347,7 +374,8 @@ Anarchist webpage with a short definition of anarchism.
[Action through Anarchy](http://jessejack.freehosting.net/anarchy/)
Very nice looking social anarchist webpage.
-[Anarchism and nationalism](http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jenne/)
+[Anarchism and
+nationalism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jenne/)
Anarchist perspectives on nationalism and ethnic conflict. Includes the work
of such people as Rudolf Rocker.
@@ -355,10 +383,11 @@ of such people as Rudolf Rocker.
Webpage dedicated to flag burning. Contains flag burning posters.
[ Libertarian Socialism
-(Anarchism)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7769/main.html)
+(Anarchism)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7769/main.html)
US based anarchist webpage.
-[A Queer/Homopage at equi.iww.org](http://www.iww.org/queer/)
+[A Queer/Homopage at
+equi.iww.org](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.iww.org/queer/)
A Radical Queer Labor Page from the IWW.
[ANARCHY.ORG](http://www.anarchy.org/)
@@ -367,40 +396,43 @@ Collection of articles and links about anarchism
[(An) Anarchy Home Page](http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ctb/anarchy/)
Webpage with a useful series of links and articles.
-[Anarchism and Freedom](http://www.fl.net.au/~nellybet/index.htm)
+[Anarchism and
+Freedom](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.fl.net.au/~nellybet/index.htm)
Nice looking webpage with links to other anarchist sites.
[Welcome to Rebel's home](http://www.theft.demon.co.uk/)
Excellent looking webpage with links and articles on anarchist subjects.
-[Anarchism: What is it?](http://www.angelfire.com/va/jsorenK/anrky.html)
+[Anarchism: What is
+it?](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/va/jsorenK/anrky.html)
An anarcho-pacifist webpage with an impressive selection of quotes and
articles.
[ The Libertarian Communist Home
-Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/)
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/)
Excellent libertarian communist (i.e. anarchist) webpage. Extensive links to
articles, pamphlets, posters, etc.
-[The Resistance Page](http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
+[The Resistance
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
Nice page with links to other sites and articles.
[Center for Anarchist Propaganda "Errico
-Malatesta"](http://members.dencity.com/situationniste/)
+Malatesta"](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.dencity.com/situationniste/)
Impressive anarcho-situationist webpage.
[ Anarchism and
-Punk](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/4750/index.html)
+Punk](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/4750/index.html)
An Anarcho-Punk webpage.
-[Anarchism](http://www.angelfire.com/sk/anarchism/index.html)
+[Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/sk/anarchism/index.html)
Links and articles on anarchism and punk.
[ (I)An-ok's Homepage of devious subversion and ultimate
rebellion](http://medusa.twinoaks.org/members/\(I\)An-ok/)
Impressive webpage with links and articles.
-[Ozanarchy](http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~huelga/ozanarchy/)
+[Ozanarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xchange.anarki.net/~huelga/ozanarchy/)
Great site listing whats happening on-line in the Australian anarchist scene.
[Poetry in Revolt](http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/anarchistpoetry/)
@@ -411,7 +443,7 @@ An open-ended site for gathering, archiving, organizing and interpreting
historical material related to anarchism in its various forms.
[ Anarchist-Communist Theory and
-Practice](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
+Practice](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3962/)
An excellent anarcho-communist page with many essays and links.
[Professing: Dennis Fox's Home Page](http://www.uis.edu:1967/~fox/)
@@ -419,10 +451,11 @@ Webpage of a Critical/Humanistic Psychologist which includes articles about
anarchism and psychology.
[ Paolo Chiocchetti's
-Homepage](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3671/)
+Homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3671/)
Excellent webpage. Many anarchist links and articles.
-[Anarchism from HK](http://www.angelfire.com/punk/anarchynow/)
+[Anarchism from
+HK](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/punk/anarchynow/)
Anarchist webpage from Hong Kong. Many articles and links.
[Ken's Temporary Autonomous Zone](http://taz.tc/daelix/)
@@ -443,29 +476,33 @@ An anarchist anti-election webpage from the North of England.
Anarchist webpage with many articles, news and links.
[ Anarchist Resistance
-Network](http://www.angelfire.com/zine/anarchistresistance/)
+Network](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/zine/anarchistresistance/)
Name says it all.
[ Queensland Anarchism creates Happy
-Anarchy](http://www.crosswinds.net/~happyanarchy/)
+Anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crosswinds.net/~happyanarchy/)
Excellent webpage. Includes many articles and essays.
-[ commie zero zero](http://www.geocities.com/commie00/commie00.html)
+[ commie zero
+zero](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/commie00/commie00.html)
Webpage for the exploration of the connecting points between anarchism and
libertarian marxism, the exploration of class struggle and from these the
creation of a theoretical behaviour capable of helping us move toward
libertarian communism (aka real communism, anarchy).
-[Killing King Abacus](http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/)
+[Killing King
+Abacus](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/)
Excellent Anarchist webpage. Lots of links and articles.
-[ No Control](http://www.crosswinds.net/~zapata/newindex.html)
+[ No
+Control](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.crosswinds.net/~zapata/newindex.html)
Links to anarchist sites of interests.
-[Peace](http://i.am/antiwar)
+[Peace](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://i.am/antiwar)
Anarchist anti-war page.
-[Third Eye](http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
+[Third
+Eye](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
News and analysis from a group of anarcho-marxists in New Zealand
[ Alaskanarchy - Your guide to anarchy in
@@ -480,16 +517,17 @@ Excellent collection of anarchist, ecological, etc. links useful for
activists.
[
-Situationism](http://www.freespeech.org/ledland/Anarchism/A_Situationism.html)
+Situationism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.freespeech.org/ledland/Anarchism/A_Situationism.html)
Excellent webpage introduction to Situationist ideas.
-[ Anarchist Archives Project](http://members.aol.com/wellslake/AAP.htm)
+[ Anarchist Archives
+Project](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.aol.com/wellslake/AAP.htm)
The Anarchist Archives Project was set up in 1982 for the purpose of
collecting and preserving materials documenting the history of anarchism and,
in turn, making them available to historians and interested individuals.
[Anarchist Hompage - Don't beg for the right to live, take it.
-](http://anarchisthomepage.cjb.net/)
+](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://anarchisthomepage.cjb.net/)
Very good anarchist webpage.
[Anarchism and Revolution in The Big
@@ -501,7 +539,8 @@ Network](http://www.anarchistcommunitarian.net/)
Webpage for anarchists interested in "intentional communities" (i.e. forming
anarchist communes in capitalist society).
-[The Resistance Page](http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
+[The Resistance
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/red_page/)
Web page which provides information about anarchism and other groups opposed
to exploitation.
@@ -512,7 +551,8 @@ Name says it all!
[Stan Iverson Memorial Library](http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/)
Name says it all!
-[Generation Terrorists](http://free.freespeech.org/genterror/)
+[Generation
+Terrorists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://free.freespeech.org/genterror/)
Good webpage from the USA.
[ Baseman's site for Education and
@@ -527,7 +567,7 @@ Excellent collection of anarchist essays.
UK based anarchist/libertarian communist anti-war group.
[Nestor McNab's Anarcho-Communist
-Page](http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/)
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/)
Name says it all!
[Anarchist writings from
@@ -581,29 +621,30 @@ Brasilian anarchist webpage.
Anarchism in Greece.
[ Boletim No.18 - Publicao Peridica do Projeto
-Periferia](http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18.htm)
+Periferia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18.htm)
Excellent looking Portuguese webpage. Includes a Portuguese translation of our
appendix on the [symbols of
-anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18b.htm)!
+anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/projetoperiferia/18b.htm)!
-[Anarquismo:Abertura](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3471/)
+[Anarquismo:Abertura](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3471/)
Excellent looking anarchist web-site.
[ latinos libres - anarquismo en los
-EEUU](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/)
+EEUU](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/)
Topics in English and Spanish about the theory, history and current issues of
the international anarchist movement.
-[El Kiosko Libertario](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3162/)
+[El Kiosko
+Libertario](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3162/)
Valencia based anarchist web-site (in Spanish)
[Yelah.net](http://www.yelah.net) Weekly libertarian socialist web-magazine
with daily news. 1825 articles and 1610 links...and counting.
[ !!! P@RaToDoS o e-zine da Revoluo
-!!!](http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/)
+!!!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/)
Excellent looking web-site. Plus a short FAQ on anarchism called [P@RaToDoS -
-Anarquismo](http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/anarco2.htm).
+Anarquismo](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1290/anarco2.htm).
[DADA](http://anarch.free.de/dada/)
Datenbank des deutschsprachigen Anarchismus. German anarchist webpage.
@@ -635,10 +676,11 @@ Excellent German anarchist site. Extensive number of links and articles.
[Anarchismus](http://www.totentanz.de/kmedeke/anarchis.htm)
German anarchist webpage. Mostly links to other sites.
-[Zebulon's Page](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/)
+[Zebulon's
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/)
French anarchist page. Not much there - has links to a few other sites.
-[Potatodos](http://www.geocities.com/~bloodstorm/)
+[Potatodos](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/~bloodstorm/)
A Brazilian anarchist webpage in Portuguese
[Anarquismo Hoje](http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1112/)
@@ -649,11 +691,11 @@ opinion:Anarkism](http://www.yahoo.se/Politik_och_foervaltning/Politik/Politisk_
Yahoo's listing for Swedish anarchist sites.
[Vilg anarchisti
-egyesljetek!](http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/8671/)
+egyesljetek!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/8671/)
Anarchist webpage from Hungary.
[Salud Y Anarquia
-Companero](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1264/)
+Companero](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1264/)
Excellent anarchist webpage.
[Info Usurpa](http://personal.redestb.es/gurmanyach/usurpa.htm)
@@ -662,21 +704,22 @@ Spanish anarchist webpage.
[DE NAR - HOMEPAGE](http://www.xs4all.be/~ance/denar/)
Dutch anarchist webpage.
-[Exceso](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5689/)
+[Exceso](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5689/)
Spanish anarchist website.
-[Loepa Berlin](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
+[Loepa
+Berlin](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
German anarchist webpage.
[Revolutionsbruhof/ Anarchistische Buchhandlung](http://www.inode.at/rbh/)
German Anarchist webpage.
[Hemsida fr den hypnotiserade
-majoriteten](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1063/)
+majoriteten](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1063/)
Very impressive Swedish anarchist webpage.
[TOPRAK'S WEB PAGE / ANARCHISM IN
-TURKEY](http://members.xoom.com/toprak_grubu/index.htm)
+TURKEY](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/toprak_grubu/index.htm)
Anarchist webpage based in Turkey.
[Kifla - Svucen's Page](http://public.srce.hr/~svucen/)
@@ -686,7 +729,7 @@ Anarchism in Eastern Europe
Brazilian webpage which owes alot to the Mid-Atlantic Info Shop!
[ Ao Direta - Um Site
-Anarquista](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5470/)
+Anarquista](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5470/)
Anarchist webpage from Brazil.
[ | WWW.ANARCHIE.DE | ANARCHIE | FREIHEIT | SELBSTBESTIMMUNG | EVOLUTION
@@ -697,11 +740,12 @@ German anarchist webpage.
Anarchist texts in Indonesian. Plus links to many anarchist and radical
webpages.
-[ classwar now! homepage](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4772/)
+[ classwar now!
+homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4772/)
The homepage of CLASSWAR NOW! CLASSWAR NOW! is an anarchist-communist project
by various leftwing radicals in Austria/Europe.
-[ambi](http://www.geocities.com/xs_ambi/)
+[ambi](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/xs_ambi/)
The Ambi web site includes articles for the zines Spawn of Croatan and il
frenetico, as well as insurrectionary anarchist articles and links
@@ -711,13 +755,14 @@ Russian anarchist webpage. One of the few anarchist web-pages in Russian. And
it is a (potentially big) library/archive
[ ACCION DIRECTA KONTRA EL FASCISMO, EL KAPITALISMO Y OTRAS FORMAS DE
-OPRESION](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9700/Accion.htm)
+OPRESION](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9700/Accion.htm)
Spanish Anarchist webpage.
[Anarchy in BG](http://people.bulgaria.com/anarchy/)
Bulgarian Anarchist Webpage.
-[ Anarquia](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1672/)
+[
+Anarquia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1672/)
Anarchist webpage from Puerto Rico.
[ANARCHISME(S) - index](http://www.multimania.com/anarchismes/)
@@ -748,7 +793,7 @@ Very impressive Spanish language webpage.
**_Anarchist homepages with a high anarchafeminist content._**
[AnarchaFeminism (Anarchist
-Feminism)](http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/anrfem.html)
+Feminism)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/anrfem.html)
Good web-site on anarcha-Feminism. Contains an excellent introductory essay on
the **Free Women** movement in 1930's Spain.
@@ -765,7 +810,8 @@ Anarcha-Feminist links from the Mid-Atlantic Info-Shop.
HomePage](http://members.aol.com/ThryWoman/Index.html)
Essays and links on anarchism, anarcha-feminism and a whole lot more!
-[cassandra speaks](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/2777/)
+[cassandra
+speaks](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/2777/)
A feminist-anarchist visionary site
[anarchobabe's fempages](http://www.j12.org/fempages/)
@@ -839,26 +885,30 @@ A directory of autonomous, non-hierarchical groups, centres, bookshops and
other organisations lists contacts throughout the known world, as well as all
the original contacts and more from Britain and Ireland.
-[ Anarchists](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/anarchis.html)
+[
+Anarchists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/anarchis.html)
Links for many anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations across the
world. Part of the [Leftist Parties of the
-World](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/) Webpage.
+World](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4192/)
+Webpage.
**Britain and Ireland**
[ The Workers Solidarity Movement : Ireland - Anarchist
organisation](http://struggle.ws/wsm.html)
Official Homepage of the Irish anarchist group. Another webpage is [All about
-Anarchism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/) which has extensive
-articles on various aspects of anarchist ideas and history as well as
-anarchist analysis of current events. Has a large section on Irish politics.
-Yet another WSM site can be found
-[here](http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3145/) and
+Anarchism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/)
+which has extensive articles on various aspects of anarchist ideas and history
+as well as anarchist analysis of current events. Has a large section on Irish
+politics. Yet another WSM site can be found
+[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3145/)
+and
[Anarchist Federation](http://www.afed.org.uk/)
Web site for the British revoluntionary Anarchist organisation.
-[Manchester AF](http://www.geocities.com/anarchist_federation/)
+[Manchester
+AF](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/anarchist_federation/)
Manchester branch of the UK's Anarchist Federation.
[Anarchist Federation](http://www.afireland.org)
@@ -866,7 +916,8 @@ Manchester branch of the UK's Anarchist Federation.
Name says it all!
[Class War](http://www.classwaruk.org/)
-[CLASS WAR](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9482/)
+[CLASS
+WAR](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9482/)
[Class War](http://www.tao.ca/~lemming/classwar/)
Webpages for the UK based anarchist group **Class War**. Also see [This Is
Class War - What we
@@ -881,14 +932,15 @@ communist hroups in London, England.
Homepage for the SAN. Name says it all.
[ Movement against the
-Monarchy](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1793/Index.html)
+Monarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1793/Index.html)
Anarchist group aiming to get rid of the British Monarchy and other parasites.
-[ SHEFFIELD ANARCHIST GROUP](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6247/)
+[ SHEFFIELD ANARCHIST
+GROUP](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6247/)
Anarchist group based in the North East of England
[ ANARCHIST TRADE UNION
-NETWORK](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2522/)
+NETWORK](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2522/)
A network which aims to co-ordinate the activity of anarchists in Trade Unions
in the UK. Join their mailing list at [ListBot - @TU Home
Page](http://atu.listbot.com/).
@@ -923,7 +975,8 @@ includes current discussion around class and culture issues.
A group of anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy direct action
activists in Surrey, England.
-[Aberdeen Anarchist Resistance](http://geocities.com/resistanceab/)
+[Aberdeen Anarchist
+Resistance](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://geocities.com/resistanceab/)
Scottish Anarchist group.
[Anarchist Youth Network](http://flag.blackened.net/ayn/)
@@ -935,7 +988,7 @@ Name says it all. For UK based anarchist youths.
Homepage of the Anarchist Federation in Scotland.
[No War but the Class War (NWBTCW) |
-Homepage](http://www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/)
+Homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/)
Webpage of anarchists and libertarian Marxists who want to present a
revolutionary opposition to capitalist war.
@@ -981,19 +1034,19 @@ Anarchist group based in Hungary (texts in Hungarian and English).
Homepage of the Polish Anarchists.
[Nie Oficjalna Strona Anarcho-Komunistycznej Organizacji
-Platform](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5158/)
+Platform](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5158/)
Unofficial Site of the Anarchist-Communist Organizational Platform of Poland.
A site by a group of Polish anarchists interested in the Organisational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists. Includes a new Polish translation of
the Platform.
[ Loepa Berlin - Homepage
-english](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
+english](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/)
German autonomous group. English language pages can be found
-[here](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/index_e.html).
+[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/index_e.html).
[Zagrebacki anarhisticki
-pokret](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/)
+pokret](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/)
Anarchist group based on Zagreb, Croatia.
[AFD: Anarchistische Fderation in Deutschland](http://www.tao.ca/~i-afd/)
@@ -1032,7 +1085,8 @@ Anarchist Federation.
Webpage for Italian Anarchic Movement (MAI). Has hundreds of texts about
anarchism, mostly available in English and Italian.
-[ UNIONE ANARCHICA](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8485/index.html)
+[ UNIONE
+ANARCHICA](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8485/index.html)
Webpage for Italian Anarchist Group.
[Coordinadora Libertaria de Madrid](http://www.sindominio.net/clm/)
@@ -1054,7 +1108,8 @@ Prce](http://www.volny.cz/priamaakcia/)
Homepage of **Direct Action - Anarcho-communist Organisation of Labour** from
Slovakia.
-[Back to the Streets](http://www.geocities.com/dromous)
+[Back to the
+Streets](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/dromous)
Webpage of the Greek group "Back to the Streets." For more anarchist groups in
Greece, visit [ www.anarchy.gr](http://www.anarchy.gr/)
@@ -1080,7 +1135,8 @@ Notes towrds an alternative history. Summary of anarchist and left-wing
influences in the Middle East. Has links to webpages and articles on this
subject.
-[Anarcho-Communism Web Page](http://members.xoom.com/anarcho/anarchism.htm)
+[Anarcho-Communism Web
+Page](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/anarcho/anarchism.htm)
Homepage of the Istanbul Social Ecology Group. Good short introduction to
anarchism.
@@ -1108,7 +1164,7 @@ A quick guide to anarchy and anarchists in North America.
Anarchist Groups around the New York area of the United States.
[ FEDERACIN ANARQUISTA AMOR Y
-RABIA](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8911/)
+RABIA](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8911/)
Website for the (now no more?) revolutionary anarchist group based in Mexico
and the USA.
@@ -1120,15 +1176,16 @@ Northampton, MA, USA.
Homepage of the Chicago-area Radical Anarchist Youth Organizing Network
(CRAYON).
-[Homes Not Jails Boston](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7996/)
+[Homes Not Jails
+Boston](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7996/)
Free the land, squat the world. Home page of the Boston direct action group
which aims to end homelessness by squatting.
[British Columbia Anarchist
-Association](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6322/)
+Association](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6322/)
Very strange Canadian anarchist webpage.
-[MichigAnarchists](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2577/)
+[MichigAnarchists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2577/)
An anarchist collective based in Michigan, USA.
[Heatwave CAF](http://flag.blackened.net/heatwave/)
@@ -1141,11 +1198,12 @@ get a degree in anarchism!). Find out about the home of social ecology, one of
the current threads in anarchist thought which has provoked quite a few
discussions.
-[Los Angeles Anarchists](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/)
+[Los Angeles
+Anarchists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/)
Name says it all. Home page for anarchists in LA, USA.
[Chicano Anarchists and Left
-Libertarians](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/mexanarchs.htm)
+Libertarians](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/mexanarchs.htm)
Name says it all. Based in LA, USA.
[WE DARE BE FREE](http://www.tao.ca/~wdbf/)
@@ -1158,7 +1216,7 @@ articles from their paper, as well as news and analysis of all sorts of other
issues.
[ Organizacin Anarquista
-Libertad](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/8285/)
+Libertad](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/8285/)
Anarchist Organisation from Argentina.
[Congreso de Unificacin Anarco-
@@ -1176,7 +1234,7 @@ French Speaking Anarchist group from Montreal, Canada.
US based eco-anarchist group.
[ Anarchist Black Cross - Los
-Angeles](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/abc.htm)
+Angeles](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/laanarchists/abc.htm)
Los Angeles based **Anarchist Black Cross** Group.
[Anarchist Liberty Union](http://www.airlifted.com/alu/)
@@ -1199,7 +1257,7 @@ the reformist/nationalistic agendas that dominate campaigns against global
capitalism.
[ Hope Liberty
-Association](http://www.geocities.com/hope_liberty_association/)
+Association](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/hope_liberty_association/)
An activist and anarchist collective working in Port Hope, Ontario and
surrounding area.
@@ -1210,23 +1268,26 @@ Name says it all!
Excellent looking webpage from the PAC.
[The Connecticut Anti-Nationalist
-Party](http://www.geocities.com/connanp/index.html)
+Party](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/connanp/index.html)
Anarchist group in Connecticut, USA.
[The Baltimore Anarchist Resource](http://www.crosswinds.net/~baltanarchist/)
Name says it all!
-[ Red & Black Notes Homepage](http://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/)
+[ Red & Black Notes
+Homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/)
Libertarian socialist project based in Toronto, Canada.
-[Brousse Collective](http://www.geocities.com/broussecollective/)
+[Brousse
+Collective](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/broussecollective/)
Libertarian Communist group.
[ Minnesota Anarchists and Anti-
authoritarians](http://free.freespeech.org/mn/index.html)
Name says it all!
-[ Mile High Resistance](http://www.geocities.com/omniocracy/index.html)
+[ Mile High
+Resistance](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/omniocracy/index.html)
Anarchist group from Colorado (USA).
[Northwest Anarchist Prisoner Support Network](http://www.breakthechains.net/)
@@ -1266,14 +1327,16 @@ Southern Africa based class struggle anarchist federation.
For a strong, united working class. Australian based revolutionary, class
struggle anarchist group.
-[The Wildcat Collective](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5728/)
+[The Wildcat
+Collective](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5728/)
Anarchist group based in Adelaide, South Australia.
[ Committee for the Establishment of Civilisation
homepage](http://www.tao.ca/~cec/)
The Wellington branch of the Anarchist Alliance of Aotearoa.
-[3rdEye homepage](http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
+[3rdEye
+homepage](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/)
A project offering news, views and abuse from Aotearoa, Land of the Long White
Cloud.
@@ -1381,7 +1444,8 @@ Spanish Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association.
For an "unofficial" page check out
[here](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/cnt.html).
-[Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4737/)
+[Unione Sindacale Italiana
+(USI)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4737/)
[Home U.S.I. ecn](http://www.ecn.org/usi-ait/)
Italian Section of the Anarcho-Syndicalist International Workers Association
@@ -1397,7 +1461,7 @@ Manchester section of the British Solidarity Federation
South West England section of the British Solidarity Federation
[ Federace socilnch anarchistu (Federation of social
-anarchists)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1211/)
+anarchists)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1211/)
Home page of the Czech IWA Section.
[Direct!](http://www.tao.ca/~direct_ait/)
@@ -1434,17 +1498,18 @@ Name says it all!
[Industrial Workers of the World](http://www.iww.org.uk/)
Homepage of the British section of the IWW.
-[IWW SCOTLAND](http://www.geocities.com/scottishwobblies/)
+[IWW
+SCOTLAND](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/scottishwobblies/)
Homepage of the IWW in Scotland.
[Workers Solidarity (South Africa)](http://www.struggle.ws/wsf.html)
Home page for the South African anarchist-syndicalist group, the **Workers'
Solidarity Federation**. Old site can be found
-[here](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/). Contains articles from
-their magazine, **Workers' Solidarity**.
+[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/).
+Contains articles from their magazine, **Workers' Solidarity**.
[ The Awareness League
-(Nigeria)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/aware.html)
+(Nigeria)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7017/aware.html)
Introduction to the Nigerian anarcho-syndicalist group.
[ Anarcho-Syndicalist Group of
@@ -1456,7 +1521,7 @@ Home Page of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CGT.
[Sac Syndikalisterna](http://www.sac.se/)
[ SAC - Syndikalisterna (Ume
-LS)](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1690/)
+LS)](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1690/)
[ Central Organisation of Swedish Workers (SAC)
](http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/sac.html)
Home Pages of the Swedish syndicalist union the SAC.
@@ -1465,17 +1530,19 @@ Home Pages of the Swedish syndicalist union the SAC.
[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsfrbundet - LUND](http://www.motkraft.net/suf_lund/)
[SUF - Gavle](http://redrival.com/suf_gavle/)
[Syndikalistiska Ungdomsfrbundet -
-GISLAVED](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8865/)
+GISLAVED](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8865/)
Swedish based anarchosyndicalist group. Part of the syndicalist SAC.
-[Syndikalist Ungdoms Frbund](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4811)
-Swedish syndicalist youth organisation.
+[Syndikalist Ungdoms
+Frbund](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4811)
+Swedish syndicalist youth organisation. [
-[ Anarcho-Syndicalist Coalition Against
-Imperialism](http://members.xoom.com/ASCAI/home.htm)
+Anarcho-Syndicalist Coalition Against
+Imperialism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/ASCAI/home.htm)
Information about ASCAI and anarcho-syndicalism.
-[People for a Free Society](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/)
+[People for a Free
+Society](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/)
People For A Free Society (PFAFS) is a Non-profit Anarcho-syndicalist
collective based in East Los Angeles, CA.
@@ -1490,7 +1557,7 @@ Australian Anarcho-Syndicalist Group.
[Organise! Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation](http://www.oasf.org.uk)
[ Organise! Anarcho-Syndicalist
-Federation](http://www.geocities.com/asf_ireland/)
+Federation](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/asf_ireland/)
Home page of the Northern Ireland based anarcho-syndicalist group.
[KC Industrial Workers of the World](http://www.kcdirectaction.net/IWW/)
@@ -1507,18 +1574,20 @@ Web-page ring for anarchist sites.
[ Anarcho-Syndicalist Ring](http://flag.blackened.net/huelga/asring/)
Web-page ring for anarcho-syndicalist sites and organisations.
-[Self-Management Ring](http://members.xoom.com/autogestion/)
+[Self-Management
+Ring](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/autogestion/)
Extensive list of webpages on the topic of self-management, a key idea of
anarchism.
-[Anarchy Ring!](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/anaring.htm)
+[Anarchy
+Ring!](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4372/anaring.htm)
An attempt to get all the anarchist web-pages into a common link rink.
[Anarcho-Punk Web Ring](http://members.tripod.com/~xjwalkx/anarchopunk.html)
Place to go to find anarcho-punk related web-pages.
[ The Pansexual Sex-Positive Libertarian Socialist
-Webring](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/pansxlsxposlswr.html)
+Webring](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5326/pansxlsxposlswr.html)
This Webring consists of websites which are pansexual, sex-positive, and are
Libertarian Socialist (anarchist) in nature, or derivative fellow travellers.
@@ -1582,7 +1651,8 @@ Free newsheet of the Irish anarchist group, the WSM.
[Practical Anarchy Online](http://www.practicalanarchy.org/)
Name says it all really. Excellent home page for a great magazine!
-[Anarchist Age - W.W.W.](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3879/)
+[Anarchist Age -
+W.W.W.](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3879/)
[Anarchist Age](http://www.freespeech.org/anarchistAge/)
Australian based anarchist paper.
@@ -1610,7 +1680,7 @@ Iberia).
[Kaspahraster Homepage](http://www.teleport.com/~jaheriot/kr.htm)
An anarcho-situationist fanzine. For the revolution of everyday life.
-[Utopia](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8336/)
+[Utopia](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8336/)
Anarchist magazine of culture and intervention from Portugal.
[The Raven](http://www.tao.ca/~freedom/Raven/raven.html)
@@ -1623,7 +1693,7 @@ FAU.
[ Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy](http://www.democracynature.org/dn/index.htm)
[ Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
-Democracy](http://www.geocities.com/democracy_nature/)
+Democracy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/democracy_nature/)
[ Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy](http://www.aigis.com/dn/)
International journal of libertarian socialist, anarchist, social ecologist
@@ -1650,20 +1720,22 @@ Anarchist newsletter produced in Baltimore, USA. Very good it is too.
[Eat the State!](http://eatthestate.org/)
A forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion, research and humour.
-[ALPHA](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4002/)
+[ALPHA](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4002/)
Greek Anarchist Newspaper. Nice looking site!
[la mistoufle](http://www.mygale.org/06/santacru/)
Webpage of the anarchist newspaper of the same name. Produced by an anarchist
group based on Dijon, France.
-[Communist Anarchy](http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
+[Communist
+Anarchy](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7086/)
Irregularly produced anarchist zine.
[Alternative Libertaire](http://users.skynet.be/AL/)
Belgium anarchist paper.
-[The Answer](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1009/)
+[The
+Answer](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1009/)
Webpage of Ahimsa, an anarcho-pacifist zine based in North America. Large
number of articles.
@@ -1672,10 +1744,12 @@ number of articles.
Useful American based anarchist magazine.
[Venomous Butterfly](http://www.angelfire.com/or/vbuterfly/index.html)
-[Venomous Butterfly](http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vbutterfly.html)
+[Venomous
+Butterfly](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vbutterfly.html)
Magazine based in San Francisco, California, USA.
-[Revista Polemica](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2846/)
+[Revista
+Polemica](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2846/)
Barcelona, Spain/Catalonia, based anarchist paper.
[The Northeastern Anarchist](http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/magazine.html)
@@ -1700,7 +1774,7 @@ Always interesting US based anarchist magazine.
[The Match!](http://ri.xu.org/arbalest/matchindex.html)
Selections from an Anarchist magazine from the USA.
-[Exceso](http://www.geocities.com/excesso.geo/)
+[Exceso](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/excesso.geo/)
Spanish language anarchist zine from San Francisco, USA.
[ Sin Bandera](http://www.sindominio.net/clm/sinbandera.htm)
@@ -1781,11 +1855,11 @@ Syndicalism](http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.htm
Classic introduction to both anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.
[Anarchism: From Theory to
-Practice](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/guerin/contents.html) \--
-by Daniel Guerin.
+Practice](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/guerin/contents.html)
+\-- by Daniel Guerin.
[Anarchism: From Theory to
-Practice](http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/guerin/contents.html) \-- by
-Daniel Guerin.
+Practice](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/guerin/contents.html)
+\-- by Daniel Guerin.
The complete text of Daniel Guerins excellent history of and introduction to
anarchism. A classic.
@@ -1947,7 +2021,7 @@ Bookchin's sometimes over the top analysis and attack on Lifestyle anarchism.
Important for its commitment to social action and its restatement of the
socialist nature of anarchism. Part's of Bob Black's reply **Anarchy after
Leftism** can be found [here](http://www.teleport.com/~jaheriot/ch11.htm) and
-[here](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/mbms.html).
+[here](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/mbms.html).
[The Ego and His Own](http://www.leikestova.org/solan/stirner/the_ego/) \-- by
Max Stirner
@@ -2027,8 +2101,8 @@ Johann Most
Most's famous essay. A classic.
[The Soul of Man Under
-Socialism](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/oscar.html) \-- by
-Oscar Wilde
+Socialism](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/oscar.html)
+\-- by Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde's classic essay on libertarian socialism and how it will produce a
true individualism to replace capitalism's false one. Recommended.
@@ -2124,7 +2198,7 @@ Extensive information on many anarchists, from Bookchin to Malatesta.
Recommended!
[An Anarchist
-Reader](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/anread.htm)
+Reader](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/anread.htm)
Excellent webpage containing essays and links on all the famous anarchists (as
well as other texts and links).
@@ -2150,7 +2224,8 @@ Another Noam Chomsky Archive.
A web-site about the arch-egoist Max Stirner. Contains e-texts of his less
famous works along with his classic **The Ego and Its Own**.
-[Emma Goldman](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/emma_eng.html)
+[Emma
+Goldman](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/emma_eng.html)
Excellent webpage on Emma Goldman, one of America's greatest anarchists.
Includes many of her essays.
@@ -2200,7 +2275,8 @@ Analysis of Kropotkin's ideas and methodology by an Autonomist Marxist. The
author correctly points out Kropotkin's method of analysing social struggle
and using this information to inform his anarchist ideas and actions.
-[Noam Chomsky](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/chomsky.html)
+[Noam
+Chomsky](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3345/chomsky.html)
Good introductary site on Noam Chomsky. Extensive links to other Chomsky
sites.
@@ -2221,7 +2297,7 @@ Useful introductory essay on Durruti.
[The Nestor Makhno Archive](http://www.nestormakhno.info/)
[Nestor Makhno
-Archive](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/makhno.htm)
+Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8559/makhno.htm)
Excellent collection of articles by and on Nestor Makhno, famous for fighting
both White and Red tyranny for anarchism and working class freedom in the
Ukraine during the Russian Civil War
@@ -2244,7 +2320,8 @@ Introductionary essays on Voltairine de Cleyre and her ideas.
Biography of the leading anarchist militant Camillo Berneri, who was murdered
by the Stalinists during the May Days in Barcelona, 1937.
-[Francisco Ferrer](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/)
+[Francisco
+Ferrer](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/)
Excellent introduction to the life and ideas of Modern School activist,
Francisco Ferrer.
@@ -2353,7 +2430,8 @@ Publishers of anarchist books and papers since 1886. Based in London, Britain.
UK based anarchist publishers. Producers of the excellent anarcho-Tin Tin
classic _"Breaking Free"_.
-[Lucy Parsons Center](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7251/lpc.html)
+[Lucy Parsons
+Center](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7251/lpc.html)
A radical left education project in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
[Lucy Parsons Center](http://tao.ca/~lucyparsons/)
@@ -2397,7 +2475,8 @@ start it.
Anarchist printers, based in Tucson, USA. For books, pamphlets and bumper
stickers.
-[Elephant Editions](http://www.geocities.com/elephant_editions)
+[Elephant
+Editions](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/elephant_editions)
Elephant Editions are an anarchist publishers who produce cheap versions of
anarchist classics by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, plus more recent
works.
@@ -2414,7 +2493,8 @@ short reviews of various books, plus links to other anarchist sites.
[Kasa de la Muntanya](http://personal.redestb.es/gurmanyach/okupa.htm)
Excellent looking webpage for anarchist social centre in Barcelona, Spain.
-[Catalyst Distribution](http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/catalyst/)
+[Catalyst
+Distribution](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.xoom.com/pfafs/catalyst/)
Catalyst Distribution is a non-profit anarchist book distribution service
based in L.A. in the USA.
@@ -2446,7 +2526,7 @@ Berlin/Kln](http://www.azul.net/confronto/html/f_editorial.htm)
German Language Anarchist Publisher.
[Ncleo de Sociabilidade
-Libertria](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5606/)
+Libertria](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5606/)
Brazilian anarchist publishers
[Anarchist Bookfair](http://www.anarchistbookfair.org/)
@@ -2555,8 +2635,8 @@ their achievements in trying to create a new society free from oppression and
exploitation. Links to over 60 articles and webpages.
[The Bolsheviks and Workers
-Control](http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2163/bolintro.html) \-- by
-Maurice Brinton
+Control](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2163/bolintro.html)
+\-- by Maurice Brinton
A remarkable pamphlet exposing the struggle that took place over the running
of workplaces in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. It exposes
the myth that Leninism has anything to do with socialism.
@@ -2566,7 +2646,7 @@ Paris](http://www.library.nwu.edu/spec/siege/)
Collection of documents and pictures about the Paris Commune of 1871.
[ The German
-Revolution](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/ger_int.htm)
+Revolution](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/ger_int.htm)
Documents about the German Revolution of 1918 to 1923. Concentrates on Council
Communists involved in it.
@@ -2594,31 +2674,31 @@ Useful introductory essays on the anarchist inspired social revolution in
Spain, 1936.
[Another Spain - Forgotten
-Heroes](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar5.html)
+Heroes](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar5.html)
Article on Spanish Resistance to Fascism in France during the second world war
from the anti-fascist magazine **Fighting Talk**. Find out about the anarchist
militia's involvement against German occupation.
[Another Spain - The People
-Armed](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar4.html)
+Armed](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar4.html)
Article on the role of anarchist women in the Spanish Revolution, their part
in the street fighting in the first days, on the front line and creating the
revolution in the "home front."
[The Spanish Revolution & Civil War
-1936-1939](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/)
+1936-1939](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/)
Introductory essay on the Spanish Civil War in which anarchists played a major
role. Has links to anarchist related sites and various viewpoints on the civil
war (from fascist and right-libertarian perspectives to anarchist and marxist
ones).
[ The Rattle of the Thompson Gun: Resistance to Franco
-1939-52](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar6.html)
+1939-52](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/scwar6.html)
Anarchist resistance to the Franco dictatorship after the end of the civil
war.
[ The First Anti-
-Fascists](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/italfasc.html)
+Fascists](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/italfasc.html)
Short, but excellent, introduction to resistance against the rise of Fascism
in Italy, in the early 1920s. Anarchists played a key role in the struggle.
@@ -2659,7 +2739,7 @@ Name says it all. Information about anarchist and other revolutionary women
and their history.
[Origins and Ideals of the Modern
-School](http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/origins.html)
+School](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/origins.html)
Excellent introduction to the Modern School movement and its ideas. See also
[Finding Aid : Intro & History : Stelton Modern School
Collection](http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rulib/spcol/modern.htm).
@@ -2911,12 +2991,13 @@ anarchism and its role in the wider political community. To join the list send
a message to the above address with the message _subscribe fpi-d_
[Mujeres Libres](mailto:majordomo@tao.ca)
-[Mujeres Libres](http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/mujeres_mail.html) is a
-new anarcha-feminist mailing list. It is a list for anarchist women. It is a
-space for to meet, exchange information, and learn about each other and each
-other's struggles. It is not just concerned with "women's issues", but with
-all issues that affect us. We are not content to sit on the sidelines, we are
-all actively engaged in opposing capitalism. To join send a message to the
+[Mujeres
+Libres](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2159/mujeres_mail.html)
+is a new anarcha-feminist mailing list. It is a list for anarchist women. It
+is a space for to meet, exchange information, and learn about each other and
+each other's struggles. It is not just concerned with "women's issues", but
+with all issues that affect us. We are not content to sit on the sidelines, we
+are all actively engaged in opposing capitalism. To join send a message to the
above address and with first line of your message should read _subscribe
MujeresLibres_. There is no need to include a subject line.
diff --git a/markdown/biblio.md b/markdown/biblio.md
index cc5291d573b89b15ea6e26a64a5f784d74df53c6..364417b23d0e940ce9b3edd4203f4a612ac34c15 100644
--- a/markdown/biblio.md
+++ b/markdown/biblio.md
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ This bibliography lists all the books quoted in the FAQ. However, details for
some of these books is missing. This information will also be added to over
time. Some books are listed in more than one edition. This is due to the
process of revising the FAQ for publication and using the most recent versions
-of books quotEd. Once the revision is complete, the old details will be
-removEd.
+of books quoted. Once the revision is complete, the old details will be
+removed.
The bibliography is split into four sections: Anthologies of Anarchist
authors; books by anarchists and other libertarians; books about anarchism,
@@ -18,45 +18,48 @@ anarchists/libertarians.
## _Anarchist Anthologies_
-Brook, Frank H. (Ed.), **The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty
+Avrich, Paul (ed.), **The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, Thames and
+Hudson Ltd, London, 1973.
+
+Brook, Frank H. (ed.), **The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty
(1881-1908)**, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1994\.
Dawn Collective (eds.), **Under the Yoke of the State: Selected Anarchist
Responses to Prisons and Crime vol. 1, 1886-1929**, Dawn Collective/Kate
Sharpley Library/PMB, Oakland/London/Berkeley, 2003.
-Dark Star (Ed.), **Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader**, AK Press/Dark
+Dark Star (ed.), **Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader**, AK Press/Dark
Star, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 2002.
**Beneath the Paving Stones: Situationists and the beach, May 1968**, AK Press/Dark Star, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 2001.
-Dolgoff, Sam (Ed.), **The Anarchist Collectives: self-management in the
+Dolgoff, Sam (ed.), **The Anarchist Collectives: self-management in the
Spanish revolution, 1936-1939**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1974.
Ehrlich, Howard J, Carol Ehrlich, David De Leon, Glenda Morris (eds.),
**Reinventing Anarchy: What are Anarchists thinking these days?**, Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London, 1979.
-Ehrlich, Howard J. (Ed.), **Reinventing Anarchy, Again**, AK Press,
+Ehrlich, Howard J. (ed.), **Reinventing Anarchy, Again**, AK Press,
Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1996.
-Glassgold, Peter (Ed.), **Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother
+Glassgold, Peter (ed.), **Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother
Earth**, Counterpoint, Washington D.C., 2001.
-Graham, M. (Ed.), **Man! An Anthology of Anarchist Ideas, Essays, Poetry and
+Graham, M. (ed.), **Man! An Anthology of Anarchist Ideas, Essays, Poetry and
Commentaries**, Cienfuegos Press, London, 1974.
-Graham, Robert (Ed.), **Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas
+Graham, Robert (ed.), **Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas
\-- Volume 1: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939)**, Black Rose Books,
Montreal/New York/London, 2005.
-Guerin, Daniel (Ed.), **No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism** (in
+Guerin, Daniel (ed.), **No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism** (in
two volumes), AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1998.
Krimerman, Leonard I. and Perry, Lewis, **Patterns of Anarchy: A Collection of
Writings on the Anarchist Tradition**, Anchor Books, New York, 1966.
-Woodcock, George (Ed.), **The Anarchist Reader**, Fontana, Glasgow, 1987.
+Woodcock, George (ed.), **The Anarchist Reader**, Fontana, Glasgow, 1987.
## _Anarchist and Libertarian Works_
@@ -90,14 +93,13 @@ of Desire Armed**, no, 43, Spring/Summer 1997, pp. 50-2.
Arshinov, Peter, **The History of the Makhnovist Movement**, Freedom Press,
London, 1987.
-**The Two Octobers** available at: http://flag.blackenEd.net/revolt/russia/arshinov_2_oct.html
-
-Avrich, Paul (Ed.), **The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, Thames and
-Hudson Ltd, London, 1973.
+**The Two Octobers** available at: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/arshinov_2_oct.html
Avrich, Paul, **An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre**,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1978.
+**Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005
+
**Kronstadt 1921**, W.W. Norton and Company Inc., New York, 1970\.
**The Russian Anarchists**, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1978.
@@ -111,20 +113,20 @@ _"Bolshevik Opposition To Lenin: G. Miasnikov and the Workers Group"_, pp.
**Bolshevik Opposition To Lenin: G. Miasnikov and the Workers Group**, available at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/mias.htm
-Bakunin, Micheal, **The Basic Bakunin**, Robert M. Cutler (trans. and Ed.),
+Bakunin, Micheal, **The Basic Bakunin**, Robert M. Cutler (trans. and ed.),
Promethus Books, Buffalo, N.Y., 1994.
-**Bakunin on Anarchism**, 2nd Edition, Sam Dolgoff (Ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1980.
+**Bakunin on Anarchism**, 2nd Edition, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1980.
-**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, G.P. Maximov (Ed.), The Free Press, New York, 1953.
+**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, G.P. Maximov (ed.), The Free Press, New York, 1953.
-**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, Arthur Lehning (Ed.), Jonathan Cape, London, 1973.
+**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, Arthur Lehning (ed.), Jonathan Cape, London, 1973.
**Statism and Anarchy**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990\.
**God and the State**, Dover, New York, 1970.
-**Marxism, Freedom and the State**, K.J. Kenafick (Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1984.
+**Marxism, Freedom and the State**, K.J. Kenafick (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1984.
Barclay, Harold, **The State**, Freedom Press, London, 2003.
@@ -137,7 +139,7 @@ _"Objections to Anarchism"_, **The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly**, no. 12 (Vol.
**Objections to Anarchism** available at http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp000146.txt
Bennello, George, _"The Challenge of Mondragon"_ in **Reinventing Anarchy,
-Again**, Howard Ehrlich (Ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1996.
+Again**, Howard Ehrlich (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1996.
Bennello, George C., **From the Ground Up**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1992.
@@ -152,12 +154,13 @@ Edinburgh/London/Oakland, 2003.
**The Bolshevik Myth**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
-**Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman reader**, Gene Fellner (Ed.), Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1992\.
+**Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman reader**, Gene Fellner (ed.), Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1992\.
-Berkman, Alexander (Ed.), **The Blast**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
+Berkman, Alexander (ed.), **The Blast**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
-Berneri, Camillo, **Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist Ideas**, available at:
-http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/coldoffthepresses/bernerikropotkin.html
+Berneri, Camillo, _"Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist Ideas"_, **The Raven:
+Anarchist Quarterly**, no. 31 (Vol. 8, No. 3), Autumn 1993, Freedom Press, pp.
+268-82
Berneri, Marie-Louise, **Neither East Nor West: Selected Writings 1939-48**,
Freedom Press, London, 1988.
@@ -168,7 +171,11 @@ Berry, David, **A History of the French Anarchist Movement, 1917-1945**,
Greenwood Press, Westport, 2002.
Black, Bob, **The Abolition of Work and other essays**, Loompanics Unlimited,
-Port Townsend, undatEd.
+Port Townsend, 1986.
+
+**Friendly Fire**, Autonomedia, New York, 1992.
+
+**Anarchy After Leftism**, CAL Press, Columbia, 1997.
**The Abolition of Work**, available at http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt
@@ -176,8 +183,6 @@ Port Townsend, undatEd.
**Smokestack Lighting**, available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3998/smokestack.html
-**Anarchy After Leftism**, CAL Press, Columbia, 1997.
-
Bonanno, Alfredo M., **Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle**,
Bratach Dubh Editions, Catania, 1981.
@@ -219,9 +224,9 @@ vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 8-36.
**The Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems**, available at: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/comman.html
_"Looking Back at Spain,"_ **The Radical Papers**, pp. 53-96, Dimitrios I.
-Roussopoulos (Ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1987
+Roussopoulos (ed.), Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1987
-**The Murray Bookchin Reader**, Janet Biehl (Ed.), Cassell, London, 1997.
+**The Murray Bookchin Reader**, Janet Biehl (ed.), Cassell, London, 1997.
**Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998**, AK Press, Edinburgh/San Francisco, 1999.
@@ -240,7 +245,7 @@ Bricianer, Serge **Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils**, Telos Press, Saint
Louis, 1978.
Brinton, Maurice, **For Workers' Power: The Selected Writings of Maurice
-Brinton**, David Goodway (Ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004\.
+Brinton**, David Goodway (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004\.
**The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control 1917 to 1921: the State and Counter-Revolution**, Solidarity and Black and Red, London and Detroit, 1975.
@@ -253,6 +258,9 @@ Brown, Tom, **Syndicalism**, Phoenix Press, London, 1990.
Buber, Martin, **Paths in Utopia**, Beacon Press, Boston, 1958.
+Cardan, Paul, **Modern Capitalism and Revolution**, 2nd edition, Solidarity,
+London, 1974.
+
Carson, Kevin A., **The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand**, available at:
http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
@@ -272,6 +280,8 @@ Managed Society**, Wooden Shoe Pamphlet, Philadelphia, 1984.
**Political and Social Writings**, vol. 3, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1993\.
+**The Meaning of Socialism**, Philadelphia Solidarity, Philadelphia, 1994.
+
_"The Role of Bolshevik Ideology in the Birth of the Bureaucracy"_, contained
in **Political and Social Writings**, vol. 3, pp. 89-105
@@ -284,7 +294,7 @@ Common Courage and AK Press, Monroe, 1992.
**Noam Chomsky on Anarchism**, available at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
-**Language and Politics**, Expanded Second Edition, C.P. Otero (Ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/London/Oakland, 2004.
+**Language and Politics**, Expanded Second Edition, C.P. Otero (ed.), AK Press, Edinburgh/London/Oakland, 2004.
_"Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures"_, pp. 775-785, **Language and
Politics**, Expanded Second Edition.
@@ -299,17 +309,17 @@ Politics**, Expanded Second Edition.
**Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies**, Pluto Press, London, 1991.
-**Expanding the Floor of the Cage**, Part 1, Z Magazine, March 1997, available at: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/mar97barchom.htm
+**Expanding the Floor of the Cage**, available at: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199704--.htm
-**Rollback** Parts I to IV, Z Magazine, January to May 1995 available at: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/chomrollall.htm
+**Rollback** Parts I to IV, Z Magazine, January to May 1995 available at: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199505--.htm
-**Interview on Pozner/Donahue in 1992**, available at http://flag.blackenEd.net/liberty/chomskydon.html
+**Interview on Pozner/Donahue in 1992**, available at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/chomskydon.html
**For Reasons of State**, Fontana/Collins, Suffolk, 1973.
**The Umbrella of US Power: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of US Policy**, Open Media Pamphlet, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1999.
-**The Chomsky Reader**, James Peck (Ed.), Pantheon Books, New York, 1987\.
+**The Chomsky Reader**, James Peck (ed.), Pantheon Books, New York, 1987\.
**Turning the Tide: US Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace**, Pluto Press, 1985.
@@ -329,7 +339,7 @@ Politics**, Expanded Second Edition.
**American Power and the New Mandarins**, Penguin Books, London, 1969\.
-**Anarchism Interview: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ziga Vodovnik**, available at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID;=6805
+**Anarchism Interview: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ziga Vodovnik**, available at: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040714.htm
**Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda**, Common Courage Press/AK Press, Monroe/Edinburgh, 1993.
@@ -383,7 +393,7 @@ Comfort, Alex, **Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State: A
Criminological Approach to the Problem of Power**, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1950\.
-**Writings against Power and Death: The Anarchist articles and Pamphlets of Alex Comfort**, David Goodway (Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1994.
+**Writings against Power and Death: The Anarchist articles and Pamphlets of Alex Comfort**, David Goodway (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1994.
Crump, John, **Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan**, St.
Martin's Press, Inc., New York, 1993.
@@ -392,11 +402,11 @@ Dana, Charles A., **Proudhon and his _"Bank of the People"_**, Charles H. Kerr
Publishing Co., Chicago, 1984.
de Cleyre, Voltairine, **The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader**, A.J. Brigati
-(Ed.), AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2004.
+(ed.), AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2004.
**Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre -- Anarchist, Feminist, Genius**, Sharon Presley and Crispin Sartwell (eds.), State University of New York Press, New York, 2005.
-_"Anarchism"_, pp. 30-34, **Man!**, M. Graham (Ed.), Cienfuegos Press, London,
+_"Anarchism"_, pp. 30-34, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, London,
1974.
**Direct Action**, available at http://www.etext.org/Politics/Spunk/library/writers/decleyre/sp001334.html
@@ -410,7 +420,7 @@ _"Anarchism"_, pp. 30-34, **Man!**, M. Graham (Ed.), Cienfuegos Press, London,
de Ligt, Bart, **The Conquest of Violence**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
de Llorens, Ignaio, **The CNT and the Russian Revolution**, The Kate Sharpley
-Library, unknown, undatEd.
+Library, unknown, undated.
de Santillan, D. A., **After the Revolution: Economic Reconstruction in Spain
Today**, Greenberg, New York, 1937 (facsimile edition by Jura Media,
@@ -438,7 +448,7 @@ Books, Montreal, 1976.
**A Critique of Marxism**, Soil of Liberty, Minneapolis, unknown.
Draughn, Jeff, **Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New
-Movement**, available at http://flag.blackenEd.net/liberty/between.html
+Movement**, available at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/between.html
Ervin, Lorenzo Kom'boa, **Anarchism and the Black Revolution**, Monkeywrench
Press and the Workers Self-Education Foundation, Philadelphia, 1994\.
@@ -447,7 +457,7 @@ Fabbri, Luigi, **Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism**, Acrata Press, San
Francisco, 1987\.
_"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"_, in **The Poverty of Statism**, pp.
-13-49, Albert Meltzer (Ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1981
+13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1981
Fernandez, Frank, **Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement**, See Sharp
Press, Tucson, 2001.
@@ -455,7 +465,7 @@ Press, Tucson, 2001.
Fleming, Marie, **The Geography of Freedom: The Odyssey of Elise Reclus**,
Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1988.
-Foner, Philip S. (Ed.), **The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs**,
+Foner, Philip S. (ed.), **The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs**,
Monad Press, New York, 1977.
Fontenis, Georges, **Manifesto of Libertarian Communism**, Anarchist Communist
@@ -482,7 +492,7 @@ Fernandez, Neil C., **Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR: A Marxist
Theory**, Ashgate, Aldershot, 1997.
Friends of Durruti, **Towards a Fresh Revolution**, available at:
-http://flag.blackenEd.net/revolt/fod/towardsintro.html
+http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/fod/towardsintro.html
**The Friends of Durruti Accuse**, available at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/Durruti.html
@@ -497,14 +507,14 @@ Fromm, Erich, **To Have Or To Be?**, Abacus, London, 1993.
Galleani, Luigi, **The End of Anarchism?**, Cienfuegos Press, Orkney, 1982.
Godwin, William, **The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin**, Peter Marshall
-(Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1986.
+(ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1986.
**An Enquiry concerning Political Justice**, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976
Goldman, Emma, **Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader**, 3rd Edition, Alix
-Kates Shulman (Ed.), Humanity Books, New York, 1998.
+Kates Shulman (ed.), Humanity Books, New York, 1998.
-**Red Emma Speaks**, Alix Kates Shulman (Ed.), Wildwood House, London, 1979.
+**Red Emma Speaks**, Alix Kates Shulman (ed.), Wildwood House, London, 1979.
**Anarchism and Other Essays**, Dover Publications Ltd., New York, 1969.
@@ -514,15 +524,15 @@ Kates Shulman (Ed.), Humanity Books, New York, 1998.
**Living My Life** (in 2 volumes), Dover Publications, New York, 1970.
-**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 1: Made for America, 1890-1901**, Candace Falk (Ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2003\.
+**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 1: Made for America, 1890-1901**, Candace Falk (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2003\.
-**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 2: Making Speech Free, 1902-1909**, Candace Falk (Ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2005\.
+**Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years volume 2: Making Speech Free, 1902-1909**, Candace Falk (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2005\.
Goodway, David, **Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought
and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward**, Liverpool University
Press, Liverpool, 2006.
-Goodway, David (Ed.), **For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice**,
+Goodway, David (ed.), **For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice**,
Routledge, London, 1989.
Gorter, Herman, **Open Letter to Comrade Lenin**, Wildcat, 1989.
@@ -558,7 +568,7 @@ the CNT in Zaragoza and Aragon 1930-1937**, International Institute of Social
History, Dordrecht, London, 1991.
_"Anarchism in Aragon,"_ in **Spain in Conflict 1931-1939: democracy and its
-enemies**, Martin Blinkhorn (Ed.), pp. 60-82, Sage, London, 1986.
+enemies**, Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), pp. 60-82, Sage, London, 1986.
Kenafick, K.J., **Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx**, Melbourne, 1948.
@@ -569,13 +579,13 @@ Knabb, Ken, **Public Secrets**, Bureau of Public Secrets, Berkeley, 1997.
**The Poverty of Primitivism**, available at http://www.slip.net/~knabb/CF/primitivism.htm
-Knabb, Ken (Ed.), **Situationist International Anthology**, Bureau of Public
+Knabb, Ken (ed.), **Situationist International Anthology**, Bureau of Public
Secrets, Berkeley, 1981.
Kropotkin, Peter, **Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings**, Roger
-N. Baldwin (Ed.), Dover Press, New York, 2002.
+N. Baldwin (ed.), Dover Press, New York, 2002.
-**Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets**, R.N. Baldwin (Ed.), Dover Press, New York, 1970.
+**Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets**, R.N. Baldwin (ed.), Dover Press, New York, 1970.
**Act for Yourselves: articles from Freedom 1886-1907**, N. Walter and H. Becker (eds), Freedom Press, London, 1988.
@@ -595,13 +605,13 @@ N. Baldwin (Ed.), Dover Press, New York, 2002.
**Evolution and Environment**, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1995.
-**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, Colin Ward (Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1985.
+**Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow**, Colin Ward (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1985.
**Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail**, Jura Media, Sydney, 1997.
**The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution**, Practical Parasite Publications, Cymru, 1990.
-**Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution**, Martin A. Miller (Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970.
+**Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution**, Martin A. Miller (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970.
**Memiors of a Revolutionist**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 1989.
@@ -636,7 +646,7 @@ Levy, Carl, **Gramsci and the Anarchists**, Berg, Oxford, 1999.
Magn, Ricardo Flores, **Dreams of Freedom: A Ricardo Flores Magn Reader**, AK
Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2005.
-**Land and Liberty: Anarchist influences in the Mexican Revolution**, David Poole (Ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1977.
+**Land and Liberty: Anarchist influences in the Mexican Revolution**, David Poole (ed.), Cienfuegos Press, Sanday, 1977.
Mailer, Phil, **Portugal: The Impossible Revolution**, Solidarity, London,
1977\.
@@ -654,11 +664,11 @@ Malatesta, Errico, **Anarchy**, Freedom Press, London, 2001.
**Anarchy**, Freedom Press, London, 1974.
-**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, 3rd Edition, Vernon Richards (Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1993.
+**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, 3rd Edition, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1993.
-**Life and Ideas**, Vernon Richards (Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1965.
+**Life and Ideas**, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1965.
-**The Anarchist Revolution**, Vernon Richards (Ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1995.
+**The Anarchist Revolution**, Vernon Richards (ed.), Freedom Press, London, 1995.
**Fra Contadini: A Dialogue on Anarchy**, Bratach Dudh Editions, Catena, 1981.
@@ -666,7 +676,7 @@ Malatesta, Errico, **Anarchy**, Freedom Press, London, 2001.
**A Talk about Anarchist Communism**, Freedom Press, London, 1894\.
-_"Towards Anarchism"_, pp. 73-78, **Man!**, M. Graham (Ed.), Cienfuegos Press,
+_"Towards Anarchism"_, pp. 73-78, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), Cienfuegos Press,
London, 1974.
_"Anarchism and Syndicalism"_, pp. 146-52, Geoffrey Ostergaard, **The
@@ -718,6 +728,9 @@ Meltzer, Albert, **I Couldn't Paint Golden Angels**, AK Press, Edinburgh,
**The Anarcho-Quiz Book**, Simian Publications, Orkney, 1976.
+Meltzer, Albert (ed.), **The Poverty of Statism**, Cienfuegos Press, Orkney,
+1981.
+
Mett, Ida, **The Kronstadt Uprising**, Solidarity, London, date unknown.
Michel, Louise, **The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel**, The University
@@ -759,7 +772,7 @@ Parsons, Albert R., **Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis**,
University Press of the Pacific, Honolulu, 2003.
Parsons, Lucy, **Freedom, Equality & Solidarity: Writings & Speeches,
-1878-1937**, Gale Ahrens (Ed.), Charles H. Kerr, Chicago, 2004\.
+1878-1937**, Gale Ahrens (ed.), Charles H. Kerr, Chicago, 2004\.
Pataud, Emile and Pouget, Emile, **How we shall bring about the Revolution:
Syndicalism and the Co-operative Commonwealth**, Pluto Press, London, 1990.
@@ -800,7 +813,7 @@ Pouget, Emile , **Direct Action**, Kate Sharpley Library, London, 2003.
Proudhon, P-J, **What is Property: an inquiry into the principle of right and
of government**, William Reeves Bookseller Ltd., London, 1969\.
-**System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery**, available at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgibin/browse-mixed?id=ProMise&tag;=public&images;=images/modeng&data;=/lv1/Archive/eng-parsed
+**System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery**, Benjamin Tucker, Boston, 1888.
**The General Idea of the Revolution**, Pluto Press, London, 1989.
@@ -808,12 +821,16 @@ of government**, William Reeves Bookseller Ltd., London, 1969\.
**Interest and Principal: The Circulation of Capital, Not Capital Itself, Gives Birth to Progress** available at: http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/interestletter2.html
-**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, Stewart Edwards (Ed.), MacMillan, London, 1969.
+**Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, Stewart Edwards (ed.), MacMillan, London, 1969.
**The Principle of Federation**, University of Toronto Press, Canada, 1979.
**Proudhon's Solution of the Social Problem**, Henry Cohen (ed.), Vanguard Press, New York, 1927.
+**Du Principe Fdratif et de la Ncessit De Reconstituer le Parti de la Rvolution**, E. Dentu, Paris, 1863.
+
+**Carnets**, vol. 3, Marcel Riviere, Paris, 1968
+
Puente, Isaac, **Libertarian Communism**, Monty Miller Press, Sydney, 1985.
Purchase, Graham, **Evolution and Revolution: An Introduction to the Life and
@@ -832,7 +849,7 @@ Press, London, 1983.
**The Impossibilities of Social Democracy**, Freedom Press, London, 1978.
-Richards, Vernon (Ed.), **Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation --
+Richards, Vernon (ed.), **Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation:
Selections from the Anarchist Journal Freedom 1945-1950**, Freedom Press,
London, 1989.
@@ -857,19 +874,19 @@ Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004.
**The Tragedy of Spain**, ASP, London & Doncaster, 1986.
-**Anarchism and Sovietism**, available at: http://flag.blackenEd.net/rocker/soviet.htm
+**Anarchism and Sovietism**, available at: http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/soviet.htm
-**Marx and Anarchism**, available at: http://flag.blackenEd.net/rocker/marx.htm
+**Marx and Anarchism**, available at: http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/marx.htm
**Pioneers of American Freedom: Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America**, Rocker Publications Committee, Los Angeles, 1949.
-Root & Branch (Ed.), **Root & Branch: The Rise of the Workers Movements**,
+Root & Branch (ed.), **Root & Branch: The Rise of the Workers Movements**,
Fawcett Publications, Greenwich, Conn., 1975.
Rooum, Donald, **What is Anarchism? An Introduction**, Freedom Press, London,
1992.
-Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. (Ed.), **The Radical Papers**, Black Rose Books,
+Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. (ed.), **The Radical Papers**, Black Rose Books,
Montreal/New York, 1987.
**The Anarchist Papers**, Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York, 2002.
@@ -880,8 +897,7 @@ Unwin Ltd., London, 1949.
**Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism**, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1973.
Sabatini, Peter, _"Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"_, **Anarchy: A Journal of
-Desire Armed**, no. 41, Fall/Winter 1994-5 available at
-http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/lba.html
+Desire Armed**, no. 41, Fall/Winter 1994-5
Sacco, Nicola and Vanzetti, Bartolomeo, **The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti**,
Penguin Books, New York, 1997.
@@ -900,6 +916,9 @@ Tuscon, 2003\.
Shipway, Mark A. S., **Antiparliamentary Communism: The Movement for Workers'
Councils in Britain, 1917-45**, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1988.
+Sitrin, Marina (ed.), **Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina**,
+AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh, 2006.
+
Skirda, Alexandre, **Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack: The struggle for free
soviets in the Ukraine 1917-1921**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004
@@ -908,11 +927,11 @@ soviets in the Ukraine 1917-1921**, AK Press, Edinburgh/Oakland, 2004
_"The Rehabilitation of Makhno"_, **The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly**, no. 8
(Vol. 2, No. 4), Oct. 1989, Freedom Press, pp. 338-352
-Smart, D.A. (Ed.), **Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism**, Pluto Press, London,
+Smart, D.A. (ed.), **Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism**, Pluto Press, London,
1978\.
Spooner, Lysander, **Natural Law**, available at
-http://flag.blackenEd.net/liberty/spoonnat.html
+http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spoonnat.html
**No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority**, Ralph Myles Publisher, Inc., Colorado Springs, 1973.
@@ -945,9 +964,9 @@ Tucker, Benjamin R., **Instead of a Book, by a man too busy to write one: a
fragmentary exposition of philosophical anarchism culled from the writings of
Benj. R. Tucker**, Haskell House Publishers, New York, 1969.
-**Occupancy and Use verses the Single Tax** available at: http://208.206.78.232/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker32.html
+**Occupancy and Use verses the Single Tax** available at: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker32.html
-_"Why I am an Anarchist"_, pp. 132-136, **Man!**, M. Graham (Ed.), Cienfuegos
+_"Why I am an Anarchist"_, pp. 132-136, **Man!**, M. Graham (ed.), Cienfuegos
Press, London, 1974.
Unofficial Reform Committee, **The Miner's Next Step: Being a suggested scheme
@@ -966,7 +985,7 @@ Walter, Nicolas, **About Anarchism**, Freedom Press, London, 2002.
Ward, Colin, **Anarchy in Action** (2nd Edition), Freedom Press, London, 1982.
-**Social Policy: an anarchist response**, LSE, London, 1997.
+**Social Policy: an anarchist response**, Freedom Press, London, 2000.
**Talking Houses**, Freedom Press, London, 1990.
@@ -980,9 +999,7 @@ Ward, Colin, **Anarchy in Action** (2nd Edition), Freedom Press, London, 1982.
**Cotters and Squatters: Housing's Hidden History**, Five Leaves, Nottingham, 2005.
-**Social policy: An Anarchist Response**, Freedom Press, London, 1996.
-
-Ward, Colin (Ed.), **A Decade of Anarchy: Selections from the Monthly Journal
+Ward, Colin (ed.), **A Decade of Anarchy: Selections from the Monthly Journal
Anarchy**, Freedom , London, 1987.
Ward, Colin and Goodway, David, **Talking Anarchy**, Five Leaves, Nottingham,
@@ -993,8 +1010,8 @@ Autonomedia/Black and Red/Fifth Estate, USA, 1996.
**Against the Megamachine: Essays on Empire and Its Enemies**, Autonomedia/Fifth Estate, USA, 1997.
-Weick, David, _"Anarchist Justice"_, pp. 215--236, **Anarchism: Nomos XIX**,
-J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), New York University Press, New
+Weick, David, _"Anarchist Justice"_, pp. 215-36, **Anarchism: Nomos XIX**, J.
+Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), New York University Press, New
York, 1978.
Weil, Simone, **Oppression and Liberty**, Routledge, London, 2001.
@@ -1004,7 +1021,7 @@ http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/union3.html
**Workers' Power and the Spanish Revolution**, available at: http://www.uncanny.net/~wsa/spain.html
-Wildcat Group (Ed.), **Class War on the Home Front: Revolutionary Opposition
+Wildcat Group (ed.), **Class War on the Home Front: Revolutionary Opposition
to the Second World War**, Wildcat Group, Manchester, 1986.
Wilde, Oscar, _"The Soul of Man Under Socialism"_, pp. 1174-1197, **Complete
@@ -1036,7 +1053,9 @@ Longman, Essex, 1996.
**The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14**, contained in **Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century**, Howard Zinn, Dana Frank, Robin D. G. Kelly, Beacon Press, Boston, 2001.
-**The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1997
+**The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1997.
+
+**An Interview with Howard Zinn on Anarchism: Rebels Against Tyranny**, available at: http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/an-interview-with-howard-zinn-on-anarchism-rebels-against-tyranny/
Zinn, Howard and Arnove, Anthony (eds.), **Voices of a People's History of the
United States**, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2004.
@@ -1065,7 +1084,7 @@ Nowhere: A Vision for Our Time**, Green Books, Bideford, 1990.
Coughlin, Michael E., Hamilton, Charles H. and Sullivan, Mark A. (eds.),
**Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty: A Centenary Anthology**,
-Michael E. Coughlin Publisher, St. Paul, Minnesota, unknown.
+Michael E. Coughlin Publisher, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1986.
Crowder, George, **Classical Anarchism: The Political Thought of Godwin,
Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.
@@ -1164,7 +1183,7 @@ Schuster, Eunice, **Native American Anarchism : A Study of Left-Wing American
Individualism**, De Capo Press, New Yprk, 1970.
Sysyn, Frank, _"Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian Revolution"_, contained in
-Hunczak, Taras (Ed.), **The Ukrainian, 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution**,
+Hunczak, Taras (ed.), **The Ukrainian, 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution**,
Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1977.
Taylor, Michael, **Community, Anarchy and Liberty**, Cambrdige University
@@ -1196,7 +1215,7 @@ Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco, 1991.
Anweiler, Oskar, **The Soviets: The Russian Workers, Peasants, and Soldiers
Councils 1905-1921**, Random House, New York, 1974.
-Archer, Abraham (Ed.), **The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution**, Thames
+Archer, Abraham (ed.), **The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution**, Thames
and Hudson Ltd, London, 1976.
Arestis, Philip, **The Post-Keynesian Approach to Economics: An Alternative
@@ -1239,7 +1258,7 @@ Baran, Paul A. and Sweezy, Paul M., **Monopoly Capital**, Monthly Press
Review, New York, 1966.
Barry, Brian, _"The Continuing Relevance of Socialism"_, in **Thatcherism**,
-Robert Skidelsky (Ed.), Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
+Robert Skidelsky (ed.), Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
Beder, Sharon, **Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism**,
Green Books, Dartington, 1997.
@@ -1249,7 +1268,7 @@ Beevor, Antony, **The Spanish Civil War**, Cassell, London, 1999.
**The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939**, Phoenix, London, 2006.
Berghahn, V. R., **Modern Germany: society, economy and politics in the
-twentieth century**, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
+twentieth century**, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
Berlin, Isaiah, **Four Essays on Liberty**, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1969\.
@@ -1313,7 +1332,7 @@ University Press, Princeton, N.J, 1994.
**Russia after Lenin : politics, culture and society, 1921-1929**, Routledge, London/New York, 1998
-Brovkin, Vladimir N. (Ed.), **The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The
+Brovkin, Vladimir N. (ed.), **The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The
Revolution and Civil Wars**, Yale University Press, New Haven and London,
1997.
@@ -1330,7 +1349,7 @@ volumes, Pelican Books, 1966.
Carr, Raymond, **Spain: 1808-1975**, 2nd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1982.
-Carrier, James G. (Ed.), **Meanings of the market: the free market in western
+Carrier, James G. (ed.), **Meanings of the market: the free market in western
culture**, Berg, Oxford, 1997.
Chandler, Lester V., **America's Greatest Depression, 1929-1941**, Harper &
@@ -1372,7 +1391,7 @@ Look**, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, 1995.
Communist International, **Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress
1920**, (in two volumes), Pathfinder, New York, 1991.
-Confino, Michael (Ed.), **Daughter of a Revolutionary: Natalie Herzen and the
+Confino, Michael (ed.), **Daughter of a Revolutionary: Natalie Herzen and the
Bakunin-Nechayev Circle**, Library Press, LaSalle Illinois, 1973.
Cowen, Tyler, _"Law as a Public Good: The Economics of Anarchy"_, **Economics
@@ -1388,7 +1407,7 @@ Wheatshelf Books, Sussez, 1987.
**Beyond Capitalism: Towards a New World Economic Order**, Pinter, London, 1994.
-Curry, Richard O. (Ed.), **Freedom at Risk: Secrecy, Censorship, and
+Curry, Richard O. (ed.), **Freedom at Risk: Secrecy, Censorship, and
Repression in the 1980s**, Temple University Press, 1988.
Curtis, Mark, **Web of Deceit: Britain's real role in the world**, Vintage,
@@ -1399,7 +1418,7 @@ London, 2003.
Daniels, Robert V., **The Conscience of the Revolution: Communist Opposition
in Soviet Russia**, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960.
-Daniels, Robert V. (Ed.), **A Documentary History of Communism**, vol. 1,
+Daniels, Robert V. (ed.), **A Documentary History of Communism**, vol. 1,
Vintage Books, New York, 1960.
Davidson, Paul, **Controversies in Post-Keynesian Economics**, E. Elgar,
@@ -1412,6 +1431,9 @@ Third World**, Verso, London, 2002.
Denikin, General A., **The White Armies**, Jonathan Cape, London, 1930.
+DeShazo, Peter, **Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile 1902-1927**,
+University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1983.
+
Deutscher, Isaac, **The prophet unarmed : Trotsky 1921-1929**, Oxford
University Press, 1959.
@@ -1420,6 +1442,9 @@ Devine, Pat, **Democracy and Economic Planning**, Polity, Cambridge, 1988.
Dobbs, Maurice, **Studies in Capitalist Development**, Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd., London, 1963.
+Dobson, Ross V. G., **Bringing the Economy Home from the Market**, Black Rose
+Books, Montreal, 1993.
+
Domhoff, G. William, **Who Rules America Now? A view from the '80s**,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1983.
@@ -1430,6 +1455,9 @@ Donaldson, Peter, **A Question of Economics**, Penguin Books, London, 1985.
Dorril, Stephen and Ramsay, Robin, **Smear! Wilson and the Secret State**,
Fourth Estate Ltd., London, 1991.
+Douglass, Frederick, **The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass**, vol. 2,
+Philip S. Foner (ed.) International Publishers, New York, 1975.
+
Draper, Hal, **The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' from Marx to Lenin**,
Monthly Review Press, New York, 1987.
@@ -1448,7 +1476,7 @@ ideologies**, Pinter, London, 1993.
Edwards, Stewart, **The Paris Commune 1871**, Victorian (& Modern History)
Book Club, Newton Abbot, 1972.
-Edwards, Stewart (Ed.), **The Communards of Paris, 1871**, Thames and Hudson,
+Edwards, Stewart (ed.), **The Communards of Paris, 1871**, Thames and Hudson,
London, 1973.
Eisler, Rianne, **Sacred Pleasure**,
@@ -1464,6 +1492,10 @@ http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm
Elliot, Larry and Atkinson, Dan, **The Age of Insecurity**, Verso, London,
1998.
+**Fantasy Island: Waking Up to the Incredible Economic, Political and Social Illusions of the Blair Legacy**, Constable, London, 2007.
+
+**The Gods That Failed: Now the Financial Elite have Gambled Away our Futures**, Vintage Books, London, 2009.
+
Engler, Allan, **Apostles of Greed: Capitalism and the myth of the individual
in the market**, Pluto Press, London, 1995.
@@ -1487,7 +1519,10 @@ Jonathan Cape, London, 1996.
**Peasant Russia, Civil War: the Volga countryside in revolution 1917-1921**, Phoenix Press, London, 2001.
-Forgacs, David (Ed.), **Rethinking Italian fascism: capitalism, populism and
+Flamm, Kenneth, **Creating the Computer: Government, Industry, and High
+Technology**, The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., 1988.
+
+Forgacs, David (ed.), **Rethinking Italian fascism: capitalism, populism and
culture**, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1986.
Fraser, Ronald, **Blood of Spain: the experience of civil war, 1936-1939**,
@@ -1508,7 +1543,8 @@ Chicago, 2002.
**The Hong Kong Experiment**, available at: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532186.html
Funnell, Warrick, Jupe, Robert and Andrew, Jane, **In Government we Trust:
-Market Failure and the delusions of privisation**, Pluto Press, London, 2009\.
+Market Failure and the delusions of privatisation**, Pluto Press, London,
+2009\.
Gaffney, Mason and Harrison, Mason, **The Corruption of Economics**,
Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd., London, 1994.
@@ -1541,7 +1577,7 @@ Gilmour, Ian, **Dancing with Dogma, Britain Under Thatcherism**, Simon and
Schuster, London, 1992.
Glennerster, Howard and Midgley, James (eds.), **The Radical Right and the
-Welfare State**,
+Welfare State: an international assessment**, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991\.
Gluckstein, Donny, **The Tragedy of Bukharin**, Pluto Press, London, 1994
@@ -1586,6 +1622,8 @@ Economics**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990.
**The Political Economu of Participatory Economics**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991.
+**Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century**, South End Press, Boston, 1991.
+
Hallas, Duncan, **The Comintern**, Bookmarks, London, 1985.
_"Towards a revolutionary socialist party"_, contained in Tony Cliff, Duncan
@@ -1631,7 +1669,7 @@ and Right**, Wheatsheaf Books Ltd., 1986.
**Law, Legislation and Liberty**, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982.
-Hayek, F. A. von (Ed.), **Collectivist Economic Planning**, Routledge and
+Hayek, F. A. von (ed.), **Collectivist Economic Planning**, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London, 1935.
Hayward, Jack, **After the French Revolution: Six critics of Democracy and
@@ -1640,6 +1678,10 @@ Nationalism**, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1991.
Heider, Ulrike, **Anarchism: left, right, and green**, City Lights Books, San
Francisco, 1994.
+Hein, Eckhard and Schulten, Thorsten, **Unemployment, Wages and Collective
+Bargaining in the European Union**, WSI_Discussion Paper No. 128, Witschafts-
+und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut, Dusseldorf, 2004.
+
Henwood, Doug, **Wall Street: How it works and for whom**, Verso, London,
1998.
@@ -1663,11 +1705,9 @@ Herman, Edward S., **Beyond Hypocrisy**, South End Press, Boston, 1992.
**Corporate Control, Corporate Power**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
-_"Immiserating Growth: The First World"_, **Z Magazine**, available at:
-http://www.zmag.org/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/jan94herman.htm
+_"Immiserating Growth: The First World"_, **Z Magazine**, January, 1994.
-_"The Economics of the Rich"_, **Z Magazine**, available at:
-http://www.zmag.org/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/hermanjuly97.html
+_"The Economics of the Rich"_, **Z Magazine**, July, 1997
Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam, **Manufacturing Consent: the political
economy of the mass media**, Pantheon Books, New York, 1988.
@@ -1675,8 +1715,8 @@ economy of the mass media**, Pantheon Books, New York, 1988.
Heywood, Paul, **Marxism and the Failure of Organised Socialism in Spain
1879-1936**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
-Hicks, J. R., **Value and capital : an inquiry into some fundamental
-principles of economic theory**, 2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975.
+Hicks, J. R., **Value and capital: an inquiry into some fundamental principles
+of economic theory**, 2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975.
Hills, John, **Inequality and the State**, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2004.
@@ -1685,7 +1725,7 @@ Hobsbawm, Eric, **Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social
Movements in the 19th and 20th Centuries**, 2nd Edition, W. W. Norton and Co.,
New Yprk, 1965.
-**Revolutionaries**, rev. Ed., Abacus, London, 2007.
+**Revolutionaries**, rev. ed., Abacus, London, 2007.
Hodgskin, Thomas, **Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital**, available
at: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hodgskin/labdef.txt
@@ -1704,7 +1744,7 @@ Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order**, Transaction, 2001.
Holt, Richard P. F. and Pressman, Steven (eds.), **A New Guide to Post
Keynesian Economics**, Routledge, London, 2001.
-Howell, David R. (Ed.), **Fighting Unemployment: The Limits of Free Market
+Howell, David R. (ed.), **Fighting Unemployment: The Limits of Free Market
Orthodoxy**, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.
Hutton, Will, **The State We're In**, Vintage, London, 1996.
@@ -1763,7 +1803,7 @@ Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002
Kirzner, Israel M., _"Entrepreneurship, Entitlement, and Economic Justice"_,
pp. 385-413, in **Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia**,
-Jeffrey Paul (Ed.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982.
+Jeffrey Paul (ed.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982.
**Perception, Opportunity, and Profit**, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979.
@@ -1803,6 +1843,9 @@ of Diminished Expectations**, NW Norton & Co., New York/London, 1994.
Krugman, Paul and Wells, Robin, **Economics**, W. H. Freeman, New York, 2006.
+Kuhn, Thomas S., **The Structure of Scientific Revolutions**, 3rd ed.,
+University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.
+
Kuznets, Simon, **Economic Growth and Structure: Selected Essays**, Heineman
Educational Books, London, 1966.
@@ -1811,6 +1854,9 @@ Educational Books, London, 1966.
Lange, Oskar and Taylor, Fred M., **On the Economic Theory of Socialism**,
Benjamin Lippincott (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, New York, 1938\.
+Laqueur, Walter (ed.), **Fascism: a Reader's Guide**, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
+1979.
+
Lazonick, William, **Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market
Economy**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
@@ -1827,10 +1873,10 @@ Cambridge, 1998
Leggett, George, **The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police**, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1981.
-Lenin, V. I., **Essential Works of Lenin**, Henry M. Christman (Ed.), Bantam
+Lenin, V. I., **Essential Works of Lenin**, Henry M. Christman (ed.), Bantam
Books, New York, 1966.
-**The Lenin Anthology**, Robert C. Tucker (Ed.), W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1975.
+**The Lenin Anthology**, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1975.
**Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?**, Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud, 1997.
@@ -1840,7 +1886,7 @@ Books, New York, 1966.
**Six Thesis on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, contained in **The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, pp. 42-45.
-**The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It**, Martin Lawrence Ltd., undatEd.
+**The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It**, Martin Lawrence Ltd., undated.
**Selected Works: In Three Volumes**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975.
@@ -1858,7 +1904,7 @@ London, 1983.
Lovell, David W., **From Marx to Lenin: An evaluation of Marx's responsibility
for Soviet authoritarianism**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
-Luxemburg, Rosa, **Rosa Luxemburg Speaks**, Mary-Alice Waters (Ed.),
+Luxemburg, Rosa, **Rosa Luxemburg Speaks**, Mary-Alice Waters (ed.),
Pathfinder Press, New York, 1970.
MacPherson, C.B., **The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes
@@ -1894,11 +1940,11 @@ Books, London, 1976.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, **Selected Works**, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1975.
-**The Marx-Engels Reader**, Second Edition, Robert C. Tucker (Ed.), W.W. Norton & Co, London & New York, 1978.
+**The Marx-Engels Reader**, Second Edition, Robert C. Tucker (ed.), W.W. Norton & Co, London & New York, 1978.
**The socialist revolution**, F. Teplov and V. Davydov (eds.) Progess, Moscow, 1978.
-**Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy**, Lewis S. Feuer (Ed.), Fontana/Collins, Aylesbury, 1984.
+**Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy**, Lewis S. Feuer (ed.), Fontana/Collins, Aylesbury, 1984.
_"Manifesto of the Communist Party"_, **Selected Works**, pp. 31-63.
@@ -1907,7 +1953,7 @@ _"Manifesto of the Communist Party"_, **Selected Works**, pp. 31-63.
Marx, Karl, Engels, Federick and Lenin, V.I., **Anarchism and Anarcho-
Syndicalism**, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974.
-Matthews, R.C.O. (Ed.), **Economy and Democracy**, MacMillan Press Ltd.,
+Matthews, R.C.O. (ed.), **Economy and Democracy**, MacMillan Press Ltd.,
London, 1985.
McAuley, Mary, **Bread and Justice: State and Society in Petrograd
@@ -1916,7 +1962,7 @@ McAuley, Mary, **Bread and Justice: State and Society in Petrograd
McElroy, Wendy, **Anarchism: Two Kinds**, available at:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/mises/twoanarchism.html
-McLay, Farguhar (Ed.), **Workers City: The Real Glasgow Stands Up**, Clydeside
+McLay, Farguhar (ed.), **Workers City: The Real Glasgow Stands Up**, Clydeside
Press, Glasgow, 1988.
McNally, David, **Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and
@@ -1991,7 +2037,7 @@ corporate capitalism**, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.
**Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation**, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984.
-Nove, Alec, **An economic history of the USSR: 1917-1991**, 3rd Ed., Penguin,
+Nove, Alec, **An economic history of the USSR: 1917-1991**, 3rd ed., Penguin,
Harmondsworth, 1992.
Nozick, Robert, **Anarchy, State and Utopia**, B. Blackwell, Oxford, 1974.
@@ -2000,7 +2046,7 @@ Oestreicher, Richard Jules, **Solidarity and fragmentation: working people and
class consciousness in Detroit, 1875-1900**, University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, 1986.
-Ollman, Bertell (Ed.), **Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists**,
+Ollman, Bertell (ed.), **Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists**,
Routledge, London, 1998.
O'Neill, John, **Markets, Deliberation and Environment**, Routledge, Oxon,
@@ -2024,6 +2070,9 @@ Orwell, George, **Homage to Catalonia**, Penguin, London, 1989.
**Inside the Whale and Other Essays**, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1986.
+Pagano, U. and Rowthorn, R. E. (eds.), **Democracy and Efficiency in Economic
+Enterprises**, Routledge, London, 1996.
+
Palley, Thomas I., **Plenty of Nothing: The Downsizing of the American Dream
and the case for Structural Keynesian**, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1998.
@@ -2053,10 +2102,10 @@ Popper, Karl, **Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific
Knowledge**, Basic, New York, 1965.
Preston, Paul, **The coming of the Spanish Civil War: reform, reaction, and
-revolution in the Second Republic**, 2nd Ed., Routledge, London/New York,
+revolution in the Second Republic**, 2nd ed., Routledge, London/New York,
1994.
-Preston, Paul (Ed.), **Revolution and War in Spain 1931-1939**, Methuen,
+Preston, Paul (ed.), **Revolution and War in Spain 1931-1939**, Methuen,
London, 1984.
Prychitko, David L., **Markets, Planning and Democracy: essays after the
@@ -2079,6 +2128,10 @@ and politics in Russia: essays in memory of B.I. Nicolaevsky**, Indiana
University Press for the International Affairs Center, Bloomington/London,
1973.
+Radcliff, Pamela Beth, **From mobilization to civil war: the politics of
+polarization in the Spanish city of Gijon, 1900-1937**, Cambridge University
+Press, New York, 1996.
+
Radin, Paul, **The World of Primitive Man**, Grove Press, New York, 1960.
Raleigh, Donald J., **Experiencing Russia's Civil War: Politics, Society, and
@@ -2088,7 +2141,7 @@ Woodstock, 2002.
Rand, Ayn, **Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal**, New American Library, New York,
1966\.
-**The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z**, Harry Binswanger (Ed.), Meridian, New York, 1986.
+**The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z**, Harry Binswanger (ed.), Meridian, New York, 1986.
**The Virtue of Selfishness**, New American Library, New York, 1964.
@@ -2118,7 +2171,7 @@ Remington, Thomas F., **Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: Ideology and
Industrial Organisation 1917-1921**, University of Pittsburgh Press, London,
1984.
-Richardson, Al (Ed.), **In defence of the Russian revolution: a selection of
+Richardson, Al (ed.), **In defence of the Russian revolution: a selection of
Bolshevik writings, 1917-1923**, Porcupine Press, London, 1995.
Ricardo, David, **The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation**, J.M.
@@ -2154,7 +2207,7 @@ Rose, Steven, Lewontin, R.C. and Kamin, Leon J., **Not in Our Genes: Biology,
Ideology and Human Nature**, Penguin Books, London, 1990.
Rosenberg, William G., _"Russian Labour and Bolshevik Power_, pp. 98-131,
-**The Workers Revolution in Russia: the view from below**, D. Kaiser (Ed.),
+**The Workers Revolution in Russia: the view from below**, D. Kaiser (ed.),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
_"Workers' Control on the Railroads and Some Suggestions Concerning Social
@@ -2171,13 +2224,13 @@ Highlands, N.J., 1982.
**For a New Liberty**, MacMillan, New York, 1973.
_"Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics"_ in **The Foundation of
-Modern Austrian Economics**, pp. 19-39, Dolan, Edwin G. (Ed.), Sheed & Ward,
+Modern Austrian Economics**, pp. 19-39, Dolan, Edwin G. (ed.), Sheed & Ward,
Inc., Kansas, 1976.
**Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays**, Libertarian Press Review, 1974.
_"Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State,"_ in **Secession, State
-and Liberty**, David Gordon (Ed.), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
+and Liberty**, David Gordon (ed.), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
1998.
**Power and Market**, Institute for Humane Studies, Menlo Park, 1970.
@@ -2197,6 +2250,8 @@ Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), New York University Press, New York, 1978.
**Konkin on Libertarian Strategy**, available at: http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm
+**Are Libertarians Anarchists?**, available at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html
+
Rousseau, J-J, **The Social Contract and Discourses**, Everyman, London, 1996.
Rowbotham, Sheila, **Hidden from History: 300 Years of Women's Oppression and
@@ -2218,7 +2273,7 @@ Civil War, 1918-21**, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1987.
Sawyer, Malcolm C., **The Economics of Michal Kalecki**, MacMillan,
Basingstoke, 1985\.
-**The Economics of Industries and Firms: theories, evidence and policy** (2nd Ed.), Croom Helm, London, 1985.
+**The Economics of Industries and Firms: theories, evidence and policy** (2nd ed.), Croom Helm, London, 1985.
Schapiro, Leonard, **The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political
Opposition in the Soviet State: The First Phase, 1917-1922**, Frederick A.
@@ -2235,7 +2290,7 @@ Leisure**, BasicBooks, New York, 1992.
Schorske, C., **German Social Democracy, 1905-1917**, Cambridge, Mass., 1955.
-Schulkind, Eugene (Ed.), **The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the
+Schulkind, Eugene (ed.), **The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the
Left**, Jonathan Cape, London, 1972.
Schumacher, E.F., **Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if people
@@ -2261,7 +2316,7 @@ Press, Oxford, 1963.
**Year One of the Russian Revolution**, Bookmarks, Pluto Press and Writers and Readers, London/New York, 1992.
-**The Serge-Trotsky Papers**, D. J. Cotterill (Ed.), Pluto Press, London, 1994
+**The Serge-Trotsky Papers**, D. J. Cotterill (ed.), Pluto Press, London, 1994
Service, Robert, **The Bolshevik Party in Revolution: A Study of
Organisational change**, Macmillan, London, 1979.
@@ -2275,7 +2330,7 @@ London, 1982.
Shanin, Teodor, **The Awkward Class: Political Sociology of Peasantry in a
Developing Society: Russia 1910-1925**, Oxford University Press, London, 1972.
-Skidelsky, Robert (Ed.), **Thatcherism**, Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
+Skidelsky, Robert (ed.), **Thatcherism**, Chatto & Windus, London, 1988.
Skidmore, Thomas E. and Smith, Peter H., **Modern Latin America**, Second
Edition, Oxford University Press, 1989.
@@ -2300,6 +2355,9 @@ Atherton Press, New York, 1969.
Spriano, Paolo, **The Occupation of the Factories: Italy 1920**, Pluto Press,
London, 1975.
+Staub, Ervin, **The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group
+Violence**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000
+
Stauber, John, and Sheldon Rampton, **Toxic Sludge is good for you! Lies, Damn
Lies and the Public Relations Industry**, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine,
1995.
@@ -2312,6 +2370,8 @@ Steinbeck, John, **The Grapes of Wrath**, Mandarin, London, 1990.
Stewart, Michael, **Keynes in the 1990s: A Return to Economic Sanity**,
Penguin Books, London, 1993.
+**Keynes and After**, 3rd edition, Penguin Books, London, 1987.
+
Stiglitz, Joseph, **Globalisation and its Discontents**, Penguin Books,
London, 2002.
@@ -2329,7 +2389,7 @@ Capitalism as a Dynamic System**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.
Taylor, M. W., **Men versus the state: Herbert Spencer and late Victorian
individualism**, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.
-Taylor, Michael W. (Ed.), **Herbert Spencer and the Limits of the State: The
+Taylor, Michael W. (ed.), **Herbert Spencer and the Limits of the State: The
Late Nineteenth-Century Debate Between Individualism and Collectivism**, St.
Augustine's Press, 1997.
@@ -2426,7 +2486,7 @@ government in East Asian Industrialisation**, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1990.
Walford, George, **George Walford on Anarcho-Capitalism**, available at
-http://flag.blackenEd.net/liberty/walford-on-anarcap.html
+http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/walford-on-anarcap.html
Wallerstein, Immanuel, **Geopolitics and Geoculture**, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1991.
@@ -2471,7 +2531,10 @@ the origins of Italian Communism, 1911-1921**, Pluto Press, London, 1975.
Wilson, H., **The Labour Government 1964-1970**, London, 1971.
-Winn, Peter (Ed.), **Victims of the Chilean Miracle: Workers and Neoliberalism
+Wilkinson, Richard and Pickett, Kate, **The Spirit Level: Why More Equal
+Societies Almost Always Do Better**, Allen Lane, London, 2009\.
+
+Winn, Peter (ed.), **Victims of the Chilean Miracle: Workers and Neoliberalism
in the Pinochet Era, 1973-2002**, Duke University Press, Durham and London,
2004.
diff --git a/markdown/index.md b/markdown/index.md
index 468419143eca165cdadccc8f6e732d431ad09797..5d12f6754e5335494f97bbc30e7646441e1ac240 100644
--- a/markdown/index.md
+++ b/markdown/index.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# _An Anarchist FAQ Webpage_
-### Version 13.4
+### Version 14.0
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ really stands for and indicate why you should become an anarchist.
# An Anarchist FAQ
-**Version 13.4** \-- 21-JAN-2010
+**Version 14.0** \-- 08-MAR-2010
###
diff --git a/markdown/intro.md b/markdown/intro.md
index 70000a8b9f1dabbf27e087f2a096ef178bef5aca..9bccf5e4f30731742b9b50680f7a68c2aa784fb6 100644
--- a/markdown/intro.md
+++ b/markdown/intro.md
@@ -168,8 +168,8 @@ Shawn Wilber
and our comrades on the anarchy, oneunion and organise! mailing lists.
-**_"An Anarchist FAQ"_**, **Version 13.3**
-Copyright (C) 1995-2009 The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective:
+**_"An Anarchist FAQ"_**, **Version 14.0**
+Copyright (C) 1995-2010 The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective:
Iain McKay, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal, Ed Boraas
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
diff --git a/markdown/new.md b/markdown/new.md
index 24fefd9517ba3bf13c945d11744c2783987957dc..3c5f7a78d4c3d5aa59f637ffb3388ae9eb37dd38 100644
--- a/markdown/new.md
+++ b/markdown/new.md
@@ -19,6 +19,46 @@ We hope that this makes it clear to visitors!
Version| Date| What's New |
+14.0
+
+|
+
+08-MAR-2010
+
+|
+
+[Section J.4](secJ4.html)
+Revision of section on _"What trends in society aid anarchist activity?"_
+Various sub-sections have been merged and renamed, along with significant
+changes to content.
+
+[Section J.5](secJ1.html)
+Substantial revision of section on _"What alternative social organisations do
+anarchists create?"_. Lots of new material on anarchist community organising
+and industrial struggles as well as on co-operatives. There is some re-
+arranging of the material on mutual banking between sections, but no
+significant changes.
+
+[Section J.6](secJ2.html)
+Revision of section on _"What methods of child rearing do anarchists
+advocate?"_. Various sub-sections have been merged and renamed, along with
+significant changes to content.
+
+[Section J.7](secJ7.html)
+Revision of section on _"What do anarchists mean by social revolution?"_. One
+sub-section has been renamed, but no significant changes in content have been
+made.
+
+[Section J.2.8](secJ2.html)
+Slight change to the sub-section on _"J.2.8 Will abstentionism lead to the
+right winning elections?"_ to include a quote from the late, great, Howard
+Zinn.
+
+This revision was made as part of getting the second volume of the FAQ ready
+for publication. That is now complete.
+
+---|---|---
+
13.4
|
@@ -43,8 +83,6 @@ build?"_.
This revision was made as part of getting the second volume of the FAQ ready
for publication.
----|---|---
-
13.3
|
diff --git a/markdown/secH1.md b/markdown/secH1.md
index eecde8a3ffd89e96450073daab14716b52cc0a57..26217bbe21a6530e2878b02e2c3d9f0c0a483910 100644
--- a/markdown/secH1.md
+++ b/markdown/secH1.md
@@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ new [ruling] class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and
scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of
knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of
ignorant ones!"_ Thus _"every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted
-by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from below,
+by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above,
through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine that they
know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves."_ The
Russian anarchist predicted that _"the organisation and the rule of the new
diff --git a/markdown/secH2.md b/markdown/secH2.md
index 2cb75b39d3a7e18dd9e037f25e52697252c8f29d..85bfe69093f76992a272cc6d1c02b841a50c2112 100644
--- a/markdown/secH2.md
+++ b/markdown/secH2.md
@@ -2896,7 +2896,7 @@ as _"liberalism"_ means to support rule from above by the "enlightened" elite
the revolution and so the people must be protected against the "petty-
bourgeois"/"reactionary" narrowness of the people (to requote Bakunin, _"every
state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence
-only a machine ruling the masses from below, through a privileged minority of
+only a machine ruling the masses from above, through a privileged minority of
conceited intellectuals who imagine that they know what the people need and
want better than do the people themselves."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p.
338]). Rather than seeing free debate of ideas and mass participation as a
diff --git a/markdown/secJ2.md b/markdown/secJ2.md
index b80215860641b3712770a6a0fa8332512b259886..e65632724b8256db2cf33155941c2145dcd03ef7 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ2.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ2.md
@@ -1244,7 +1244,22 @@ that which politicians can never give us from Parliament. Only such a movement
can stop the attacks upon us by whoever gets into office. A government (left
or right) which faces a mass movement based upon direct action and solidarity
will always think twice before proposing cuts or introducing authoritarian
-laws.
+laws. Howard Zinn expressed it well:
+
+> _"I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative
+government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but
+thinking in terms of organising social movements, organising in the workplace,
+organising in the neighborhood, organising collectives that can become strong
+enough to eventually take over -- first to become strong enough to resist what
+has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough
+to actually take over the institutions . . . the crucial question is not who
+is in office, but what kind of social movement do you have. Because we have
+seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesnt
+matter who is in office. Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or
+Democrat, if you have a powerful social movement, the person in office will
+have to yield, will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements
+. . . voting is not crucial, and organising is the important thing."_ [**An
+Interview with Howard Zinn on Anarchism: Rebels Against Tyranny**]
Of course, all the parties claim that they are better than the others and this
is the logic of this question -- namely, we must vote for the lesser evil as
diff --git a/markdown/secJ3.md b/markdown/secJ3.md
index 8bf6636145723d11d9113fef7911497699ac251d..431efb4405c6dfd5155fbd1c45c64c8297141b67 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ3.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ3.md
@@ -1209,7 +1209,8 @@ is effectively articulate and spread this new sensibility; it must have a
coherent theory and extensive literature; it must be capable of duelling with
the authoritarian movements that try to denature the intuitive libertarian
impulses of our time and channel social unrest into hierarchical forms of
-organisation."_ [**Looking Back at Spain"**, p. 90]
+organisation."_ [_"Looking Back at Spain,"_ pp. 53-96, Dimitrios I.
+Roussopoulos (ed.), **The Radical Papers**, p. 90]
diff --git a/markdown/secJ4.md b/markdown/secJ4.md
index a4abad68eccb6e372d51b66a34315f1cb285b58d..22d4dc7d255ccbeef48d94f9a58c68f7a51844a8 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ4.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ4.md
@@ -1,34 +1,30 @@
# J.4 What trends in society aid anarchist activity?
In this section we will examine some modern trends which we regard as being
-potential openings for anarchists to organise. These trends are of a general
-nature, partly as a product of social struggle, partly as a response to
-economic and social crisis, partly involving people's attitudes to big
-government and big business partly in relation to the communications
-revolution we are currently living through, and so on. We do this because, as
-Kropotkin argued, the anarchist _"studies human society as it is now and was
-in the past. . . He [or she] studies society and tries to discover its
-**tendencies,** past and present, its growing needs, intellectual and
-economical, and in his ideal he merely points out in which direction evolution
-goes."_ [**Anarchism and Anarchist Communism**, p. 24] In this section we
-highlight just a few of the tendencies in modern society which point in an
-anarchist direction.
+potential openings for anarchists to organise and which point in an anarchist
+direction. These trends are of a general nature, partly as a product of social
+struggle, partly as a response to economic and social crisis, partly involving
+people's attitudes to big government and big business, partly in relation to
+the communications revolution we are currently living through, and so on.
Of course, looking at modern society we see multiple influences, changes which
have certain positive aspects in some directions but negative ones in others.
For example, the business-inspired attempts to decentralise or reduce
-(certain) functions of governments. In the abstract, such developments should
-be welcomed by anarchists for they lead to the reduction of government. In
-practice such a conclusion is deeply suspect simply because these developments
-are being pursued to increase the power and influence of business and capital
-and undermine working class power and autonomy. Similarly, increases in self-
-employment can be seen, in the abstract, as reducing wage slavery. However,
-if, in practice, this increase is due to corporations encouraging
-"independent" contractors to cut wages and worsen working conditions, increase
-job insecurity and undermine paying for health and other employee packages
-then is hardly a positive sign. Obviously increases in self-employment would
-be different if such an increase was the result of an increase in the number
-of co-operatives, for example.
+(certain) functions of governments should in the abstract be welcomed by
+anarchists for they lead to the reduction of government. In practice such a
+conclusion is deeply suspect simply because these developments are being
+pursued to increase the power and influence of capital as well as to increase
+wage-labour to, and exploitation by, the economic master class and to
+undermine working class power and autonomy. As such, there are as anti-
+libertarian as the status quo (as Proudhon stressed, anarchism is _"the denial
+of Government and of Property."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p.
+100]). Similarly, increases in self-employment can be seen, in the abstract,
+as reducing wage slavery. However, if, in practice, this increase is due to
+corporations encouraging "independent" contractors in order to cut wages and
+worsen working conditions, increase job insecurity and undermine paying for
+health and other employee packages then it is hardly a positive sign.
+Obviously increases in self-employment would be different if it were the
+result of an increase in the number of co-operatives, for example.
Thus few anarchists celebrate many apparently "libertarian" developments as
they are not the product of social movements and activism, but are the product
@@ -39,45 +35,9 @@ back" of the state does not bring into question its role as defender of
property and the interests of the capitalist class -- nor could it, as it is
the ruling class who introduces and supports these developments.
-As an example of these multiple influences, we can point to the economic
-crisis which has staggered on since 1973 in many Western countries. This
-crisis, when it initially appeared, lead to calls to reduce taxation (at least
-for the wealthy, in most countries the tax-burden was shifted even more onto
-the working class -- as was the case in Thatcher's Britain). In most
-countries, as a result, government "got off the back" of the wealthy (and got
-even more comfy on **our** back!). This (along with slower growth) helped to
-create declining revenue bases in the advanced capitalist nations has given
-central governments an excuse to cut social services, leaving a vacuum that
-regional and local governments have had to fill along with voluntary
-organisations, thus producing a tendency toward decentralisation that
-dovetails with anarchist ideals.
-
-As Murray Bookchin points out, a sustainable ecological society must shift
-emphasis away from nation-states as the basic units of administration and
-focus instead on municipalities -- towns, villages, and human-scale cities.
-Interestingly, the ongoing dismantling of the welfare state is producing such
-a shift by itself. By forcing urban residents to fend for themselves more than
-ever before in meeting transportation, housing, social welfare, and other
-needs, the economic crisis is also forcing them to relearn the arts of
-teamwork, co-operation, and self-reliance (see his **Remaking Society:
-Pathways to a Green Future**, p. 183).
-
-Of course the economic crisis also has a downside for anarchists. As hardships
-and dislocations continue to swell the ranks and increase the militancy of
-progressive social movements, the establishment is being provoked to use ever
-more authoritarian methods to maintain control (see D.9). As the crisis
-deepens over the next few decades, the reactionary tendencies of the state
-will be reinforced (particularly as the neo-liberal consensus helps atomise
-society via the market mechanism and the resulting destruction of community
-and human relationships). However, this is not inevitable. The future depends
-on our actions in the here and now. In this section of the FAQ we highlight
-some developments which do, or could, work to the advantage of anarchists.
-Many of these examples are from the US, but they apply equally to Britain and
-many other advanced industrial states.
-
In this section, we aim to discuss tendencies from **below**, not above --
tendencies which can truly "roll back" the state rather than reduce its
-functions purely to that of the armed thug of Capital. The tendencies we
+functions purely to that of the armed thug of property. The tendencies we
discuss here are not the be all nor end all of anarchist activism or
tendencies. We discuss many of the more traditionally anarchist "openings" in
[section J.5](secJ5.html) (such as industrial and community unionism, mutual
@@ -88,10 +48,10 @@ fully libertarian in combination with these more "traditional" forms of
_**"anarchy in action."_**
For a lengthy discussion of anarchistic trends in society, we recommend Colin
-Ward's classic book **Anarchy in Action**. Ward's excellent book covers many
-areas in which anarchistic tendencies have been expressed, far more than we
-can cover here. The libertarian tendencies in society are many. No single work
-could hope to do them justice.
+Ward's classic book **Anarchy in Action**. Ward covers many areas in which
+anarchistic tendencies have been expressed, far more than we can cover here.
+The libertarian tendencies in society are many. No single work could hope to
+do them justice.
## J.4.1 Why is social struggle a good sign?
@@ -101,7 +61,7 @@ that certain parts of the population have reflected on their situation and,
potentially at least, seen that **by their own actions** they can influence
and change it for the better.
-Given that the ruling minority draws its strength of the acceptance and
+Given that the ruling minority draws its strength by the acceptance and
acquiescence of the majority, the fact that a part of that majority no longer
accepts and acquiesces is a positive sign. After all, if the majority did not
accept the status quo and acted to change it, the class and state system could
@@ -113,34 +73,31 @@ tendency towards anarchism. It suggests that people are rejecting the old
ideas which hold the system up, acting upon this rejection and creating new
ways of doing thinks.
-_"Our social institutions,"_ argues Alexander Berkman, _"are founded on
+_"Our social institutions,"_ argued Alexander Berkman, _"are founded on
certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions
built upon them are safe. Government remains strong because people think
political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue
as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The
weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present-day
-conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism."_ [**The
-ABC of Anarchism**, p. xv]
+conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism."_
+[**What is Anarchism?**, p. xii]
Social struggle is the most obvious sign of this change of perspective, this
change in ideas, this progress towards freedom.
Social struggle is expressed by direct action. We have discussed both social
-struggle and direct action before (in sections [J.1](secJ1.html) and
-[J.2](secJ2.html) respectively) and some readers may wonder why we are
-covering this again here. We do so for two reasons. Firstly, as we are
-discussing what trends in society help anarchist activity, it would be wrong
-**not** to highlight social struggle and direct action here. This is because
-these factors are key tendencies towards anarchism as anarchism will be
-created by people and social struggle is the means by which people create the
-new world in the shell of the old. Secondly, social struggle and direct action
-are key aspects of anarchist theory and we cannot truly present a picture of
-what anarchism is about without making clear what these are.
+struggle ([section J.1](secJ1.html)) and direct action ([section
+J.2](secJ2.html)) before and some readers may wonder why we are covering this
+again here. We do so as we are discussing what trends in society help
+anarchist activity, it would be wrong **not** to highlight social struggle and
+direct action here. This is because these factors are key tendencies towards
+anarchism as social struggle is the means by which people create the new world
+in the shell of the old, transforming themselves and society.
So social struggle is a good sign as it suggests that people are thinking for
themselves, considering their own interests and working together collectively
to change things for the better. As the French syndicalist Emile Pouget
-argues:
+argued:
> _"Direct action . . . means that the working class, forever bridling at the
existing state of affairs, expects nothing from outside people, powers or
@@ -148,10 +105,10 @@ forces, but rather creates its own conditions of struggle and looks to itself
for its methodology . . . Direct Action thus implies that the working class
subscribes to notions of freedom and autonomy instead of genuflecting before
the principle of authority. Now, it is thanks to this authority principle, the
-pivot of the modern world - democracy being its latest incarnation - that the
-human being, tied down by a thousand ropes, moral as well as material, is
+pivot of the modern world -- democracy being its latest incarnation -- that
+the human being, tied down by a thousand ropes, moral as well as material, is
bereft of any opportunity to display will and initiative."_ [**Direct
-Action**]
+Action**, p. 1]
Social struggle means that people come into opposition with the boss and other
authorities such as the state and the dominant morality. This challenge to
@@ -162,14 +119,12 @@ struggle, such as a strike, occupation, boycott, and so on, the ordinary life
of people, in which they act under the constant direction of the bosses or
state, ceases, and they have to think, act and co-ordinate their actions for
themselves. This reinforces the expression towards autonomy that the initial
-refusal that lead to the struggle indicates. Thus struggle re-enforces the
-initial act of refusal and autonomy by forcing those involves to act for
-themselves. Secondly, in the process of struggle those involved learn the
-importance of solidarity, of working with others in a similar situation, in
-order to win. This means the building of links of support, of common
-interests, of organisation. The practical need for solidarity to help win the
-struggle is the basis for the solidarity required for a free society to be
-viable.
+refusal that lead to the struggle indicates. Secondly, in the process of
+struggle those involved learn the importance of solidarity, of working with
+others in a similar situation, in order to win. This means the building of
+links of support, of common interests, of organisation. The practical need for
+solidarity to help win the struggle is the basis for the solidarity required
+for a free society to be viable.
Therefore the real issue in social struggle is that it is an attempt by people
to wrestle at least part of the power over their own lives away from the
@@ -178,12 +133,11 @@ themselves. This is, by its very nature, anarchistic and libertarian. Thus we
find politicians and, of course, managers and property owners, often
denouncing strikes and other forms of direct action. This is logical. As
direct action challenges the real power-holders in society and because, if
-carried to its logical conclusion, it would have to replace them, social
-struggle and direct action can be considered in essence a revolutionary
-process.
+carried to its logical conclusion, it would remove them, social struggle and
+direct action can be considered in essence a revolutionary process.
Moreover, the very act of using direct action suggests a transformation within
-the people using it. _"Direct action's very powers to fertilise,"_ argues
+the people using it. _"Direct action's very powers to fertilise,"_ argued
Pouget, _"reside in such exercises in imbuing the individual with a sense of
his own worth and in extolling such worth. It marshals human resourcefulness,
tempers characters and focuses energies. It teaches self-confidence! And self-
@@ -196,23 +150,14 @@ conflicts with the economic fellowship that binds the workers one with another
and far from being at odds with their common interests, it reconciles and
bolsters these: the individual's independence and activity can only erupt into
splendour and intensity by sending its roots deep into the fertile soil of
-common agreement."_ [Pouget, **Op. Cit.**]
-
-Emma Goldman also recognised the transforming power of direct action.
-Anarchists, she argues, _"believe with Stirner that man has as much liberty as
-he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open
-defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social
-and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation
-of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage.
-In short, it calls for free independent spirits. . ."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**,
-p. 61-2]
+common agreement."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 2 and p. 5]
Social struggle is the beginning of a transformation of the people involved
and their relationships to each other. While its external expression lies in
contesting the power of existing authorities, its inner expression is the
transformation of people from passive and isolated competitors into empowered,
self-directing, self-governing co-operators. Moreover, this process widens
-considerable what people think is "possible." Through struggle, by collective
+considerably what people think is "possible." Through struggle, by collective
action, the fact people **can** change things is driven home, that **they**
have the power to govern themselves and the society they live in. Thus
struggle can change people's conception of "what is possible" and encourage
@@ -221,23 +166,21 @@ them to try and create a better world. As Kropotkin argued:
> _"since the times of the [first] International Working Men's Association,
the anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers'
organisations which carry on the **direct** struggle of labour against capital
-and its protector -- the State.
-
->
+and its protector -- the State._
-> "Such a struggle, they say, . . . permits the worker to obtain some
-temporary improvements. . ., while it opens his [or her] eyes to the evil that
-is done by capitalism and the State. . . , and wakes up his thoughts
+> _"Such a struggle . . . permits the worker to obtain some temporary
+improvements . . ., while it opens his [or her] eyes to the evil that is done
+by capitalism and the State . . . , and wakes up his [or her] thoughts
concerning the possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange
-without the intervention of the capitalist and the State."_ [**Kropotkin's
-Revolutionary Pamphlets**, p. 171]
+without the intervention of the capitalist and the State."_ [**Anarchism**, p.
+171]
In other words, social struggle has a **radicalising** and **politicising**
effect, an effect which brings into a new light existing society and the
-possibilities of a better world (_"direct action"_, in Pouget's words,
-_"develops the feeling for human personality as well as the spirit of
-initiative . . . it shakes people out of their torpor and steers them to
-consciousness."_). The practical need to unite and resist the boss also helps
+possibilities of a better world (direct action, in Pouget's words, _"develops
+the feeling for human personality as well as the spirit of initiative . . . it
+shakes people out of their torpor and steers them to consciousness."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 5]). The practical need to unite and resist the boss also helps
break down divisions within the working class. Those in struggle start to
realise that they need each other to give them the power necessary to get
improvements, to change things. Thus solidarity spreads and overcomes
@@ -245,12 +188,12 @@ divisions between black and white, male and female, heterosexual and
homosexual, trades, industries, nationalities and so on. The real need for
solidarity to win the fight helps to undermine artificial divisions and show
that there are only two groups in society, the oppressed and the oppressors.
-
Moreover, struggle as well as transforming those involved is also the basis
for transforming society as a whole simply because, as well as producing
transformed individuals, it also produces new forms of organisation,
organisations created to co-ordinate their struggle and which can, potentially
-at least, become the framework of a libertarian socialist society.
+at least, become the framework of a libertarian socialist society (see
+[section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23)).
Thus anarchists argue that social struggle opens the eyes of those involved to
self-esteem and a sense of their own strength, and the groupings it forms at
@@ -261,22 +204,22 @@ decentralisation. If we look at every major revolution, we find people
creating mass organisations such as workers' councils, factory committees,
neighbourhood assemblies and so on as a means of taking back the power to
govern their own lives, communities and workplaces. In this way social
-struggle and direct action lays the foundations for the future. By actively
+struggle and direct action lay the foundations for the future. By actively
taking part in social life, people are drawn into creating new forms of
organisation, new ways of doing things. In this way they educate themselves in
participation, in self-government, in initiative and in asserting themselves.
They begin to realise that the only alternative to management by others is
-self-management and organise to achieve thus.
+self-management and organise to achieve it.
Given that remaking society has to begin at the bottom, this finds its
-expression in direct action, individuals taking the initiative, building new,
-more libertarian forms of organisation and using the power they have just
-generated by collective action and organisation to change things by their own
-efforts. Social struggle is therefore a two way transformation -- the external
-transformation of society by the creation of new organisations and the
-changing of the power relations within it and the internal transformation of
-those who take part in the struggle. And because of this, social struggle,
-_"[w]hatever may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate gains,
+expression in direct action, individuals taking the initiative and using the
+power they have just generated by collective action and organisation to change
+things by their own efforts. Social struggle is therefore a two way
+transformation -- the external transformation of society by the creation of
+new organisations and the changing of the power relations within it and the
+internal transformation of those who take part in the struggle. This is key:
+
+> _"Whatever may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate gains,
the greatest value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby workers learn that
the bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot improve their
conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except by uniting and
@@ -288,7 +231,7 @@ activism and they will in the end understand that to make their victory secure
and definitive, it is necessary to destroy capitalism. The revolutionary
cause, the cause of the moral elevation and emancipation of the workers must
benefit by the fact that workers unite and struggle for their interests."_
-[Errico Malatesta, **Life and Ideas**, p. 191]
+[Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 191]
Hence Nestor Makhno's comment that _"[i]n fact, it is only through that
struggle for freedom, equality and solidarity that you reach an understanding
@@ -297,34 +240,33 @@ The creation of an anarchist society is a **process** and social struggle is
the key anarchistic tendency within society which anarchists look for,
encourage and support. Its radicalising and transforming nature is the key to
the growth of anarchist ideas, the creation of libertarian structures and
-alternatives within capitalism (structures which may, one day, replace
-capitalism and state) and the creation of anarchists and those sympathetic to
-anarchist ideas. Its importance cannot be underestimated!
+alternatives within capitalism (structures which may, one day, replace it) and
+the creation of anarchists and those sympathetic to anarchist ideas. Its
+importance cannot be underestimated!
## J.4.2 Won't social struggle do more harm than good?
-It is often argued that social struggle, by resisting the powerful and the
+It is often argued that social struggle, resisting the powerful and the
wealthy, will just do more harm than good. Employers often use this approach
in anti-union propaganda, for example, arguing that creating a union will
force the company to close and move to less "militant" areas.
-There is, of course, some truth in this. Yes, social struggle can lead to
-bosses moving to more compliant workforces -- but, of course, this also
-happens in periods lacking social struggle too! If we look at the down-sizing
-mania that gripped the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s, we see companies down-
-sizing tens of thousands of people during a period where unions were weak,
-workers scared about loosing their jobs and class struggle basically becoming
-mostly informal and "underground." Moreover, this argument actually indicates
-the need for anarchism. It is a damning indictment of any social system that
-it requires people to kow-tow to their masters otherwise they will suffer
-economic hardship. It boils down to the argument _"do what you are told,
-otherwise you will regret it."_ Any system based on that maxim is an affront
-to human dignity!
+There is some truth in this. Yes, social struggle can lead to bosses moving to
+more compliant workforces -- but this also happens in periods lacking social
+struggle too! If we look at the down-sizing mania that gripped the U.S. in the
+1980s and 1990s, we see companies firing tens of thousands of people during a
+period when unions were weak, workers scared about losing their jobs and class
+struggle basically becoming mostly informal, atomised and "underground."
+Moreover, this argument actually indicates the need for anarchism. It is a
+damning indictment of any social system that it requires people to kow-tow to
+their masters otherwise they will suffer economic hardship. It boils down to
+the argument _"do what you are told, otherwise you will regret it."_ Any
+system based on that maxim is an affront to human dignity!
It would, in a similar fashion, be easy to "prove" that slave rebellions are
against the long term interests of the slaves. After all, by rebelling the
-slaves will face the anger of their masters. Only by submitting to their
-master can they avoid this fate and, perhaps, be rewarded by better
+slaves will face the anger of their masters. Only by submitting without
+question can they avoid this fate and, perhaps, be rewarded by better
conditions. Of course, the evil of slavery would continue but by submitting to
it they can ensure their life can become better. Needless to say, any thinking
and feeling person would quickly dismiss this reasoning as missing the point
@@ -334,63 +276,56 @@ struggles within capitalism do more harm than good. It betrays a slave
mentality unfitting for human beings (although fitting for those who desire to
live of the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).
-Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points. Firstly, by
-resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or even improved.
-After all, if the boss knows that their decisions will be resisted they may be
-less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer hours and so on. If they know that
-their employees will agree to anything then there is every reason to expect
-them to impose all kinds of oppressions, just as a state will impose draconian
-laws if it knows that it can get away with it. History is full of examples of
-non-resistance producing greater evils in the long term and of resistance
-producing numerous important reforms and improvements (such as higher wages,
-shorter hours, the right to vote for working class people and women, freedom
-of speech, the end of slavery, trade union rights and so on).
+Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points.
+
+Firstly, by resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or
+even improved. If the boss knows that their decisions will be resisted they
+may be less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer hours and so on. If, on the
+other hand, they know that their employees will agree to anything then there
+is every reason to expect them to impose all kinds of oppressions, just as a
+state will impose draconian laws if it knows that it can get away with it.
+History is full of examples of non-resistance producing greater evils in the
+long term and of resistance producing numerous important reforms and
+improvements (such as higher wages, shorter hours, the right to vote for
+working class people and women, freedom of speech, the end of slavery, trade
+union rights and so on).
So social struggle has been proven time and time again to gain successful
-reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement of 1886 in America, for
-example, most companies argued they could not introduce that reform without
-doing bust. However, after displaying a militant mood and conducting an
-extensive strike campaign, hundreds of thousands of workers discovered that
-their bosses had been lying and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of
-the labour movement shows what bosses say they can afford and the reforms
-workers can get via struggle are somewhat at odds. Given the asymmetry of
-information between workers and bosses, this is unsurprising. Workers can only
-guess at what is available and bosses like to keep their actual finances
-hidden. Even the threat of labour struggle can be enough to gain improvements.
-For example, Henry Ford's $5 day is often used as an example of capitalism
-rewarding good workers. However, this substantial pay increase was largely
-motivated by the unionisation drive by the **Industrial Workers of the World**
-among Ford workers in the summer of 1913 [Harry Braverman, **Labour and
-Monopoly Capitalism**, p. 144]. More recently, it was the mass non-payment
-campaign against the poll-tax in Britain during the late 1980s and early 1990s
-which helped ensure its defeat (and the 1990 poll-tax riot in London also
-helped and ensured that the New Zealand government did not introduce a similar
-scheme in their country too!). In the 1990s, France also saw the usefulness of
+reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement of 1886 in America most
+companies argued they could not introduce that reform without doing bust.
+However, after displaying a militant mood and conducting an extensive strike
+campaign, hundreds of thousands of workers discovered that their bosses had
+been lying and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of the labour
+movement shows what bosses say they can afford and the reforms workers can get
+via struggle are somewhat at odds. Given the asymmetry of information between
+workers and bosses, this is unsurprising as workers can only guess at what is
+available and bosses like to keep their actual finances hidden. Even the
+threat of labour struggle can be enough to gain improvements. For example,
+Henry Ford's $5 day is often used as an example of capitalism rewarding good
+workers. However, this substantial pay increase was largely motivated by the
+unionisation drive by the **Industrial Workers of the World** among Ford
+workers in the summer of 1913. [Harry Braverman, **Labour and Monopoly
+Capitalism**, p. 144] More recently, it was the mass non-payment campaign
+against the poll-tax in Britain during the late 1980s and early 1990s which
+helped ensure its defeat. In the 1990s, France also saw the usefulness of
direct action. Two successive prime ministers (Edouard Balladur and Alain
-Juppe) tried to impose large scale "reform" programmes that swiftly provoked
-mass demonstrations and general strikes amongst students, workers, farmers and
-others. Confronted by crippling disruptions, both governments gave in.
-Compared to the experience of, say Britain, France's tradition of direct
-action politics proved more effective in maintaining existing conditions or
-even improving on them.
-
-Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, it ignores that by resistance
-those who take part can the social system they live in can be **changed.**
-This radicalising effect of social struggle can open new doors for those
-involved, liberate their minds, empower them and create the potential for deep
-social change. Without resistance to existing forms of authority a free
-society cannot be created as people adjust themselves to authoritarian
-structures and accept what is as the only possibility. By resisting, people
-transform and empower themselves, as well as transforming society. In
-addition, new possibilities can be seen (possibilities before dismissed as
-"utopian") and, via the organisation and action required to win reforms, the
-framework for these possibilities (i.e. of a new, libertarian, society)
-created. The transforming and empowering effect of social struggle is
-expressed well by the Nick DiGaetano, an one time Wobbly who had joined during
-the 1912 Lawrence strike and then UAW-CIO shop floor militant from the late
-1930s to the 1950s. By fighting their bosses for union recognition what the
-workers gained was not only better conditions and pay but also a changed
-mentality:
+Juppe) tried to impose large scale neo-liberal "reform" programmes that
+swiftly provoked mass demonstrations and general strikes amongst students,
+workers, farmers and others. Confronted by crippling disruptions, both
+governments gave in.
+
+Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, the radicalising effect of social
+struggle can open new doors for those involved, liberate their minds, empower
+them and create the potential for deep social change. Without resistance to
+existing forms of authority a free society cannot be created as people adjust
+themselves to authoritarian structures and accept "what is" as the only
+possibility. By resisting, people transform and empower themselves as well as
+transforming society. New possibilities can be seen (possibilities before
+dismissed as "utopian") and, via the organisation and action required to win
+reforms, the framework for these possibilities (i.e. of a new, libertarian,
+society) created. The transforming and empowering effect of social struggle is
+expressed well by the Nick DiGaetano, a one-time Wobbly who had joined during
+the 1912 Lawrence strike and then became a UAW-CIO shop floor militant:
> _ "the workers of my generation from the early days up to now [1958] had
what you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a plain, humble,
@@ -398,7 +333,7 @@ submissive creature into a man. The union made a man out of him . . . I am not
talking about the benefits . . . I am talking about the working conditions and
how they affected the men in the plant . . . Before they were submissive.
Today they are men."_ [quoted by David Brody, _"Workplace Contractualism in
-comparative perspective"_, pp. 176-205, Helson Lichtenstein and Howell john
+comparative perspective"_, pp. 176-205, Helson Lichtenstein and Howell John
Harris (eds.), **Industrial Democracy in America**, p. 204]
Other labour historians note the same radicalising process elsewhere (modern
@@ -408,124 +343,208 @@ day activists could give more examples!):
ideology of acquisitive individualism, which explained and justified a society
regulated by market mechanisms and propelled by the accumulation of capital,
was challenged by an ideology of mutualism, rooted in working-class bondings
-and struggles. . . Contests over pennies on or off existing piece rates had
+and struggles . . . Contests over pennies on or off existing piece rates had
ignited controversies over the nature and purpose of the American republic
itself."_ [David Montgomery, **The Fall of the House of Labour**, p. 171]
This radicalising effect is far more dangerous to authoritarian structures
than better pay, more liberal laws and so on as they need submissiveness to
work. Little wonder that direct action is usually denounced as pointless or
-harmful by those in power or their spokespersons, for direct action will,
-taken to its logical conclusion, put them out of a job! Struggle, therefore,
-holds the possibility of a free society as well as of improvements in the here
-and now. It also changes the perspectives of those involved, creating new
-ideas and values to replace the ones of capitalism.
+harmful by those in power or their spokespersons for direct action will, taken
+to its logical conclusion, put them out of a job! Struggle, therefore, holds
+the possibility of a free society as well as of improvements in the here and
+now. It also changes the perspectives of those involved, creating new ideas
+and values to replace the ones of capitalism.
Thirdly, it ignores the fact that such arguments do not imply the end of
social struggle and working class resistance and organisation, but rather its
**extension.** If, for example, your boss argues that they will move to Mexico
if you do not "shut up and put up" then the obvious solution is to make sure
the workers in Mexico are also organised! Bakunin argued this basic point over
-one hundred years ago, and it is still true -- _"in the long run the
-relatively tolerable position of workers in one country can be maintained only
-on condition that it be more or less the same in other countries."_ If, for
-example, workers in Mexico have worse wages and conditions than you do, these
-same conditions will be used against you as the _"conditions of labour cannot
-get worse or better in any particular industry without immediately affecting
-the workers in other industries, and that workers of all trades are inter-
-linked with real and indissoluble ties of solidarity,"_ ties which can be
-ignored only at your own peril. Ultimately, _"in those countries the workers
-work longer hours for less pay; and the employers there can sell their
-products cheaper, successfully competing against conditions where workers
-working less earn more, and thus force the employers in the latter countries
-to cut wages and increase the hours of their workers."_ Bakunin's solution was
-to organise internationally, to stop this undercutting of conditions by
-solidarity between workers. As recent history shows, his argument was correct
-[**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, pp. 306-7]. Thus it is **not**
-social struggle or militancy which is bad, just **isolated** militancy,
-struggle which ignores the ties of solidarity required to win, extent and keep
-reforms and improvements. In other words, our resistance must be as
-transnational as capitalism is.
+one hundred years ago, and it is still true: _"in the long run the relatively
+tolerable position of workers in one country can be maintained only on
+condition that it be more or less the same in other countries."_ The
+_"conditions of labour cannot get worse or better in any particular industry
+without immediately affecting the workers in other industries, and that
+workers of all trades are inter-linked with real and indissoluble ties of
+solidarity."_ Ultimately, _"in those countries the workers work longer hours
+for less pay; and the employers there can sell their products cheaper,
+successfully competing against conditions where workers working less earn
+more, and thus force the employers in the latter countries to cut wages and
+increase the hours of their workers."_ [**The Political Philosophy of
+Bakunin**, pp. 306-7] Bakunin's solution was to organise internationally, to
+stop this undercutting of conditions by solidarity between workers. As history
+shows, his argument was correct. Thus it is **not** social struggle or
+militancy which perhaps could have negative results, just **isolated**
+militancy, struggle which ignores the ties of solidarity required to win,
+extend and keep reforms and improvements. In other words, our resistance must
+be as transnational as capitalism is.
The idea that social struggle and working class organisation are harmful was
-expressed constantly in the 1970s. If we look at the arguments of the right in
-the 1970s, we also find evidence that the "struggle does more harm than good"
-viewpoint is flawed. With the post-war Keynesian consensus crumbling, the "New
-Right" argued that trade unions (and strikes) hampered growth and that wealth
-redistribution (i.e. welfare schemes which returned some of the surplus value
-workers produced back into their own hands) hindered "wealth creation" (i.e.
-economic growth). Do not struggle over income, they argued, let the market
-decide and everyone will be better off.
+expressed constantly in the 1970s and 80s. With the post-war Keynesian
+consensus crumbling, the "New Right" argued that trade unions (and strikes)
+hampered growth and that wealth redistribution (i.e. welfare schemes which
+returned some of the surplus value workers produced back into our own hands)
+hindered "wealth creation" (i.e. economic growth). Do not struggle over
+income, they argued, let the market decide and everyone will be better off.
This argument was dressed up in populist clothes. Thus we find the right-wing
guru F.A. von Hayek arguing that, in the case of Britain, the _"legalised
powers of the unions have become the biggest obstacle to raising the standards
of the working class as a whole. They are the chief cause of the unnecessarily
big differences between the best- and worse-paid workers."_ He maintained that
-_"the elite of the British working class. . . derive their relative advantages
-by keeping workers who are **worse off** from improving their position."_
-Moreover, he _"predict[ed] that the average worker's income would rise fastest
-in a country where relative wages are flexible, and where the exploitation of
-workers by monopolistic trade union organisations of specialised workers are
-effectively outlawed."_ [_"1980s Unemployment and the Unions"_ reproduced in
-**The Economic Decline of Modern Britain**, p. 107, p. 108, p. 110]
+_"the elite of the British working class . . . derive their relative
+advantages by keeping workers who are **worse off** from improving their
+position."_ Moreover, he _"predict[ed] that the average worker's income would
+rise fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, and where the
+exploitation of workers by monopolistic trade union organisations of
+specialised workers are effectively outlawed."_ [**1980s Unemployment and the
+Unions**, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 110]
Now, if von Hayek's claims were true we could expect that in the aftermath of
Thatcher government's trade union reforms we would have seen: a rise in
economic growth (usually considered as **the** means to improve living
-standards for workers by the right); a decrease in the differences between
-high and low paid workers; a reduction in the percentage of low paid workers
-as they improved their positions when freed from union _"exploitation"_; and
-that wages rise fastest in countries with the highest wage flexibility.
-Unfortunately for von Hayek, the actual trajectory of the British economy
-exposes his claims as nonsense.
+standards for workers by the right); that this growth would be more equally
+distributed; a decrease in the differences between high and low paid workers;
+a reduction in the percentage of low paid workers as they improved their
+positions when freed from union _"exploitation"_; and that wages rise fastest
+in countries with the highest wage flexibility. Unfortunately for von Hayek,
+the actual trajectory of the British economy exposed his claims as nonsense.
Looking at each of his claims in turn we discover that rather than "exploit"
other workers, trade unions are an essential means to shift income from
-capital to labour (which is way capital fights labour organisers tooth and
+capital to labour (which is why capital fights labour organisers tooth and
nail). And, equally important, labour militancy aids **all** workers by
-providing a floor under which wages cannot drop (non-unionised/militant firms
-in the same industry or area have to offer similar programs to prevent
-unionisation and be able to hire workers) and by maintaining aggregate demand.
-This positive role of unions/militancy in aiding **all** workers can be seen
-by comparing Britain before and after Thatcher's von Hayek inspired trade
-union and labour market reforms.
-
-As far as economic growth goes, there has been a steady fall since trade union
-reforms. In the "bad old days" of the 1970s, with its strikes and "militant
+providing a floor under which wages cannot drop (non-unionised firms have to
+offer similar programs to prevent unionisation and be able to hire workers)
+and by maintaining aggregate demand. This positive role of unions in aiding
+**all** workers can be seen by comparing Britain before and after Thatcher's
+von Hayek inspired trade union and labour market reforms.
+
+There has been a steady fall in growth in the UK since the trade union
+"reforms". In the "bad old days" of the 1970s, with its strikes and "militant
unions" growth was 2.4% in Britain. It fell to 2% in the 1980s and fell again
-to 1.2% in the 1990s [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, **The Age of
-Insecurity**, p. 236]. So the rate of "wealth creation" (economic growth) has
-steadily fallen as unions were "reformed" in line with von Hayek's ideology
-(and falling growth means that the living standards of the working class as a
-whole do not rise as fast as they did under the "exploitation" of the
-"monopolistic" trade unions). If we look at the differences between the
-highest and lowest paid workers, we find that rather than decrease, they have
-in fact shown _"a dramatic widening out of the distribution with the best-
-workers doing much better"_ since Thatcher was elected in 1979 [Andrew Glyn
-and David Miliband (eds.), **Paying for Inequality**, p. 100]
-
-Given that inequality has also increased, the condition of the average worker
-must have suffered. For example, Ian Gilmore states that _"[i]n the 1980s, for
-the first time for fifty years. . . the poorer half of the population saw its
+to 1.2% in the 1990s. A similar pattern of slowing growth as wage flexibility
+and market reform has increased can be seen in the US economy (it was 4.4% in
+the 1960s, 3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half of
+the 1990s). [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, **The Age of Insecurity**, p. 236]
+Given that the free-market right proclaims higher economic growth is the only
+way to make workers better off, growth rates have steadily fallen
+internationally since the domination of their ideology. Thus growth of output
+per head in the USA, Europe, Japan and the OECD countries between 1979 to 1990
+was lower than in 1973-9, and 1990-2004 lower still. The deregulation,
+privatisation, anti-union laws and other neo-liberal policies have _"failed to
+bring an increase in the growth rate."_ [Andrew Glyn, **Capitalism
+Unleashed**, p. 131] What growth spurts there have been were associated with
+speculative bubbles (in the American economy, dot.com stocks in the late 1990s
+and housing in the 2000s) which burst with disastrous consequences.
+
+So the rate of "wealth creation" (economic growth) has steadily fallen as
+unions were "reformed" in line with von Hayek's ideology (and lower growth
+means that the living standards of the working class as a whole do not rise as
+fast as they did under the "exploitation" of the "monopolistic" trade unions).
+
+If we look at the differences between the highest and lowest paid workers, we
+find that rather than decrease, they have in fact shown _"a dramatic widening
+out of the distribution with the best-workers doing much better"_ since
+Thatcher was elected in 1979 [Andrew Glyn and David Miliband (eds.), **Paying
+for Inequality**, p. 100] This is important, as average figures can hide how
+badly those in the bottom (80%!) are doing. In an unequal society, the gains
+of growth are monopolised by the few and we would expect rising inequality
+over time alongside average growth. In America inequality has dramatically
+increased since the 1970s, with income and wealth growth in the 1980s going
+predominately to the top 20% (and, in fact, mostly to the top 1% of the
+population). The bottom 80% of the population saw their wealth grow by 1.2%
+and their income by 23.7% in the 1980s, while for the top 20% the respective
+figures were 98.2% and 66.3% (the figures for the top 1% were 61.6% and 38.9%,
+respectively). [Edward N. Wolff, _"How the Pie is Sliced"_, **The American
+Prospect**, no. 22, Summer 1995] There has been a _"fanning out of the pay
+distribution"_ with the gap between the top 10% of wage-earners increasing
+compared to those in the middle and bottom 10%. Significantly, in the neo-
+liberal countries the rise in inequality is _"considerably higher"_ than in
+European ones. In America, for example, _"real wages at the top grew by 27.2%
+between 1979 and 2003 as compared to 10.2% in the middle"_ while real wages
+for the bottom 10% _"did not grow at all between 1979 and 2003."_ In fact,
+most of the gains in the top 10% _"occurred amongst the top 5%, and two-thirds
+of it within the top 1%."_ Unsurprising, the neo-liberal countries of the UK,
+USA and New Zealand saw the largest increases in inequality. [Glyn, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 116-8 and p. 168]
+
+Given that inequality has increased, the condition of the average worker must
+have suffered. For example, Ian Gilmore states that _"[i]n the 1980s, for the
+first time for fifty years . . . the poorer half of the population saw its
share of total national income shirk."_ [**Dancing with Dogma**, p. 113]
According to Noam Chomsky, _"[d]uring the Thatcher decade, the income share of
the bottom half of the population fell from one-third to one-fourth"_ and the
between 1979 and 1992, the share of total income of the top 20% grew from 35%
to 40% while that of the bottom 20% fell from 10% to 5%. In addition, the
number of UK employees with weekly pay below the Council of Europe's _"decency
-threshold"_ increased from 28.3% in 1979 to 37% in 1994 [**World Orders, Old
-and New**, p. 144, p. 145] Moreover, _"[b]ack in the early 1960s, the heaviest
-concentration of incomes fell at 80-90 per cent of the mean. . . But by the
-early 1990s there had been a dramatic change, with the peak of the
+threshold"_ increased from 28.3% in 1979 to 37% in 1994. [**World Orders, Old
+and New**, p. 144 and p. 145] Moreover, _"[b]ack in the early 1960s, the
+heaviest concentration of incomes fell at 80-90 per cent of the mean . . . But
+by the early 1990s there had been a dramatic change, with the peak of the
distribution falling at just 40-50 per cent of the mean. One-quarter of the
population had incomes below half the average by the early 1990s as against 7
-per cent in 1977 and 11 per cent in 1961. . ."_ [Elliot and Atkinson, **Op.
+per cent in 1977 and 11 per cent in 1961."_ [Elliot and Atkinson, **Op.
Cit.**, p. 235] _"Overall,"_ notes Takis Fotopoulos, _"average incomes
increased by 36 per cent during this period [1979-1991/2], but 70 per cent of
the population had a below average increase in their income."_ [**Towards an
Inclusive Democracy**, p. 113]
+The reason for this rising inequality is not difficult to determine. When
+workers organise and strike, they can keep more of what they produce in their
+own hands. The benefits of productivity growth, therefore, can be spread. With
+unions weakened, such gains will accumulate in fewer hands and flood upwards.
+This is precisely what happened. Before (approximately) 1980 and the neo-
+liberal assault on unions, productivity and wages rose hand-in-hand in
+America, afterward productivity continued to rise while wages flattened. In
+fact, the value of the output of an average worker _"has risen almost 50
+percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a
+small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we're not sure whether the
+typical American has gained **anything** from rising productivity."_ Rather
+than "trickle down" _"the lion's share of economic growth in America over the
+past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority."_ In short: _"The big
+winners . . . have been members of a very narrow elite: the top 1 percent or
+less of the population."_ [Paul Krugman, **The Conscience of a Liberal**, p.
+124, p. 244 and p. 8]
+
+Looking at America, after the Second World War the real income of the typical
+family ("exploited" by "monopolistic" trade unions) grew by 2.7% per year,
+with _"incomes all through the income distribution grew at about the same
+rate."_ Since 1980 (i.e., after working people were freed from the tyranny of
+unions), _"medium family income has risen only about 0.7 percent a year"_
+Median household income _"grew modestly"_ from 1973 to 2005, the total gain
+was about 16%. Yet this _"modest gain"_ may _"overstate"_ how well American
+families were doing, as it _was achieved in part through longer working
+hours._ For example, _"a gain in family income that occurs because a spouse
+goes to work isn't the same thing as a wage increase. In particular it may
+carry hidden costs that offset some of the gains in money."_ This stagnation
+is, of course, being denied by the right. Yet, as Krugman memorably puts it:
+_"Modern economists debate whether American median income has risen or fallen
+since the early 1970s. What's really telling is the fact that we're even
+having this debate."_ So while the average values may have went up, because of
+_"rising inequality, good performance in overall numbers like GDP hasn't
+translated into gains for ordinary workers."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 55, pp. 126-7,
+p. 124 and p. 201]
+
+Luckily for American capitalism a poll in 2000 found that 39% of Americans
+believe they are either in the wealthiest 1% or will be there _"soon"_! [Glyn,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 179] In fact, as we discussed in [section
+B.7.2](secB7.html#sec72), social mobility has **fallen** under neo-liberalism
+-- perhaps unsurprisingly as it is easier to climb a hill than a mountain.
+This is just as important as the explosion in inequality as the free-market
+right argue that dynamic social mobility makes up for wealth and income
+inequality. As Krugman notes, Americans _"may believe that anyone can succeed
+through hard work and determination, but the facts say otherwise."_ In
+reality, mobility is _"highest in the Scandinavian countries, and most results
+suggest that mobility is lower in the United States than it is in France,
+Canada, and maybe even in Britain. Not only don't Americans have equal
+opportunity, opportunity is less equal here than elsewhere in the West."_
+Without the blinkers of free market capitalist ideology this should be
+unsurprising: _"A society with highly unequal results is, more or less
+inevitably, a society with highly unequal opportunity, too."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
+p. 247 and p. 249]
+
Looking at the claim that trade union members gained their _"relative
advantage by keeping workers who are **worse off** from improving their
position"_ it would be fair to ask whether the percentage of workers in low-
@@ -534,110 +553,119 @@ percentage of workers below the Low Pay Unit's definition of low pay (namely
two-thirds of men's median earnings) **increased** \-- from 16.8% in 1984 to
26.2% in 1991 for men, 44.8% to 44.9% for women. For manual workers it rose by
15% to 38.4%, and for women by 7.7% to 80.7% (for non-manual workers the
-figures were 5.4% rise to 13.7% for men and a 0.5% rise to 36.6%). If unions
-**were** gaining at the expense of the worse off, you would expect a
-**decrease** in the number in low pay, **not** an increase. [**Paying for
-Inequality**, p.102] An OECD study concluded that _"[t]ypically, countries
-with high rates of collective bargaining and trade unionisation tend to have
-low incidence of low paid employment."_ [**OECD Employment Outlook**, 1996, p.
-94]
-
-Nor did unemployment fall after the trade union reforms. As Elliot and
-Atkinson point out, _"[b]y the time Blair came to power [in 1997],
-unemployment in Britain was falling, although it still remained higher than it
-had been when the [the last Labour Government of] Callaghan left office in May
-1979."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 258] Von Hayek did argue that falls in unemployment
-would be _"a slow process"_ but over 10 years of higher unemployment is moving
-at a snail's pace! And we must note that part of this fall in unemployment
-towards its 1970s level was due to Britain's labour force shrinking (and so,
-as the July 1997 Budget Statement correctly notes, _"the lower 1990s peak [in
-unemployment] does not in itself provide convincing evidence of improved
-labour performance."_ [p. 77]).
+figures were 5.4% rise to 13.7% for men and a 0.5% rise to 36.6%). [Andrew
+Glyn and David Miliband (eds.), **Op. Cit.**, p.102] If unions **were**
+gaining at the expense of the worse off, you would expect a **decrease** in
+the number in low pay, **not** an increase. An OECD study concluded that
+_"[t]ypically, countries with high rates of collective bargaining and trade
+unionisation tend to have low incidence of low paid employment."_ [**OECD
+Employment Outlook**, 1996, p. 94] Within America, we also discover that
+higher union density is associated with fewer workers earning around the
+minimum wage and that "right-to-work" states (i.e., those that pass anti-union
+laws) _"tend to have lower wages, lower standard of living, and more workers
+earning around the minimum wage."_ It is hard not to conclude that states
+_"passed laws aimed at making unionisation more difficult would imply that
+they sought to maintain the monopoly power of employers at the expense of
+workers."_ [Oren M. Levin-Waldman, _"The Minimum Wage and Regional Wage
+Structure: Implications for Income Distribution"_, pp. 635-57, **Journal of
+Economic Issues**, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3, p. 639 and p. 655]
As far as von Hayek's prediction on wage flexibility leading to the _"average
worker's income"_ rising fastest in a country where relative wages are
flexible, it has been proved totally wrong. Between 1967 and 1971, real wages
-grew (on average) by 2.95% per year (nominal wages grew by 8.94%) [P.
-Armstrong, A. Glyn and John Harrison, **Capitalism Since World War II**,
-p.272]. In comparison, in the 1990s real wages grew by 1.1 per cent, according
-to a TUC press release entitled **Productivity Record, how the UK compares**
-released in March 1999.
-
-Needless to say, these are different eras so it would also be useful to
-compare the UK (often praised as a flexible economy after Thatcher's
-"reforms") to France (considered far less flexible) in the 1990s. Here we find
-that the "flexible" UK is behind the "inflexible" France. Wages and benefits
-per worker rose by almost 1.2 per cent per year compared to 0.7% for the UK.
-France's GDP grew at a faster rate than Britain's, averaging 1.4 per cent per
-year, compared with 1.2 per cent. Worker productivity is also behind, since
-1979 (Thatcher's arrival) Britain's worker productivity has been 1.9 per cent
-per year compared to France's 2.2 per cent [Seth Ackerman, _"The Media Vote
-for Austerity"_, **Extra!**, September/October 1997]. And as Seth Ackerman
-also notes, _"[w]hile France's dismal record of job creation is on permanent
-exhibit, it is never mentioned that Britain's is even more dismal."_ [Ibid.]
-
-Moving further afield, we find von Hayek's prediction falsified yet again. If
-we look at the USA, frequently claimed as a model economy in terms of wage
-flexibility and union weakness, we discover that the real wages of the average
-worker has **decreased** since 1973 (the weekly and hourly earnings of US
-production and non-supervisory workers, which accounts for 80% of the US
-workforce, have fallen in real terms by 19.2% and 13.4% respectively
-[**Economic Report of the President 1995**, Table B-45]). If we look at
-figures from U.S. Bureau of the Census (Current Population Survey) we can see
-how increased flexibility has affected income:
-
-**Income Growth by Quintile** Quintile | 1950-1978| 1979-1993 | Lowest 20%| 138% | -15% | 2nd 20% | 98 | -7 | 3rd 20% | 106 | -3 | 4th 20% | 111 | 5 | Highest 20% | 99 | 18
-
-As can be seen, flexible wages and weaker unions have resulted in the direct
-opposite of von Hayek's predictions. Within the US itself, we discover that
-higher union density is associated with fewer workers earning around the
-minimum wage -- _"the percentage of those earning around the minimum wage are
-both substantially higher in right-to-work states [i.e. those that pass anti-
-union laws] than overall and lower in high union density states that overall"_
-and _"in right-to-work states . . . wages have traditionally been lower."_
-[Oren M. Levin-Waldman, **The Minimum Wage and Regional Wage Structure**] If
-unions **did** harm non-union workers, we would expect the opposite to occur.
-It does not. Of course, being utterly wrong has not dented his reputation with
-the right nor stopped him being quoted in arguments in favour of flexibility
-and free market reforms.
-
-Moreover, the growth of the US economy has also slowed down as wage
-flexibility and market reform has increased (it was 4.4% in the 1960s, 3.2% in
-the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half of the 1990s [Larry
-Elliot and Dan Atkinson, **The Age of Insecurity**, p. 236]). In addition,
-inequality in the US has dramatically increased since the 1970s, with income
-and wealth growth in the 1980s going predominately to the top 20% (and, in
-fact, mostly to the top 1% of the population). The bottom 80% of the
-population saw their wealth grow by 1.2% and their income by 23.7% in the
-1980s, while for the top 20% the respective figures were 98.2% and 66.3% (the
-figures for the top 1% were 61.6% and 38.9%, respectively). [Edward N. Wolff,
-_"How the Pie is Sliced"_, **The American Prospect**, no. 22, Summer 1995]
-
-Comparing the claims of von Hayek to what actually happened after trade union
-reform and the reduction of class struggle helps to suggest that the claims
-that social struggle is self-defeating are false (and probably self-serving,
-considering it is usually bosses and employer supported parties and economists
-who make these claims). A **lack** of social struggle has been correlated with
-low economic growth, stagnant (even declining) wages and the creation of
-purely paid service jobs to replace highly paid manufacturing ones. So while
-social struggle **may** make capital flee and other problems, lack of it is no
-guarantee of prosperity (quite the reverse, if the last quarter of the 20th
-century is anything to go by!). Indeed, a lack of social struggle will make
-bosses be more likely to cut wages, worsen working conditions and so on --
-after all, they feel they can get away with it! Which brings home the fact
-that _"to make their [the working class'] victory secure and definitive, it is
-necessary to destroy capitalism."_ [Errico Malatesta, **Life and Ideas**, p.
-191]
+grew (on average) by 2.95% per year in the UK (nominal wages grew by 8.94%)
+[P. Armstrong, A. Glyn and J. Harrison, **Capitalism Since World War II**, p.
+272]. In comparison, real household disposable income grew by just 0.5 percent
+between June 2006 and 2007. Average weekly earnings rose 2.9% between April
+2006 and 2007 while inflation rose by 3.6% (Retail Prices Index) and 2.8%
+(Consumer Prices Index). [Elliot and Atkinson, **The Gods That Failed**, p.
+163] This is part of a general pattern, with UK Real Wages per employee being
+an average 3.17% per year between 1960 and 1974, falling to 1.8% between 1980
+and 1999. In America, the equivalent figures are 2.37% and 1.02%. [Eckhard
+Hein and Thorsten Schulten, **Unemployment, Wages and Collective Bargaining in
+the European Union**, p. 9] Looking at the wider picture, during the early
+1970s when strikes and union membership increased, _"real wage increases rose
+steadily to reach over 4% per year"_ in the West. However, after von Hayek's
+anti-union views were imposed, _"real wages have grown very slowly."_ In anti-
+union America, the median wage was $13.62 in 2003 compared to $12.36 in 1979
+(reckoned in 2003 prices). In Europe and Japan _"average wages have done only
+a little better, having grown around 1% per year."_ [Glyn, **Op. Cit.**, p. 5
+and p. 116] It gets worse as these are average figures. Given that inequality
+soared during this period the limited gains of the neo-liberal era were not
+distributed as evenly as before (in the UK, for example, wage growth was
+concentrated at the top end of society. [Elliot and Atkinson, **Fantasy
+Island**, p. 99]).
+
+Nor can it be said that breaking the unions and lower real wages translated
+into lower unemployment in the UK as the average unemployment rate between
+1996 and 1997 was 7.1% compared to 4.5% between 1975 and 1979 (the year
+Thatcher took power). The average between 1960 and 1974 was 1.87% compared to
+8.7% over the whole Thatcherite period of 1980 to 1999. Perhaps this is not
+too surprising, given that (capitalist economic theology aside) unemployment
+_"systematically weakens the bargaining power of trade unions."_ In short:
+_"Neither on the theoretical nor empirical level can a strictly inverse
+relation between the real wage rate and the level of unemployment be
+derived."_ [Hein and Schulten, **Op. Cit.**, p. 9, p. 3 and p. 2] As we
+discussed in [section C.1.5](secC1.html#secc15) this should come as no
+surprise to anyone with awareness of the real nature of unemployment and the
+labour market. So unemployment did not fall after the trade union reforms,
+quite the reverse: _"By the time Blair came to power [in 1997], unemployment
+in Britain was falling, although it still remained higher than it had been
+when the [last Labour Government of] Callaghan left office in May 1979."_
+[Elliot and Atkinson, **Age of Insecurity**, p. 258] To be fair, von Hayek did
+argue that falls in unemployment would be _"a slow process"_ but nearly 20
+years of far higher unemployment is moving backwards!
+
+So we have a stark contrast between the assertions of the right and the
+reality their ideology helped create. The reason for this difference is not
+hard to discover. As economist Paul Krugman correctly argues unions _"raise
+average wages for their membership; they also, indirectly and to a lesser
+extent, raise wages for similar workers . . . as nonunionised employers try to
+diminish the appeal of union drives to their workers . . . unions tend to
+narrow income gaps among blue-collar workers, by negotiating bigger wage
+increases for their worse-paid members . . . And nonunion employers, seeking
+to forestall union organisers, tend to echo this effect."_ He argues that _"if
+there's a single reason blue-collar workers did so much better in the fifties
+than they had in the twenties, it was the rise of unions"_ and that unions
+_"were once an important factor limiting income inequality, both because of
+their direct effect in raising their members wages and because the union
+pattern of wage settlements . . . was . . . reflected in the labour market as
+a whole."_ With the smashing of the unions came rising inequality, with the
+_"sharpest increases in wage inequality in the Western world have taken place
+in the United States and in Britain, both of which experience sharp declines
+in union membership."_ Unions restrict inequality because _"they act as a
+countervailing force to management."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 51, p. 49, p. 149 and
+p. 263]
+
+So under the neo-liberal regime instigated by Thatcher and Reagan the power,
+influence and size of the unions were reduced considerably and real wage
+growth fell considerably -- which is the **exact** opposite of von Hayek's
+predictions. Flexible wages and weaker unions have harmed the position of
+**all** workers (Proudhon: _"Contrary to all expectation! It takes an
+economist not to expect these things"_ [**System of Economical
+Contradictions**, p. 203]). So comparing the claims of von Hayek to what
+actually happened after trade union "reform" and the reduction of class
+struggle suggests that claims that social struggle is self-defeating are false
+(and self-serving, considering it is usually bosses, employer supported
+parties and economists who make these claims). A **lack** of social struggle
+has been correlated with low economic growth and often stagnant (even
+declining) wages. So while social struggle **may** make capital flee and other
+problems, lack of it is no guarantee of prosperity (quite the reverse, if the
+last quarter of the 20th century is anything to go by). Indeed, a lack of
+social struggle will make bosses be more likely to cut wages, worsen working
+conditions and so on -- after all, they feel they can get away with it! Which
+brings home the fact that to make reforms last it is necessary to destroy
+capitalism.
Of course, no one can **know** that struggle will make things better. It is a
guess; no one can predict the future. Not all struggles are successful and
many can be very difficult. If the _"military is a role model for the business
-world"_ (in the words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations [quoted
-by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in **Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!**, p.
-47]), and it is, then **any** struggle against it and other concentrations of
-power may, and often is, difficult and dangerous at times. But, as Zapata once
-said, _"better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"_ All we can say
-is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in terms of its
+world"_ (in the words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations), and
+it is, then **any** struggle against it and other concentrations of power may,
+and often is, difficult and dangerous at times. [quoted by John Stauber and
+Sheldon Rampton in **Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!**, p. 47] But, as Zapata
+once said, _"better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"_ All we can
+say is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in terms of its
successes and transforming effect on those involved, well worth the potential
difficulties it can create. Moreover, without struggle there is little chance
of creating a free society, dependent as it is on individuals who refuse to
@@ -652,22 +680,52 @@ it or we put up with the all the petty (and not so petty) impositions of
authority. If we do not say "no" then the powers that be will walk all over
us.
-As the history of the last 20 years shows, a lack of social struggle is fully
+As the history of neo-liberalism shows, a lack of social struggle is fully
compatible with worsening conditions. Ultimately, if you want to be treated as
a human being you have to stand up for your dignity -- and that means thinking
-and rebelling. As Bakunin often argued, human development is based on thought
-and rebellion (see **God and the State**). Without rebellion, without social
-struggle, humanity would stagnant beneath authority forever and never be in a
-position to be free. We would agree wholeheartedly with the Abolitionist
-Frederick Douglass:
+and rebelling. As Bakunin argued in **God and the State**, human freedom and
+development is based on these. Without rebellion, without social struggle,
+humanity would stagnate beneath authority forever and never be in a position
+to be free. So anarchists agree wholeheartedly with the Abolitionist Frederick
+Douglass:
> _"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour
-freedom and yet deprecate agitation are people who want crops without plowing
-up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. That struggle
-might be a moral one; it might be a physical one; it might be both moral and
-physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand.
-It never did and never will. People might not get all that they work for in
-this world, but they must certainly work for all they get."_
+freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without
+ploughing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They
+want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters._
+
+> _"This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may
+be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing
+without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people
+will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong
+which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are
+resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
+prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."_ [**The Life and
+Writings of Frederick Douglass**, vol. 2, p. 437]
+
+Of course, being utterly wrong has not dented von Hayek's reputation with the
+right nor stopped him being quoted in arguments in favour of flexibility and
+free market reforms (what can we expect? The right still quote Milton Friedman
+whose track-record was equally impressive). Still, why let the actual
+development of the economies influenced by von Hayek's ideology get in the
+way? Perhaps it is fortunate that he once argued that economic theories can
+_"never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and
+must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case."_
+[**Individualism and Economic Order**, p. 73] With such a position all is
+saved -- the obvious problem is that capitalism is still not pure enough and
+the "reforms" must not only continue but be made deeper... As Kropotkin
+stressed, _"economists who continue to consider economic forces alone . . .
+without taking into account **the ideology of the State**, or the forces that
+each State necessarily places at the service of the rich . . . remain
+completely outside the realities of the economic and social world."_ [quoted
+by Ruth Kinna, _"Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change"_, pp.
+67-86, **SubStance**, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 72-3]
+
+And, needless to say, while three decades of successful capitalist class war
+goes without mention in polite circles, documenting its results gets you
+denounced as advocating "class war"! It is more than pass the time when
+working class people should make that a reality -- particularly given the
+results of not doing so.
## J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development for anarchists?
@@ -697,8 +755,8 @@ disarmament, like the liberation of women, saving the planet's ecosystem, and
preventing social breakdown, can never be attained without a shift of mass
consciousness involving widespread rejection of hierarchy, which is based on
the authoritarian principles of domination and exploitation. As C. George
-Bennello argued, _"[s]ince peace involves the positive process of replacing
-violence by other means of settling conflict. . . it can be argued that some
+Bennello argued: _"Since peace involves the positive process of replacing
+violence by other means of settling conflict . . . it can be argued that some
sort of institutional change is necessary. For if insurgency is satisfied with
specific reform goals, and does not seek to transform the institutional
structure of society by getting at its centralised make-up, the war system
@@ -707,23 +765,32 @@ decentralising: making institutions serve human ends again by getting humans
to be responsible at every level within them."_ [**From the Ground Up**, p.
31]
-When pursued along gender, class, racial, ethnic, or national lines, these two
-principles are the primary causes of resentment, hatred, anger, and hostility,
-which often explode into individual or organised violence. Therefore, both
-domestic and international peace depend on decentralisation, i.e. dismantling
-hierarchies, thus replacing domination and exploitation by the anarchist
-principles of co-operation, sharing, and mutual aid.
+When pursued along gender, class, racial, ethnic, or national lines,
+domination and exploitation are the primary causes of resentment, hatred,
+anger, and hostility, which often explode into individual or organised
+violence. Given this, both domestic and international peace depend on
+decentralisation, i.e. dismantling hierarchies, thus replacing domination and
+exploitation by the anarchist principles of co-operation and mutual aid.
-But direct democracy is the other side of decentralisation. In order for an
+Direct democracy is the other side of decentralisation. In order for an
organisation to spread power horizontally rather than concentrating it at the
-apex of hierarchy, all of its members have to have an equal voice in making
-the decisions that affect them. Hence decentralisation implies direct
-democracy. So the peace movement implies anarchism, because world peace is
-impossible without both decentralisation and direct democracy. Moreover,
-_"[s]o long as profits are tied to defence production, speaking truth to the
-elites involved is not likely to get very far"_ as _"it is only within the
-boundaries of the profit system that the corporate elites would have any space
-to move."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 34] Thus the peace movement implicitly contains a
+apex of a hierarchy, all of its members have to have an equal voice in making
+the decisions that affect them. Hence decentralisation implies self-
+management. So, anarchists argue, the peace movement implies anarchism because
+world peace is impossible without both decentralisation and direct democracy
+(_"a federated people would be a people organised for peace; what would they
+do with armies?"_ [Proudhon, **Du Principe Fdratif**, pp. 320-1]). As Benello
+correctly argued, the _"anarchist perspective has an unparalleled relevance
+today because prevailing nuclear policies can be considered as an ultimate
+stage in the divergence between the interests of governments and their peoples
+. . . the implications when revealed serve to raise fundamental questions
+regarding the advisability of entrusting governments with questions of life
+and death . . . There is thus a pressing impetus to re-think the role, scale,
+and structure of national governments."_ Moreover, _"[s]o long as profits are
+tied to defence production, speaking truth to the elites involved is not
+likely to get very far"_ as _"it is only within the boundaries of the profit
+system that the corporate elites would have any space to move."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 138 and p. 34] Thus the peace movement implicitly contains a
libertarian critique of both forms of the power system -- the political and
economical.
@@ -732,14 +799,7 @@ suggest anarchistic elements. The use of non-violent direct action to protest
against the war machine can only be viewed as a positive development by
anarchists. Not only does it use effective, anarchistic methods of struggle it
also radicalises those involved, making them more receptive to anarchist ideas
-and analysis (after all, as Benello correctly argues, the _"anarchist
-perspective has an unparalleled relevance today because prevailing nuclear
-policies can be considered as an ultimate stage in the divergence between the
-interests of governments and their peoples . . . the implications when
-revealed serve to raise fundamental questions regarding the advisability of
-entrusting governments with questions of life and death. . . There is thus a
-pressing impetus to re-think the role, scale, and structure of national
-governments."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 138]).
+and analysis.
If we look at the implications of _"nuclear free zones"_ we can detect
anarchistic tendencies within them. A nuclear free zone involves a town or
@@ -748,7 +808,7 @@ industrial complex. They prohibit the research, production, transportation and
deployment of nuclear weapons as well as renouncing the right to be defended
by nuclear power. This movement was popular in the 1980s, with many areas in
Europe and the Pacific Basin declaring that they were nuclear free zones. As
-Benello points out, _"[t]he development of campaigns for nuclear free zones
+Benello pointed out, _"[t]he development of campaigns for nuclear free zones
suggests a strategy which can educate and radicalise local communities.
Indeed, by extending the logic of the nuclear free zone idea, we can begin to
flesh out a libertarian municipalist perspective which can help move our
@@ -756,34 +816,28 @@ communities several steps towards autonomy from both the central government
and the existing corporate system."_ While the later development of these
initiatives did not have the radicalising effects that Benello hoped for, they
did _"represent a local initiative that does not depend on the federal
-government for action. Thus it is a step toward local empowerment. . . Steps
+government for action. Thus it is a step toward local empowerment . . . Steps
that increase local autonomy change the power relations between the centre and
-its colonies. . . The nuclear free zone movement has a thrust which is clearly
-congruent with anarchist ideas. . . The same motives which go into the
-declaration of a nuclear free zone would dictate that in other areas where the
-state and the corporate systems services are dysfunctional and involve
-excessive costs, they should be dispensed with."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 137, pp.
-140-1]
+its colonies . . . The nuclear free zone movement has a thrust which is
+clearly congruent with anarchist ideas . . . The same motives which go into
+the declaration of a nuclear free zone would dictate that in other areas where
+the state and the corporate systems services are dysfunctional and involve
+excessive costs, they should be dispensed with."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 137 and
+pp. 140-1]
The social justice movement is composed of people seeking fair and
compassionate solutions to problems such as poverty, unemployment, economic
exploitation, discrimination, poor housing, lack of health insurance, wealth
-and income inequalities, and the like. Such concerns have traditionally been
-associated with the left, especially with socialism and trade-unionism.
-Recently, however, many radicals have begun to perceive the limitations of
-both Marxist-Leninist and traditional trade-unionist solutions to social
-justice problems, particularly insofar as these solutions involve hierarchical
-organisations and authoritarian values.
-
-Following the widespread disillusionment with statism and centrally planned
-economies generated by the failure of "Communism" in the ex-Soviet Union and
-Eastern European nations, many radicals, while retaining their commitment to
-social justice issues, have been searching for new approaches. And in doing so
-they've been drawn into alliances with ecologists, feminists, and members of
-the peace movement. (This has occurred particularly among the German Greens,
-many of whom are former Marxists. So far, however, few of the latter have
-declared themselves to be anarchists, as the logic of the ecology movement
-requires.)
+and income inequalities, and the like. In the aftermath of decades of
+especially single-minded pursuit of this priority by neo-liberal
+administrations, the United States, for example, is reaping the grim harvest:
+wages stagnate, personal debt soars, homelessness stalks the streets; social
+welfare budgets are slashed to the bone while poverty, unemployment, and
+underemployment grow; sweatshops mushrooming in the large cities; millions of
+Americans without any health insurance while others face rocketing costs;
+obscene wealth inequalities and falling social mobility; and so on. Britain
+under the neo-liberal policies of Thatcher, Major and Blair experienced a
+social deterioration similar to that in the US.
It is not difficult to show that the major problems concerning the social
justice movement can all be traced back to the hierarchy and domination. For,
@@ -791,77 +845,46 @@ given the purpose of hierarchy, the highest priority of the elites who control
the state is necessarily to maintain their own power and privileges,
regardless of the suffering involved for subordinate classes.
-Today, in the aftermath of 12 years of especially single-minded pursuit of
-this priority by two Republican administrations, the United States, for
-example, is reaping the grim harvest: armies of the homeless wandering the
-streets; social welfare budgets slashed to the bone as poverty, unemployment,
-and underemployment grow; sweatshops mushrooming in the large cities; over 43
-million Americans without any health insurance; obscene wealth inequalities;
-and so on. This decay promises to accelerate in the US during the coming
-years, now that Republicans control both houses of Congress. Britain under the
-neo-liberal policies of Thatcher and Major has experienced a social
-deterioration similar to that in the US.
-
In short, social injustice is inherent in the exploitative functions of the
-state, which are made possible by the authoritarian form of state institutions
-and of the state-complex as a whole. Similarly, the authoritarian form of the
-corporation (and capitalist companies in general) gives rise to social
-injustice as unfair income differentials and wealth disparity between
-owners/management and labour.
-
-Hence the success of the social justice movement, like that of the feminist,
+state, which are made possible by the authoritarian form of state
+institutions. Similarly, the authoritarian structure of capitalist companies
+gives rise to social injustice due to exploitation producing massive income
+differentials and wealth disparity between owners/management and labour. Hence
+the success of the social justice movement, like that of the feminist,
ecology, and peace movements, depends on dismantling hierarchies. This means
-not only that these movement all imply anarchism but that they are related in
-such a way that it's impossible to conceive one of them achieving its goals in
-isolation from any of the others.
-
-To take just one example, let's consider the relationship between social
-justice and peace, which can be seen by examining a specific social justice
-issue: labour rights.
-
-As Dimitrios Roussopoulos points out, the production of advanced weapons
-systems is highly profitable for capitalists, which is why more
-technologically complex and precise weapons keep getting built with government
-help (with the public paying the tab by way of rising taxes).
-
-Now, we may reasonably argue that it's a fundamental human right to be able to
-choose freely whether or not one will personally contribute to the production
-of technologies that could lead to the extinction of the human race. Yet
-because of the authoritarian form of the capitalist corporation, rank-and-file
-workers have virtually no say in whether the companies for which they work
-will produce such technologies. (To the objection that workers can always quit
-if they don't like company policy, the reply is that they may not be able to
-find other work and therefore that the choice is not free but coerced.) Hence
-the only way that ordinary workers can obtain the right to be consulted on
-life-or-death company policies is to control the production process
-themselves, through self-management.
-
-But we can't expect real self-management to emerge from the present labour
-relations system in which centralised unions bargain with employers for
-"concessions" but never for a dissolution of the authoritarian structure of
-the corporation. As Roussopoulos puts it, self-management, by definition, must
-be struggled for locally by workers themselves at the grassroots level:
-
-> _"Production for need and use will not come from the employer. The owners of
-production in a capitalist society will never begin to take social priorities
-into account in the production process. The pursuit of ever greater profits is
-not compatible with social justice and responsibility."_ [**Dissidence**]
+not only that these movements all imply anarchism but that they are related in
+such a way that it is impossible to conceive one of them achieving its goals
+in isolation from any of the others. To take just one example, let us consider
+the relationship between social justice and peace, which can be seen by
+examining a specific social justice issue: labour rights.
+
+The production of advanced weapons systems is highly profitable for
+capitalists, which is why more technologically complex and precise weapons
+keep getting built with government help (with the public paying the tab by way
+of taxes). Now, we may reasonably argue that it is a fundamental human right
+to be able to choose freely whether or not one will personally contribute to
+the production of technologies that could lead to the extinction of the human
+race. Yet because of the authoritarian form of the capitalist corporation,
+rank-and-file workers have virtually no say in whether the companies for which
+they work will produce such technologies. (To the objection that workers can
+always quit if they don't like company policy, the reply is that they may not
+be able to find other work and therefore that the choice is not genuinely
+free). Hence the only way that ordinary workers can obtain the right to be
+consulted on life-or-death company policies is to control the production
+process themselves, through self-management as production for need and use
+will never come from the employer. The owners of production in a capitalist
+society will never begin to take social priorities into account in the
+production process. The pursuit of ever greater profits is not compatible with
+social justice and responsibility.
For these reasons, the peace and social justice movements are fundamentally
-linked through their shared need for a worker-controlled economy.
-
-We should also note in this context that the impoverished ghetto environments
-in which the worst victims of social injustice are forced to live tends to
-desensitise them to human pain and suffering -- a situation that is
-advantageous for military recruiters, who are thereby able to increase the
-ranks of the armed forces with angry, brutalised, violence-prone individuals
-who need little or no extra conditioning to become the remorseless killers
-prized by the military command. Moreover, extreme poverty makes military
-service one of the few legal economic options open to such individuals. These
-considerations illustrate further links between the peace and social justice
-movements -- and between those movements and anarchism, which is the
-conceptual "glue" that can potentially unite all the new social movement in a
-single anti-authoritarian coalition.
+linked through their shared need for a worker-controlled economy. Moreover,
+extreme poverty makes military service one of the few legal options open for
+many individuals to improve their social situation. These considerations
+illustrate further links between the peace and social justice movements -- and
+between those movements and anarchism, which is the conceptual "glue" that can
+potentially unite all the new social movement in a single anti-authoritarian
+coalition.
## J.4.4 What is the _"economic structural crisis"_?
@@ -871,162 +894,158 @@ has seen a continual worsening in economic performance in the West and for
Japan. For example, growth is lower, unemployment is far higher, labour
productivity lower as is investment. Average rates of unemployment in the
major industrialised countries have risen sharply since 1973, especially after
-1979. Unemployment _"in the advanced capitalist countries (the 'Group of 7'. .
-.) increased by 56 per cent between 1973 and 1980 (from an average 3.4 per
-cent to 5.3 per cent of the labour force) and by another 50 per cent since
-then (from 5.3 per cent of the labour force in 1980 to 8.0 per cent in
-19994)."_ [Takis Fotopoulos, **Towards and Inclusive Democracy**, p. 35] Job
-insecurity has increased (in the USA, for example, there is the most job
-insecurity since the depression of the 1930s [**Op. Cit.**, p. 141]). In
-addition, both national economies and the international economy have become
-far less stable.
+1979. Unemployment _"in the advanced capitalist countries . . . increased by
+56 per cent between 1973 and 1980 (from an average 3.4 per cent to 5.3 per
+cent of the labour force) and by another 50 per cent since then (from 5.3 per
+cent of the labour force in 1980 to 8.0 per cent in 1994)."_ Job insecurity
+has increased with, for example, the USA, having the worse job insecurity
+since the depression of the 1930s. [Takis Fotopoulos, **Towards and Inclusive
+Democracy**, p. 35 and p. 141] In addition, the world economy have become far
+less stable with regular financial crises sweeping the world of de-regulated
+capitalism every few years or so.
This crisis is not confined to the economy. It extends into the ecological and
-the social. _"In recent years,"_ point out Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson,
-_"some radical economics have tried to [create] . . . an all-embracing measure
-of well-being called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare [ISEW] . . . In
-the 1950s and 1960s the ISEW rose in tandem with per capita GDP. It was a time
-not just of rising incomes, but of greater social equity, low crime, full
-employment and expanding welfare states. But from the mid-1970s onwards the
-two measures started to move apart. GDP per head continued its inexorable
-rise, but the ISEW start to decline as a result of lengthening dole queues,
-social exclusion, the explosion in crime, habitat loss, environmental
-degradation and the growth of environment- and stress-related illness. By the
-start of the 1990s, the ISEW was almost back to the levels at which it started
-in the early 1990s."_ [**The Age of Insecurity**, p. 248] Which indicates well
-our comments in [section C.10](secC10.html), namely that economic factors
-cannot, and do not, indicate human happiness. However, here we discuss
-economic factors. This does not imply that the social and ecological crises
-are unimportant or are reducible to the economy. Far from it. We concentrate
-on the economic factor simply because this is the factor usually stressed by
-the establishment and it is useful to indicate the divergence of reality and
-hype we are currently being subjected to.
-
-Ironically enough, as Robert Brenner points out, _"as the neo-classical
-medicine has been administered in even stronger doses [since the 1960s], the
-economy has performed steadily less well. The 1970s were worse than the 1960s,
-the 1980s worse than the 1970s, and the 1990s have been worse than the
-1980s."_ [_"The Economics of Global Turbulence"_, **New Left Review**, no.
-229, p. 236] This is ironic because during the crisis of Keynesianism in the
-1970s the right argued that too much equality and democracy harmed the
-economy, and so us all in the long run (due to lower growth, sluggish
-investment and so on). However, after over a decade of pro-capitalist
-governments, rising inequality, increased freedom for capital and its owners
-and managers, the weakening of trade unions and so on, economic performance
-has become worse!
+the social, with the quality of life and well-being decreasing as GDP grows
+(as we noted in [section C.10](secC10.html), economic factors cannot, and do
+not, indicate human happiness). However, here we discuss economic factors.
+This does not imply that the social and ecological crises are unimportant or
+are reducible to the economy. Far from it. We concentrate on the economic
+factor simply because this is the factor usually stressed by the establishment
+and it is useful to indicate the divergence of reality and hype we are
+currently being subjected to.
+
+Ironically enough, as Marxist Robert Brenner points out, _"as the neo-
+classical medicine has been administered in even stronger doses, the economy
+has performed steadily less well. The 1970s were worse than the 1960s, the
+1980s worse than the 1970s, and the 1990s have been worse than the 1980s."_
+[_"The Economics of Global Turbulence"_, **New Left Review**, no. 229, p. 236]
+This is ironic because during the crisis of Keynesianism in the 1970s the
+right argued that too much equality and democracy harmed the economy, and so
+us all worse-of in the long run (due to lower growth, sluggish investment and
+so on). However, after decades of pro-capitalist governments, rising
+inequality, increased freedom for capital and its owners and managers, the
+weakening of trade unions and so on, economic growth has become worse!
If we look at the USA in the 1990s (usually presented as an economy that "got
it right") we find that the _"cyclical upturn of the 1990s has, in terms of
the main macro-economic indicators of growth -- output, investment,
productivity, and real compensation \-- has been even less dynamic than its
relatively weak predecessors of the 1980s and the 1970s (not to mention those
-of the 1950s and 1960s)."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 5] Of course, the economy is
-presented as a success because inequality is growing, the rich are getting
-richer and wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands. For the rich
-and finance capital, it can be considered a "Golden Age" and so is presented
-as such by the media. Indeed, it is for this reason that it may be wrong to
-term this slow rot a "crisis" as it is hardly one for the ruling elite. Their
-share in social wealth, power and income has steadily increased over this
-period. For the majority it is undoubtedly a crisis (the term _"silent
-depression"_ has been accurately used to describe this) but for those who run
-the system it has by no means been a crisis.
-
-Indeed, the only countries which saw substantial and dynamic growth after 1973
-where those which used state intervention to violate the eternal "laws" of
-neo-classical economics, namely the South East Asian countries (in this they
+of the 1950s and 1960s)."_ [Brenner, **Op. Cit.**, p. 5] Of course, the
+economy is presented as a success -- inequality is growing, the rich are
+getting richer and wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands and so
+for the rich and finance capital, it can be considered a "Golden Age" and so
+is presented as such by the media. As economist Paul Krugman summarises, in
+America while the bulk of the population are working longer and harder to make
+ends meet _"the really big gains went to the really, really rich."_ In fact,
+_only the top 1 percent has done better since the 1970s than it did in the
+generation after World War II. Once you get way up the scale, however, the
+gains have been spectacular -- the top tenth of a percent saw its income rise
+fivefold, and the top .01 percent of American is seven times richer than they
+were in 1973."_ Significantly, _the top 0.1% of Americans, a class with a
+minimum income of about $1.3 million and an average of about $3.5 million,
+receives more than 7 percent of all income -- up from just 2.2 percent in
+1979."_ [**The Conscience of a Liberal**, p. 129 and p. 259]
+
+So it is for this reason that it may be wrong to term this slow rot a "crisis"
+as it is hardly one for the ruling elite as their share in social wealth,
+power and income has steadily increased over this period. However, for the
+majority it is undoubtedly a crisis (the term _"silent depression"_ has been
+accurately used to describe this). Unsurprisingly, when the chickens came home
+to roost under the Bush Junta and the elite faced economic collapse, the state
+bailed them out.
+
+The only countries which saw substantial and dynamic growth after 1973 where
+those which used state intervention to violate the eternal "laws" of neo-
+classical economics, namely the South East Asian countries (in this they
followed the example of Japan which had used state intervention to grow at
massive rates after the war). Of course, before the economic crisis of 1997,
-"free market" capitalists argued that these countries were classic examples of
-"free market" economies. For example, right-wing icon F.A von Hayek asserted
-that _"South Korea and other newcomers"_ had _"discovered the benefits of free
-markets"_ when, in fact, they had done nothing of the kind [_"1980s
-Unemployment and the Unions"_ reproduced in **The Economic Decline of Modern
-Britain**, p. 113]. More recently, in 1995, the **Heritage Foundation**
-released its index of economic freedom. Four of the top seven countries were
-Asian, including Japan and Taiwan. All the Asian countries struggling just
-four years latter were qualified as "free." However, as Takis Fotopoulos
-argues, _"it was not **laissez-faire** policies that induced their spectacular
-growth. As a number of studies have shown, the expansion of the Asian Tigers
-was based on massive state intervention that boosted their export sectors, by
-public policies involving not only heavy protectionism but even deliberate
-distortion of market prices to stimulate investment and trade."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 115] After the crisis, the free-marketeers discovered the statism
-that had always been there and danced happily on the grave of what used to be
-called _"the Asian miracle."_
-
-Such hypocrisy is truly sickening and smacks of a Stalinist/Orwellian desire
-to re-write history so as to appear always right. Moreover, such a cynical
-analysis actually undermines their own case for the wonders of the "free
-market." After all, until the crisis appeared, the world's investors -- which
-is to say "the market" -- saw nothing but blue skies ahead for these
-economies. They showed their faith by shoving billions into Asian equity
-markets, while foreign banks contentedly handed out billions in loans. If
-Asia's problems are systemic and the result of these countries' statist
+capitalist ideologues argued that these countries were classic examples of
+"free market" economies. Right-wing icon F.A von Hayek asserted that _"South
+Korea and other newcomers"_ had _"discovered the benefits of free markets."_
+[**1980s Unemployment and the Unions**, p. 113] In 1995, the **Heritage
+Foundation** (a right-wing think-tank) released its index of economic freedom.
+Four of the top seven countries were Asian, including Japan and Taiwan. All
+the Asian countries struggling just a few years later qualified as "free."
+Yet, as mentioned in [section C.10.1](secC10.html#secc101), such claims were
+manifestly false: _"it was not **laissez-faire** policies that induced their
+spectacular growth. As a number of studies have shown, the expansion of the
+Asian Tigers was based on massive state intervention that boosted their export
+sectors, by public policies involving not only heavy protectionism but even
+deliberate distortion of market prices to stimulate investment and trade."_
+[Fotopoulos, **Op. Cit.**, p. 115] Moreover, for a long period these countries
+also banned unions and protest, but then for the right "free markets" always
+seem compatible with lack of freedom for workers to organise.
+
+Needless to say, **after** the crisis of the late 1990s, the free-marketeers
+discovered the statism that had always been there and danced happily on the
+grave of what used to be called _"the Asian miracle"_. It was perverse to see
+the supporters of "free-market" capitalism concluding that history was
+rendering its verdict on the Asian model of capitalism while placing into the
+Memory Hole the awkward fact that until the crisis they themselves had taken
+great pains to deny that such a model existed! Such hypocrisy is not only
+truly sickening, it also undermines their own case for the wonders of "the
+market." For until the crisis appeared, the world's investors -- which is to
+say "the market" -- saw nothing but golden opportunities ahead for these
+"free" economies. They showed their faith by shoving billions into Asian
+equity markets, while foreign banks contentedly handed out billions in loans.
+If Asia's problems were systemic and the result of these countries' statist
policies, then investors' failure to recognise this earlier is a blow against
the market, not for it.
-Still more perverse is that, even as the supporters of "free-market"
-capitalism conclude that history is rendering its verdict on the Asian model
-of capitalism, they seem to forget that until the recent crisis they
-themselves took great pains to deny that such a model existed. Until Asia fell
-apart, supporters of "free-market" capitalism happily held it up as proof that
-the only recipe for economic growth was open markets and non-intervention on
-the part of the state. Needless to say, this re-writing of history will be
-placed down the memory-hole, along with any other claims which have
-subsequently been proved utter nonsense.
-
So, as can be seen, the global economy has been marked by an increasing
-stagnation, the slowing down of growth, in the western economies (for example,
-the 1990s business upswing has been the weakest since the end of the Second
-World War). This is despite (or, more likely, **because of**) the free market
-reforms imposed and the deregulation of finance capital (we say "because of"
-simply because neo-classical economics argue that pro-market reforms would
-increase growth and improve the economy, but as we argued in [section
-C](secCcon.html) such economics have little basis in reality and so their
-recommendations are hardly going to produce positive results). Of course as
-the ruling class have been doing well in this New World Order this underlying
-slowdown has been ignored and obviously
-
-In recent years crisis (particularly financial crisis) has become increasingly
-visible, reflecting (finally) the underlying weakness of the global economy.
-This underlying weakness has been hidden by the speculator performance of the
-world's stock markets, whose performance, ironically enough, have helped
+stagnation, the slowing down of growth, weak (and jobless) recoveries,
+speculative bubbles driving what growth there is and increasing financial
+instability producing regular and deepening crisis. This is despite (or, more
+likely, **because of**) the free market reforms imposed and the deregulation
+of finance capital (we say "because of" simply because neo-classical economics
+argue that pro-market reforms would increase growth and improve the economy,
+but as we noted in [section C.1](secC1.html) such economics has little basis
+in reality and so their recommendations are hardly going to produce positive
+results). Of course as the ruling class have been doing well this underlying
+slowdown has been ignored and obviously claims of crisis are only raised when
+economic distress reach the elite.
+
+Crisis (particularly financial crisis) has become increasingly visible,
+reflecting the underlying weakness of the global economy (rising inequality,
+lack of investment in producing real goods in favour of speculation in
+finance, etc.). This underlying weakness has been hidden by the speculator
+performance of the world's stock markets, which, ironically enough, has helped
create that weakness to begin with! As one expert on Wall Street argues,
_"Bond markets . . . hate economic strength . . . Stocks generally behave
-badly just as the real economy is at its strongest. . . Stocks thrive on a
-cool economy, and wither in a hot one."_ [**Wall Street**, p. 124] In other
-words, real economic weakness is reflected in financial strength.
-
-Henwood also notes that _"[w]hat might be called the rentier share of the
-corporate surplus -- dividends plus interest as a percentage of pre-tax
-profits and interest -- has risen sharply, from 20-30% in the 1950s to 60% in
-the 1990s."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 73] This helps explain the stagnation which has
-afflicted the economies of the west. The rich have been placing more of their
-ever-expanding wealth in stocks, allowing this market to rise in the face of
-general economic torpor. Rather than being used for investment, surplus is
-being funnelled into the finance markets, markets which do concentrate wealth
-very successfully (retained earnings in the US have decreased as interest and
-dividend payments have increased [Brenner, **Op. Cit.**, p. 210]). Given that
-_"the US financial system performs dismally at its advertised task, that of
-efficiently directing society's savings towards their optimal investment
-pursuits. The system is stupefyingly expensive, gives terrible signals for the
-allocation of capital, and has surprisingly little to do with real
-investment."_ [Henwood, **Op. Cit.**, p. 3] As most investment comes from
-internal funds, the rise in the rentiers (those who derive their incomes from
-returns on capital) share of the surplus has meant less investment and so the
-stagnation of the economy. And the weakening economy has increased financial
-strength, which in turn leads to a weakening in the real economy. A viscous
+badly just as the real economy is at its strongest . . . Stocks thrive on a
+cool economy, and wither in a hot one."_ In other words, real economic
+weakness is reflected in financial strength. Unsurprisingly, then, _"[w]hat
+might be called the rentier share of the corporate surplus -- dividends plus
+interest as a percentage of pre-tax profits and interest -- has risen sharply,
+from 20-30% in the 1950s to 60% in the 1990s."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall
+Street**, p. 124 and p. 73]
+
+This helps explain the stagnation which has afflicted the economies of the
+west. The rich have been placing more of their ever-expanding wealth in
+stocks, allowing this market to rise in the face of general economic torpor.
+Rather than being used for investment, surplus is being funnelled into the
+finance market (retained earnings in the US have decreased as interest and
+dividend payments have increased [Brenner, **Op. Cit.**, p. 210]). However,
+such markets do concentrate wealth very successfully even if _"the US
+financial system performs dismally at its advertised task, that of efficiently
+directing society's savings towards their optimal investment pursuits. The
+system is stupefyingly expensive, gives terrible signals for the allocation of
+capital, and has surprisingly little to do with real investment."_ [Henwood,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 3] As most investment comes from internal funds, the rise in
+the rentiers share of the surplus has meant less investment and so the
+stagnation of the economy. The weakening economy has increased financial
+strength, which in turn leads to a weakening in the real economy. A vicious
circle, and one reflected in the slowing of economic growth over the last 30
years.
-In effect, especially since the end of the 1970s, has seen the increasing
-dominance of finance capital. This dominance has, in effect, created a market
-for government policies as finance capital has become increasingly global in
-nature. Governments must secure, protect and expand the field of profit-making
+The increasing dominance of finance capital has, in effect, created a market
+for government policies. As finance capital has become increasingly global in
+nature governments must secure, protect and expand the field of profit-making
for financial capital and transnational corporations, otherwise they will be
-punished by the global markets (i.e. finance capital). These policies have
-been at the expense of the underlying economy in general, and of the working
-class in particular:
+punished by dis-investment by global markets (i.e. finance capital). These
+policies have been at the expense of the underlying economy in general, and of
+the working class in particular:
> _"Rentier power was directed at labour, both organised and unorganised ranks
of wage earners, because it regarded rising wages as a principal threat to the
@@ -1035,59 +1054,73 @@ but financial markets understood the centrality of the struggle: protecting
the value of their capital required the suppression of labour incomes."_
[William Greider, **One World, Ready or Not**, p. 302]
+For example, _"the practical effect of finance capital's hegemony was to lock
+the advanced economies and their governments in a malignant spiral,
+restricting them to bad choices. Like bondholders in general, the new
+governing consensus explicitly assumed that faster economic growth was
+dangerous -- threatening to the stable financial order -- so nations were
+effectively blocked from measures that might reduce permanent unemployment or
+ameliorate the decline in wages . . . The reality of slow growth, in turn,
+drove the governments into their deepening indebtedness, since the
+disappointing growth inevitably undermined tax revenues while it expanded the
+public welfare costs. The rentier regime repeatedly instructed governments to
+reform their spending priorities -- that is, withdraw benefits from dependent
+citizens."_ [Greider, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 297-8]
+
Of course, industrial capital **also** hates labour, so there is a basis of an
alliance between the two sides of capital, even if they do disagree over the
specifics of the economic policies implemented. Given that a key aspect of the
neo-liberal reforms was the transformation of the labour market from a post-
-war sellers' market to a nineteenth century buyers' market, with its effects
-on factory discipline, wage claims and proneness to strike, industrial capital
-could not but be happy with its effects. Doug Henwood correctly argues that
-_"Liberals and populists often search for potential allies among
-industrialists, reasoning that even if financial interests suffer in a boom,
-firms that trade in real, rather than fictitious, products would thrive when
-growth is strong. In general, industrialists are less sympathetic to these
-arguments. Employers in any industry like slack in the labour market; it makes
-for a pliant workforce, one unlikely to make demands or resist speedups."_ In
-addition, _"many non-financial corporations have heavy financial interests."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 123, p. 135]
+war sellers' market to a nineteenth century buyers' market with its related
+effects on workplace discipline, wage claims and proneness to strike,
+industrial capital could not but be happy even if its members quibbled over
+details. Doug Henwood correctly argues that _"Liberals and populists often
+search for potential allies among industrialists, reasoning that even if
+financial interests suffer in a boom, firms that trade in real, rather than
+fictitious, products would thrive when growth is strong. In general,
+industrialists are less sympathetic to these arguments. Employers in any
+industry like slack in the labour market; it makes for a pliant workforce, one
+unlikely to make demands or resist speedups."_ In addition, _"many non-
+financial corporations have heavy financial interests."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 123
+and p. 135]
Thus the general stagnation afflicting much of the world, a stagnation which
-has developed into crisis as the needs of finance have undermined the real
+regularly develop into open crisis as the needs of finance undermine the real
economy which, ultimately, it is dependent upon. The contradiction between
short term profits and long term survival inherent in capitalism strikes
again.
Crisis, as we have noted above, has appeared in areas previously considered as
strong economies and it has been spreading. An important aspect of this crisis
-is the tendency for productive capacity to outstrip effective demand (i.e. the
-tendency to over-invest relative to the available demand), which arises in
-large part from the imbalance between capitalists' need for a high rate of
-profit and their simultaneous need to ensure that workers have enough wealth
-and income so that they can keep buying the products on which those profits
-depend (see [section C](secCcon.html)). Inequality has been increasing in the
-USA, which means that the economy faces as realisation crisis (see [section
-C.7](secC7.html)), a crisis which has so far been avoided by deepening debt
-for working people (debt levels more than doubled between the 1950s to the
-1990s, from 25% to over 60%).
-
-Over-investment has been magnified in the East-Asian Tigers as they were
-forced to open their economies to global finance. These economies, due to
-their intervention in the market (and repressive regimes against labour)
-ensured they were a more profitable place to invest than elsewhere. Capital
-flooded into the area, ensuring a relative over-investment was inevitable. As
-we argued in [section C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72), crisis is possible simply due
-to the lack of information provided by the price mechanism -- economic agents
-can react in such a way that the collective result of individually rational
-decisions is irrational. Thus the desire to reap profits in the Tiger
-economies resulted in a squeeze in profits as the aggregate investment
-decisions resulted in over-investment, and so over-production and falling
-profits.
-
-In effect, the South East Asian economies suffered from a problem termed the
-"fallacy of composition." When you are the first Asian export-driven economy,
-you are competing with high-cost Western producers and so your cheap workers,
-low taxes and lax environmental laws allow you to under-cut your competitors
-and make profits. However, as more tigers joined into the market, they end up
+is the tendency for productive capacity to outstrip effective demand, which
+arises in large part from the imbalance between capitalists' need for a high
+rate of profit and their simultaneous need to ensure that workers have enough
+wealth and income so that they can keep buying the products on which those
+profits depend. Inequality has been increasing particularly in neo-liberal
+countries like the UK and USA, which means that the economy faces as
+realisation crisis (see [section C.7](secC7.html)), a crisis which was avoided
+in the short-term by deepening debt for working people (debt levels more than
+doubled between the 1950s to the 1990s, from 25% to over 60%). In 2007, the
+chickens came hole to roost with a global credit crunch much worse than the
+previous finance crises of the neo-liberal era.
+
+Over-investment has been magnified due to the East-Asian Tigers and China
+which, thanks to their intervention in the market (and repressive regimes
+against labour), ensured they were a more profitable place to invest than
+elsewhere. Capital flooded into the area, ensuring a relative over-investment
+was inevitable. As we argued in [section C.7.2](secC7.html#secc72), crisis is
+possible simply due to the lack of information provided by the price mechanism
+-- economic agents can react in such a way that the collective result of
+individually rational decisions is irrational. Thus the desire to reap profits
+in the Tiger economies resulted in a squeeze in profits as the aggregate
+investment decisions resulted in over-investment, and so over-production and
+falling profits.
+
+In effect, the South East Asian economies suffered from the "fallacy of
+composition." When you are the first Asian export-driven economy, you are
+competing with high-cost Western producers and so your cheap workers, low
+taxes and lax environmental laws allow you to under-cut your competitors and
+make profits. However, as more tigers joined into the market, they end up
competing against **each other** and so their profit margins would decrease
towards their actual cost price rather than that of Western firms. With the
decrease in profits, the capital that flowed into the region flowed back out,
@@ -1105,159 +1138,103 @@ exploit. For the very process of "development" stimulated by the presence of
Transnational Corporations in third-world nations increases competition and
so, potentially, over-investment and, even more importantly, produces
resistance in the form of unions, rebellions and so on, which tend to exert a
-downward pressure on the level of exploitation and profits (for example, in
-South Korea, labour' share in value-added increased from 23 to 30 per cent, in
-stark contrast to the USA, Germany and Japan, simply because Korean workers
-had rebelled and won new political freedoms).
+downward pressure on the level of exploitation and profits.
This process reflects, in many ways, the rise of finance capital in the 1970s.
In the 1950s and 1960s, existing industrialised nations experienced increased
-competition from the ex-Axis powers (namely Japan and Germany). As these
-nations re-industrialised, they placed increased pressure on the USA and other
-nations, reducing the global "degree of monopoly" and forcing them to compete
-with lower cost producers (which, needless to say, reduced the existing
-companies profits). In addition, full employment produced increasing
-resistance on the shop floor and in society as a whole (see [ section
-C.7.1](secC7.html#secc71)), squeezing profits even more. Thus a combination of
-class struggle and global over-capacity resulted in the 1970s crisis. With the
-inability of the real economy, especially the manufacturing sector, to provide
-an adequate return, capital shifted into finance. In effect, it ran away from
-the success of working people asserting their rights at the point of
-production and elsewhere. This, combined with increased international
-competition from Japan and Germany, ensured the rise of finance capital, which
-in return ensured the current stagnationist tendencies in the economy
-(tendencies made worse by the rise of the Asian Tiger economies in the 1980s).
+competition from Japan and Germany. As these nations re-industrialised, they
+placed increased pressure on the USA and other nations, reducing the global
+"degree of monopoly" and forcing them to compete with lower cost producers. In
+addition, full employment produced increasing resistance on the shop floor and
+in society as a whole (see [section C.7.1](secC7.html#secc71)), squeezing
+profits even more. Thus a combination of class struggle and global over-
+capacity resulted in the 1970s crisis. With the inability of the real economy,
+especially the manufacturing sector, to provide an adequate return, capital
+shifted into finance. In effect, it ran away from the success of working
+people asserting their rights at the point of production and elsewhere. This,
+combined with increased international competition, ensured the rise of finance
+capital which in return ensured the current stagnationist tendencies in the
+economy (tendencies made worse by the rise of the Asian Tiger economies in the
+1980s).
From the contradictions between finance capital and the real economy, between
capitalists' need for profit and human needs, between over-capacity and
demand, and others, there has emerged what appears to be a long-term trend
-toward **permanent** stagnation of the capitalist economy. This trend has been
-apparent for several decades, as evidenced by the continuous upward adjustment
-of the rate of unemployment officially considered to be "normal" or
-"acceptable" during those decades, and by other symptoms as well such as
-falling growth, lower rates of profit and so on.
-
-This stagnation has recently become even more obvious by the development of
-crisis in many countries and the reactions of central banks trying to revive
-the real economies that have suffered under their rentier inspired policies.
-Whether this crisis will become worse is hard to say. The Western powers may
-act to protect the real economy by adopting the Keynesian policies they have
-tried to discredit over the last thirty years. However, whether such a bailout
-will succeed is difficult to tell and may just ensure continued stagnation
-rather than a real up-turn, if it has any effect at all.
-
-Of course, a deep depression may solve the problem of over-capacity and over-
-investment in the world and lay the foundations of an up-turn. Such a strategy
-is, however, very dangerous due to working class resistance it could provoke,
-the deepness of the slump and the length it could last for. However, this,
-perhaps, has been the case in the USA in 1997-9 where over 20 years of one-
-sided class war may have paid off in terms of higher profits and profit rate.
-However, this may have more to do with the problems elsewhere in the world
-than a real economic change, in addition to rising consumer debt (there is now
-negative personal savings rate in the US), a worsening trade deficit and a
-stock market bubble. In addition, rising productivity has combined with
-stagnant wages to increase the return to capital and the profit rate (wages
-fell over much of the 1990s recovery and finally regained their pre-recession
-1989 peak in 1999! Despite 8 years of economic growth, the typical worker is
-back only where they started at the peak of the last business cycle). This
-drop and slow growth of wages essentially accounts for the rising US profit
-rate, with the recent growth in real wages being hardly enough to make much of
-an impact (although it has made the US Federal Reserve increase interest rates
-to slow down even this increase, which re-enforces our argument that
-capitalist profits require unemployment and insecurity to maintain capitalist
-power at the point of production).
-
-Such a situation reflects 1920s America (see [section
-C.7.3](secC7.html#secc73) for details) which was also marked by rising
-inequality, a labour surplus and rising profits and suggests that the new US
-economy faces the same potential for a slump. This means that the US economy
-must face the danger of over-investment (relative to demand, of course) sooner
-or later, perhaps sooner due to the problems elsewhere in the world as a
-profits-lead growth economy is fragile as it is dependent on investment,
-luxury spending and working class debt to survive -- all of which are more
-unstable and vulnerable to shocks than workers' consumption.
-
-Given the difficulties in predicting the future (and the fact that those who
-try are usually proven totally wrong!), we will not pretend to know it and
-leave our discussion at highlighting a few possibilities. One thing is true,
-however, and that is the working class will pay the price of any "solution" --
-unless they organise and get rid of capitalism and the state. Ultimately,
-capitalism need profits to survive and such profits came from the fact that
-workers do not have economic liberty. Thus any "solution" within a capitalist
-framework means the increased oppression and exploitation of working people.
-
-Faced with negative balance sheets during recessions, the upper strata
-occasionally panic and agree to some reforms, some distribution of wealth,
-which temporarily solves the short-run problem of stagnation by increasing
-demand and thus permits renewed expansion. However, this short-run solution
-means that the working class gradually makes economic and political gains, so
-that exploitation and oppresion, and hence the rate of profit, tends to fall
-(as happened during the post-war Keynesian "Golden Age"). Faced with the
-dangers of, on the one hand, economic collapse and, on the other, increased
-working class power, the ruling class may not act until it is too late. So, on
-the basis that the current crisis may get worse and stagnation turn into
-depression, we will discuss why the _**"economic structural crisis"_** we have
-lived through for the later quarter of the 20th century (and its potential
-crisis) is important to social struggle in the [next
-section](secJ4.html#secj45).
+toward **permanent** stagnation of the capitalist economy with what growth
+spurts which do exist being fuelled by speculative bubbles as well as its
+benefits being monopolised by the few (so refuting the notion of "trickle
+down" economics). This trend has been apparent for several decades, as
+evidenced by the continuous upward adjustment of the rate of unemployment
+officially considered to be "normal" or "acceptable" during those decades, and
+by other symptoms as well such as falling growth, lower rates of profit and so
+on.
+
+This stagnation has became even more obvious by the development of deep crisis
+in many countries at the end of the 2000s. This caused central banks to
+intervene in order to try and revive the real economies that have suffered
+under their rentier inspired policies since the 1970s. Such action may just
+ensure continued stagnation and reflated bubbles rather than a real-up turn.
+One thing is true, however, and that is the working class will pay the price
+of any "solution" -- unless they organise and get rid of capitalism and the
+state. Ultimately, capitalism need profits to survive and such profits came
+from the fact that workers do not have economic liberty. Thus any "solution"
+within a capitalist framework means the increased oppression and exploitation
+of working class people.
## J.4.5 Why is this _"economic structural crisis"_ important to social
struggle?
The _**"economic structural crisis"_** we out-lined in the [last
section](secJ4.html#secj44) has certain implications for anarchists and social
-struggle. Essentially, as C. George Benello argues, _"[i]f economic conditions
-worsen. . . then we are likely to find an openness to alternatives which have
-not been thought of since the depression of the 1930s. . . It is important to
+struggle. Essentially, as C. George Benello argued, _"[i]f economic conditions
+worsen . . . then we are likely to find an openness to alternatives which have
+not been thought of since the depression of the 1930s . . . It is important to
plan for a possible economic crisis, since it is not only practical, but also
can serve as a method of mobilising a community in creative ways."_ [**From
the Ground Up**, p. 149]
-In the face of economic stagnation and depression, attempts to improve the
-rate of exploitation (i.e. increase profits) by increasing the authority of
-the boss grow. In addition, more people find it harder to make ends meet,
-running up debts to survive, face homelessness if they are made unemployed,
-and so on. Such effects make exploitation ever more visible and tend to push
-oppressed strata together in movements that seek to mitigate, and even remove,
-their oppression. As the capitalist era has worn on, these strata have become
+In the face of economic stagnation and depression, attempts to generate more
+profits (i.e., increase exploitation) by increasing the authority of the boss
+grow. In addition, more people find it harder to make ends meet, running up
+debts to survive, face homelessness if they are made unemployed, and so on.
+This makes exploitation ever more visible and tend to push oppressed strata
+together in movements that seek to mitigate, and even remove, their
+oppression. As the capitalist era has worn on, these strata have become
increasingly able to rebel and gain substantial political and economic
-improvements, which have, in addition, lead to an increasingly willing to do
+improvements, which have, in addition, lead to an increasing willingness to do
so because of rising expectations (about what is possible) and frustration
-(about what actually is). This is why, since 1945, the world-wide _"family"_
-of progressive movements has grown _"ever stronger, ever bolder, ever more
-diverse, ever more difficult to contain."_ [Immanuel Wallerstein,
-**Geopolitics and Geoculture**, p. 110] It is true that libertarians, the left
-and labour have suffered a temporary setback during the past few decades, but
-with increasing misery of the working class due to neo-liberal policies (and
-the "economic structural crisis" they create), it is only a matter of time
-before there is a resurgence of radicalism.
+(about what actually is). It is true that libertarians, the left and labour
+have suffered setbacks since the 1970s, but with increasing misery of the
+working class due to neo-liberal policies (and the _"economic structural
+crisis"_ they create), it is only a matter of time before there is a
+resurgence of radicalism.
Anarchists will be in the forefront of this resurgence. For, with the
-discrediting of authoritarian state capitalism ("Communism") in the Soviet
-Union and Eastern Europe, the anti-authoritarian faction of the left will
+discrediting and eventual fall of authoritarian state capitalism ("Communism")
+in Eastern Europe, the anti-authoritarian faction of the left will
increasingly be seen as its only credible one. Thus the ongoing structural
crisis of the global capitalist economy, combined with the other developments
-springing from what Takis Fotopoulos calls (in his book **Towards and
-Inclusive Democracy**) a _"multidimensional crisis"_ (which included economic,
+springing from what Takis Fotopoulos calls (in his book **Towards an Inclusive
+Democracy**) a _"multidimensional crisis"_ (which includes economic,
political, social, ecological and ideological aspects), could (potentially)
-lead over the next decade or two to a new **international** anti-authoritarian
-alliance linking together the new (and not so new) social movements in the
-West (feminism, the Green movement, rank-and-file labour militancy, etc.) with
-non-authoritarian liberation movements in the Third World and new anti-
-bureaucracy movements in formerly "communist" countries. However, this is only
-likely to happen if anarchists take the lead in promoting alternatives and
-working with the mass of the population. Ways in which anarchist can do this
-are discussed in some detail in [section J.5](secJ5.html).
-
-Thus the "economic structural crisis" can aid social struggle by placing the
+lead to a new **international** anti-authoritarian alliance linking together
+the new (and not so new) social movements in the West (feminism, the Green
+movement, rank-and-file labour militancy, etc.) with non-authoritarian
+liberation movements in the Third World and new movements in formerly
+Stalinist countries. However, this is only likely to happen if anarchists take
+the lead in promoting alternatives and working with the mass of the
+population. Ways in which anarchist can do this are discussed in some detail
+in [section J.5](secJ5.html).
+
+Thus the _"economic structural crisis"_ can aid social struggle by placing the
contrast of _"what is"_ with what _"could be"_ in a clear light. Any crisis
brings forth the contradictions in capitalism, between the production of use
values (things people need) and of exchange value (capitalist profits),
between capitalism's claims of being based on liberty and the authoritarianism
-associated with wage labour (_"[t]he general evidence of repression poses an
+associated with wage labour (_"The general evidence of repression poses an
ancient contradiction for capitalism: while it claims to promote human
freedom, it profits concretely from the denial of freedom, most especially
-freedom for the workers employed by capitalist enterprise"_ [William Greider,
+freedom for the workers employed by capitalist enterprise."_ [William Greider,
**One World, Ready or Not**, p. 388]) and so on. It shakes to the bone popular
faith in capitalism's ability to "deliver the goods" and gets more and more
people thinking about alternatives to a system that places profit above and
@@ -1266,71 +1243,37 @@ workers and other oppressed sections of the population to resist and fight
back, which in turn generates collective organisation (such as unions or
workplace-based assemblies and councils), solidarity and direct action -- in
other words, collective self-help and the awareness that the problems of
-working class people can only be solved by themselves, by their own actions
-and organisations. The 1930s in the USA is a classic example of this process,
-with very militant struggles taking place in very difficult situations (see
-Howard Zinn's **A People's History of the United States** or Jeremy Brecher's
+working class people can only be solved by ourselves, by our own actions and
+organisations. The 1930s in the USA is a classic example of this process, with
+very militant struggles taking place in very difficult situations (see Howard
+Zinn's **A People's History of the United States** or Jeremy Brecher's
**Strike!** for details).
In other words, the "economic structural crisis" gives radicals a lot
potential to get their message across, even if the overall environment may
-make success seem difficult in the extreme at times!
+make success seem difficult at times!
As well as encouraging workplace organisation due to the intensification of
exploitation and authority provoked by the economic stagnant/depression, the
"economic structural crisis" can encourage other forms of libertarian
-alternatives. For example, _"the practical effect of finance capital's
-hegemony was to lock the advanced economies and their governments in a
-malignant spiral, restricting them to bad choices. Like bondholders in
-general, the new governing consensus explicitly assumed that faster economic
-growth was dangerous -- threatening to the stable financial order -- so
-nations were effectively blocked from measures that might reduce permanent
-unemployment or ameliorate the decline in wages. . . The reality of slow
-growth, in turn, drove the governments into their deepening indebtedness,
-since the disappointing growth inevitably undermined tax revenues while it
-expanded the public welfare costs. The rentier regime repeatedly instructed
-governments to reform their spending priorities -- that is, withdraw benefits
-from dependent citizens. . . "_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 297-8]
-
-Thus the "economic structural crisis" has resulted in the erosion of the
-welfare state (at least for the working class, for the elite, state aid is
-never far away). This development as potential libertarian possibilities.
-_"The decline of the state,"_ argues L. Gambone, _"makes necessary a
-revitalisation of the notions of direct action and mutual aid. Without Mama
-State to do it for us, we must create our own social services through mutual
-aid societies."_ [**Syndicalism in Myth and Reality**, p. 12] As we argue in
-more depth in [section J.5.16](secJ5.html#secj516), such a movement of mutual
-aid has a long history in the working class and, as it is under our control,
-it cannot be withdrawn from us to enrich and empower the ruling class as state
-run systems have been. Thus the decline of state run social services could,
-potentially, see the rise of a network of self-managed, working class
-alternatives (equally, of course, it could see the end of all services to the
-most weak sections of our society -- which possibility comes about depends on
-what we do in the here and now. see [section J.5.15](secJ5.html#secj515) for
-an anarchist analysis of the welfare state).
-
-**Food Not Bombs!** is an excellent example of practical libertarian alternatives being generated by the economic crisis we are facing. Food Not Bombs helps the homeless through the direct action of its members. It also involves the homeless in helping themselves. It is a community-based group which helps other people in the community who are needy by providing free food to those in need. FNB! also helps other Anarchist political projects and activities.
-
-Food Not Bombs! serves free food in public places to dramatise the plight of
-the homeless, the callousness of the system and our capacity to solve social
-problems through our own actions without government or capitalism. The
-constant harassment of FNB! by the cops, middle classes and the government
-illustrates their callousness to the plight of the poor and the failure of
-their institutions to build a society which cares for people more than money
-and property (and arms, cops and prisons to protect them). The fact is that in
-the US many working and unemployed people have no **feeling** that they are
-entitled to basic human needs such as medicine, clothes, shelter, and food.
-Food Not Bombs! does encourage poor people to make these demands, does provide
-a space in which these demands can be voiced, and does help to breakdown the
-wall between hungry and not-hungry. The repression directed towards FNB! by
-local police forces and governments also demonstrates the effectiveness of
-their activity and the possibility that it may radicalise those who get
-involved with the organisation. Charity is obviously one thing, mutual aid is
-something else. FNB! as it is a politicised movement from below, based on
-solidarity, is **not** charity, because, in Kropotkin's words, charity _"bears
-a character of inspiration from above, and, accordingly, implies a certain
-superiority of the giver upon the receiver"_ and hardly libertarian [**Mutual
-Aid**, p. 222].
+alternatives. For example, the _"economic structural crisis"_ has resulted in
+the erosion of the welfare state (at least for the working class, for the
+elite state aid is never far away). This development has potential libertarian
+possibilities. _"The decline of the state,"_ argues L. Gambone, _"makes
+necessary a revitalisation of the notions of direct action and mutual aid.
+Without Mama State to do it for us, we must create our own social services
+through mutual aid societies."_ [**Syndicalism in Myth and Reality**, p. 12]
+As we argue in more depth in [section J.5.16](secJ5.html#secj516), such a
+movement of mutual aid has a long history in the working class and, as it is
+under our control, it cannot be withdrawn from us to enrich and empower the
+ruling class as state run systems have been. Thus the decline of state run
+social services could, potentially, see the rise of a network of self-managed,
+working class alternatives (equally, of course, it could see the end of all
+services to the weakest sections of our society -- which possibility comes
+about depends on what we do in the here and now. See [section
+J.5.15](secJ5.html#secj515) for an anarchist analysis of the welfare state).
+
+**Food Not Bombs!** (FNB) is an excellent example of practical libertarian alternatives being generated by the economic crisis we are facing. FNB is a community-based group which helps the homeless through the direct action of its members. It also involves the homeless in helping themselves. It serves free food in public places to expose the plight of the homeless, the callousness of the system and our capacity to solve social problems through our own actions without government or capitalism. The constant harassment of FNB by the police, middle classes and the government illustrates their callousness to the plight of the poor and the failure of their institutions to build a society which cares for people more than money and property (and the police and prisons to protect them). The fact is that in the US many working and unemployed people have no **feeling** that they are entitled to basic human needs such as medicine, clothes, shelter, and food. FNB encourages poor people to make these demands, provides a space in which these demands can be voiced, and helps to breakdown the wall between hungry and not-hungry. The repression directed towards FNB by local police forces and governments also demonstrates the effectiveness of their activity and the possibility that it may radicalise those who get involved with the organisation. Charity is obviously one thing, mutual aid is something else. FNB is a politicised movement from below, based on solidarity, **not** charity as, in Kropotkin's words, charity _"bears a character of inspiration from above, and, accordingly, implies a certain superiority of the giver upon the receiver."_ [**Mutual Aid**, p. 222]
The last example of how economic stagnation can generate libertarian
tendencies can be seen from the fact that, _"[h]istorically, at times of
@@ -1338,43 +1281,49 @@ severe inflation or capital shortages, communities have been forced to rely on
their own resources. During the Great Depression, many cities printed their
own currency; this works to the extent that a community is able to maintain a
viable internal economy which provides the necessities of life, independent of
-transactions with the outside."_ [C. George Benello, **Op. Cit.**, p. 150]
-
-These local currencies and economies can be used as the basis of a libertarian
-socialist economy. The currencies would be the basis of a mutual bank (see
-sections [J.5.5](secJ5.html#secj55) and [J.5.6](secJ5.html#secj56)), providing
-interest-free loans to workers to form co-operatives and so build libertarian
-alternatives to capitalist firms. In addition, these local currencies could be
-labour-time based, eliminating the profits of capitalists by allowing workers
-to exchange the product of their labour with other workers. Moreover, _"local
-exchange systems strength local communities by increasing their self-reliance,
-empowering community members, and helping to protect them from the excesses of
-the global market."_ [Frank Lindenfield, _"Economics for Anarchists,"_
-**Social Anarchism**, no. 23, p. 24] In this way local self-managing communes
-could be created, communes that replace hierarchical, top-down, government
-with collective decision making of community affairs based on directly
-democratic community assemblies (see [section J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51)).
-These self-governing communities and economies could federate together to co-
-operate on a wider scale and so create a counter-power to that of state and
-capitalism.
+transactions with the outside."_ [Benello, **Op. Cit.**, p. 150]
+
+These local currencies could be the basis of a mutual bank (see [section
+J.5.5](secJ5.html#secj55)), providing interest-free loans to workers to form
+co-operatives and so build libertarian alternatives to capitalist firms, so
+eliminating the profits of capitalists by allowing workers to exchange the
+product of their labour with other workers. Moreover, _"local exchange systems
+strength local communities by increasing their self-reliance, empowering
+community members, and helping to protect them from the excesses of the global
+market."_ [Frank Lindenfield, _"Economics for Anarchists,"_ **Social
+Anarchism**, no. 23, p. 24] In this way self-managing communes could be
+created, communes that replace hierarchical, top-down, government with
+collective decision making of community affairs based on directly democratic
+community assemblies. These self-governing communities and economies could
+federate together to co-operate on a wider scale and so create a counter-power
+to that of state and capitalism.
This confederal system of self-managing communities could also protect jobs as
the _"globalisation of capital threatens local industries. A way has to be
found to keep capital at home and so preserve the jobs and the communities
that depend upon them. Protectionism is both undesirable and unworkable. But
-worker-ownership or workers' co-operatives are alternatives."_ [L. Gambone,
-**Syndicalism in Myth and Reality**, pp.12-13] Local communities could provide
-the necessary support structures which could protect co-operatives from the
-corrupting effects of working in the capitalist market (see [section
-J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)). In this way, economic liberty (self-management)
-could replace capitalism (wage slavery) and show that anarchism is a practical
-alternative to the chaos and authoritarianism of capitalism, even if these
-examples are fragmentally and limited in nature.
+worker-ownership or workers' co-operatives are alternatives."_ [Gambone, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 12-13] Local communities could provide the necessary support
+structures which could protect co-operatives from the corrupting effects of
+working in the capitalist market (see [section J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)).
+They could also demand that rather than nationalise or bailout failing
+companies (or, for that matter, privatise state services or public works),
+they should be turned over (as Proudhon constantly argued) to workers co-
+operatives by aiding _"the **Labour Unions** to enter into a temporary
+possession of the industrial concerns"_, anarchists would provide _"an
+effective means to check the State Nationalisation"_ in the period before a
+social revolution when _"State phases which we are traversing now seems to be
+unavoidable."_ [quoted by Ruth Kinna, _"Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and
+Revolutionary Change"_, pp. 67-86, **SubStance**, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 77] In
+this way, economic liberty (self-management) could replace capitalism (wage
+slavery) and show that anarchism is a practical alternative to the chaos and
+authoritarianism of capitalism, even if these examples are initially
+fragmentally and limited in nature.
However, these developments should **not** be taken in isolation of collective
struggle in the workplace or community. It is in the class struggle that the
-real potential for anarchy is created. The work of such organisations as Food
-Not Bombs! and the creation of local currencies and co-operatives are
+real potential for anarchy is created. The work of such organisations as
+**Food Not Bombs!** and the creation of local currencies and co-operatives are
supplementary to the important task of creating workplace and community
organisations that can create effective resistance to both state and
capitalists, resistance that can overthrow both (see sections
@@ -1383,74 +1332,65 @@ _"Volunteer and service credit systems and alternative currencies by
themselves may not be enough to replace the corporate capitalist system.
Nevertheless, they can help build the economic strength of local currencies,
empower local residents, and mitigate some of the consequences of poverty and
-unemployment. . . By the time a majority [of a community are involved it] will
-be well on its way to becoming a living embodiment of many anarchist ideals."_
-[Frank Lindenfield, **Op. Cit.**, p. 28] And such a community would be a great
-aid in any strike or other social struggle which is going on!
-
-Therefore, the general economic crisis which we are facing has implications
-for social struggle and anarchist activism. It could be the basic of
-libertarian alternatives in our workplaces and communities, alternatives based
-on direct action, solidarity and self-management. These alternatives could
-include workplace and community unionism, co-operatives, mutual banks and
-other forms of anarchistic resistance to capitalism and the state. We discuss
-such alternatives in more detail in [section J.5](secJ5.html), and so do not
-do so here.
-
-Before moving on to the [next section](secJ4.html#secj46), we must stress that
-we are **not** arguing that working class people need an economic crisis to
-force them into struggle. Such "objectivism" (i.e. the placing of tendencies
-towards socialism in the development of capitalism, of objective factors,
-rather than in the class struggle, i.e. subjective factors) is best left to
-orthodox Marxists and Leninists as it has authoritarian underpinnings (see
-[section H](secHcon.html)). Rather we are aware that the class struggle, the
+unemployment . . . By the time a majority [of a community are involved it]
+will be well on its way to becoming a living embodiment of many anarchist
+ideals."_ [Lindenfield, **Op. Cit.**, p. 28] And such a community would be a
+great aid in any strike or other social struggle which is going on!
+
+The general economic crisis which we are facing has implications for social
+struggle and anarchist activism. It could be the basic of libertarian
+alternatives in our workplaces and communities, alternatives based on direct
+action, solidarity and self-management. These alternatives could include
+workplace and community unionism, co-operatives, mutual banks and other forms
+of anarchistic resistance to capitalism and the state.
+
+Finally, we must stress that we are **not** arguing that working class people
+need an economic crisis to force them into struggle. Such "objectivism" (i.e.
+the placing of tendencies towards socialism in the development of capitalism,
+of objective factors, rather than in the class struggle, i.e. subjective
+factors) is best left to orthodox Marxists and Leninists as it has
+authoritarian implications. Rather we are aware that the class struggle, the
subjective pressure on capitalism, is not independent of the conditions within
-which it takes place (and helped to create, we must add). Subjective revolt is
-always present under capitalism and, in the case of the 1970s crisis, played a
-role in creating it. Faced with an economic crisis we are indicating what we
+which it takes place (and helps to create, we must add). Subjective revolt is
+always present under capitalism and, in the case of the 1970s, played a role
+in creating crisis. Faced with an economic crisis we are indicating what we
can do in response to it and how it could, potentially, generate libertarian
tendencies within society. Economic crisis could, in other words, provoke
social struggle, collective action and generate anarchic tendencies in
society. Equally, it could cause apathy, rejection of collective struggle and,
perhaps, the embracing of **false** "solutions" such as right-wing populism,
-Leninism, Fascism or right-wing "libertarianism." We cannot predict how the
-future will develop, but it is true that if we do nothing then, obviously,
-libertarian tendencies will not grow and develope.
+Leninism, or Fascism. We cannot predict how the future will develop, but it is
+true that if we do nothing then, obviously, libertarian tendencies will not
+grow and develop.
## J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and anti-big business
feelings?
-According to a report in **Newsweek** (_"The Good Life and its Discontents"_
-Jan. 8, 1996), feelings of disappointment have devastated faith in government
-and big business. Here are the results of a survey in which which people were
-asked whether they had a _"great deal of confidence"_ in various institutions:
-
-| | 1966 | 1975 | 1985 | 1994 | Congress | 42% | 13% | 16% | 8% | Executive
-Branch | 41% | 13% | 15% | 12% | The press | 29% | 26% | 16% | 13% |
-Major Companies | 55% | 19% | 17% | 19%
-
-As can be seen, the public's faith in major companies plunged 36% over a
-28-year period in the survey, an even worse vote of _"no confidence"_ than
-that given to Congress (34%).
+Public opinion polls show increasing feelings of disappointment and lack of
+confidence in governments and big business.
Some of the feelings of disappointment with government can be blamed on the
-anti-big-government rhetoric of conservatives and right-wing populists. But
-such rhetoric is of potential benefit to anarchists as well. Of course the
-Right would never dream of **really** dismantling the state, as is evident
-from the fact that government grew more bureaucratic and expensive under
-"conservative" administrations than ever before.
-
-Needless to say, this "decentralist" element of right-wing rhetoric is a con.
-When a politician, economist or business "leader" argues that the government
-is too big, he is rarely thinking of the same government functions you are.
-You may be thinking of subsidies for tobacco farmers or defence firms and they
-are thinking about pollution controls. You may be thinking of reforming
-welfare for the better, while their idea is to dismantle the welfare state
-totally. Moreover, with their support for "family values", "wholesome"
-television, bans on abortion, and so on their victory would see an increased
-level of government intrusion in many personal spheres (as well as increased
-state support for the power of the boss over the worker, the landlord over the
-tenant and so on).
+anti-big-government rhetoric of conservatives and right-wing populists. Of
+course the Right would never dream of **really** dismantling the state, as is
+evident from the fact that government was as bureaucratic and expensive under
+"conservative" administrations. So this "decentralist" element of right-wing
+rhetoric is a con (and quickly jettisoned as required by the capitalist
+class). The "anti-Government" rhetoric is combined with the pro-business, pro-
+private tyranny, racist, anti-feminist, and homophobic hogwash disseminated by
+right-wing radio and TV propagandists and the business-backed media which
+shows that capitalism is not **genuinely** anti-authoritarian (nor could it
+ever be), as a social system based on liberty must entail.
+
+When a right-wing politician, economist or business "leader" argues that the
+government is too big, they are rarely thinking of the same government
+functions you are. You may be thinking of subsidies for tobacco farmers or
+defence firms; they are thinking about pollution controls. You may be thinking
+of reforming welfare for the better; their idea is to dismantle the welfare
+state (for working class people). Moreover, with their support for "family
+values", "wholesome" television, bans on abortion and so on, their victory
+would see an increased level of government intrusion in many personal spheres
+as well as increased state support for the power of the boss over the worker
+and the landlord over the tenant.
If you look at what the Right has done and is doing, rather than what it is
saying, you quickly see the ridiculous of claims of right-wing
@@ -1458,39 +1398,25 @@ saying, you quickly see the ridiculous of claims of right-wing
and health regulations; defunding product safety laws; opening national parks
to logging and mining, or closing them entirely; reducing taxes for the rich;
eliminating the capital gains tax; allowing companies to fire striking
-workers; making it easier for big telecommunications companies to make money;
-limiting companies' liability for unsafe products-- the program here is
-obviously to help big business do what it wants without government
-interference, and to help the rich get richer. In other words, increased
-"freedom" for private power combined with a state whose role is to protect
-that "liberty."
-
-Yet along with the pro-business, pro-private tyranny, racist, anti-feminist,
-and homophobic hogwash disseminated by right-wing radio propagandists and the
-business-backed media, important decentralist and anti-statist ideas are also
-being implanted in mass consciousness. These ideas, if consistently pursued
-and applied in all areas of life (the home, the community, the workplace),
-could lead to a revival of anarchism in the US -- but only if radicals take
-advantage of this opportunity to spread the message that capitalism is not
-**genuinely** anti-authoritarian (nor could it ever be), as a social system
-based on liberty must entail.
-
-This does not mean that right-wing tendencies have anarchistic elements. Of
-course not. Nor does it mean that anarchist fortunes are somehow linked to the
-success of the right. Far from it (the reverse is actually the case).
-Similarly, the anti-big government propaganda of big business is hardly
-anarchistic. But it does have the advantage of placing certain ideas on the
-agenda, such as decentralisation. What anarchists try to do is point out the
-totally contradictory nature of such right-wing rhetoric. After all, the
-arguments against big government are equally applicable to big business and
-wage slavery. **If** people are capable of making their own decisions, then
-why should this capability be denied in the workplace? As Noam Chomsky points
-out, while there is a _"leave it alone"_ and _"do your own thing"_ current
-within society, it in fact _"tells you that the propaganda system is working
-full-time, because there is no such ideology in the U.S. Business, for
-example, doesn't believe it. It has always insisted upon a powerful
-interventionist state to support its interests -- still does and always has --
-back to the origins of American society. There's nothing individualistic about
+workers; making it easier for big telecommunications companies to dominate the
+media; limiting companies' liability for unsafe products \-- the objective
+here is obviously to help big business and the wealthy do what they want
+without government interference, helping the rich get richer and increasing
+"freedom" for private power combined with a state whose sole role is to
+protect that "liberty."
+
+Such right-wing tendencies do not have anarchistic elements. The "anti-
+government" propaganda of big business is hardly anarchistic. What anarchists
+try to do is point out the hypocritical and contradictory nature of such
+rhetoric. The arguments against big government are equally applicable to
+business. **If** people are capable of making their own decisions, then why
+should this capability be denied in the workplace? As Noam Chomsky points out,
+while there is a _"leave it alone"_ and _"do your own thing"_ current within
+society, it in fact _"tells you that the propaganda system is working full-
+time, because there is no such ideology in the US. Business, for example,
+doesn't believe it. It has always insisted upon a powerful interventionist
+state to support its interests -- still does and always has -- back to the
+origins of American society. There's nothing individualistic about
corporations. Those are big conglomerate institutions, essentially
totalitarian in character, but hardly individualistic. Within them you're a
cog in a big machine. There are few institutions in human society that have
@@ -1500,35 +1426,30 @@ of the ideology is to try to get other people, outside of the sectors of co-
ordinated power, to fail to associate and enter into decision-making in the
political arena themselves. The point is to atomise everyone else while
leaving powerful sectors integrated and highly organised and of course
-dominating resources."_ He goes on to note that:
-
-> _"There is a streak of independence and individuality in American culture
-which I think is a very good thing. This 'Don't tread on me' feeling is in
-many respects a healthy one. It's healthy up to the point where it atomises
-and keeps you from working together with other people. So it's got its healthy
-side and its negative side. It's the negative side that's emphasised naturally
-in the propaganda and indoctrination."_ [**Keeping the Rabble in Line**, pp.
-279-80]
-
-As the opinion polls above show, must people direct their dislike and distrust
-of institutions equally to Big Business, which shows that people are not
-stupid. However, the slight decrease in distrust for big business even after a
-period of massive business-lead class war, down-sizing and so on, is somewhat
-worrying. Unfortunately, as Gobbels was well aware, tell a lie often enough
-and people start to believe it. And given the funds available to big business,
-its influence in the media, its backing of "think-tanks," the use of Public
-Relations companies, the support of economic "science," its extensive
-advertising and so on, it says a lot for the common sense of people that so
-many people see big business for what it is. You simply cannot fool all the
-people all of the time!
-
-However, these feelings can easily be turned into cynicism and a hopelessness
-that things can change for the better and than the individual can help change
-society. Or, even worse, they can be twisted into support for the right,
-authoritarian, populist or (so-called) "Libertarian"-Right. The job for
-anarchists is to combat this and help point the healthy distrust people have
-for government and business towards a real solution to societies problems,
-namely a decentralised, self-managed anarchist society.
+dominating resources."_ He goes on to note that there is _"a streak of
+independence and individuality in American culture which I think is a very
+good thing. This 'Don't tread on me' feeling is in many respects a healthy
+one. It's healthy up to the point where it atomises and keeps you from working
+together with other people. So it's got its healthy side and its negative
+side. It's the negative side that's emphasised naturally in the propaganda and
+indoctrination."_ [**Keeping the Rabble in Line**, pp. 279-80]
+
+As opinion polls show, most people direct their dislike and distrust of
+institutions equally to Big Business, which shows that people are not stupid.
+Unfortunately, as Goebbels was well aware, tell a lie often enough and people
+start to believe it. Given the funds available to big business, its influence
+in the media, its backing of "think-tanks," the use of Public Relations
+companies, the support of economic "science," its extensive advertising and so
+on, it says a lot for the common sense of people that so many see big business
+for what it is. You simply cannot fool all the people all of the time!
+
+However, these feelings can easily be turned into cynicism as well as a
+hopelessness that things can change for the better and that you cannot help
+change society. Or, even worse, they can be twisted into support for right,
+authoritarian, populism. The job for anarchists is to combat this and help
+point the healthy distrust people have for government and business towards a
+real solution to society's problems, namely a decentralised, self-managed
+anarchist society.
## J.4.7 What about the communications revolution?
@@ -1540,65 +1461,56 @@ dissemination of information by members of various progressive and radical
movements all over the globe -- a phenomenon that tends to reduce the
effectiveness of repression by central authorities. The electronic-media and
personal-computer revolutions also make it more difficult for elitist groups
-to maintain their previous monopolies of knowledge. In short, the advent of
-the Information Age is potentially one of the most subversive variables in the
-modern equation.
-
-Indeed the very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a powerful
-argument that decentralised structures can function effectively in today's
-highly complex world. For the net has no centralised headquarters and is not
-subject to regulation by any centralised regulatory agency, yet it still
-manages to function quite effectively. Moreover, the net is also an effective
-way of anarchists and other radicals to communicate their ideas to others,
-share knowledge and work on common projects (such as this FAQ, for example)
-and co-ordinate activities and social struggle. By using the Internet,
-radicals can make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise would not
-come across anarchist ideas (obviously we are aware that the vast majority of
-people in the world do not have access to telephones, never mind computers,
-but computer access is increasing in many countries, making it available, via
-work, libraries, schools, universities, and so on to more and more working
-people). In addition, and far more important than anarchists putting their
-ideas across, the fact is that the net allows everyone with access to express
-themselves freely, to communicate with others and get access (by visiting
-webpages and joining mailing lists and newsgroups) and give access (by
-creating webpages and joining in with on-line arguments) to new ideas and
-viewpoints. This is very anarchistic as it allows people to express themselves
-and start to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how they think and
-act. Of course most people on the planet do not have a telephone, let alone a
-computer, but that does not undermine the fact that the internet is a medium
-in which people can communicate freely (at least until it is totally
-privatised, then it may prove to be more difficult as the net could become a
-giant shopping centre).
+to maintain their previous monopolies of knowledge. Copy-left software and
+text, user-generated and shared content, file-sharing, all show that
+information, and its users, reaches its full potential when it is free. In
+short, the advent of the Information Age is potentially extremely subversive.
+
+The very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a powerful
+argument that decentralised structures can function effectively in a highly
+complex world. For the net has no centralised headquarters and is not subject
+to regulation by any centralised regulatory agency, yet it still manages to
+function effectively. Moreover, the net is also an effective way of anarchists
+and other radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share knowledge, work
+on common projects and co-ordinate activities and social struggle. By using
+the Internet, radicals can make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise
+would not come across anarchist ideas. In addition, and far more important
+than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is that the net allows
+everyone with access to express themselves freely, to communicate with others
+and get access (by visiting webpages and joining mailing lists and newsgroups)
+and give access (by creating webpages and joining in with on-line arguments)
+to new ideas and viewpoints. This is very anarchistic as it allows people to
+express themselves and start to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how
+they think and act.
+
+Obviously we are aware that the vast majority of people in the world do not
+have access to telephones, never mind computers, but computer access is
+increasing in many countries, making it available, via work, libraries,
+schools, universities, and so on to more and more working class people.
Of course there is no denying that the implications of improved communications
and information technology are ambiguous, implying Big Brother as well the
ability of progressive and radical movements to organise. However, the point
-is only that the information revolution in combination with the other new
-social developments we are considering **could** (but will not
-**necessarily**) contribute to a social paradigm shift. Obviously such a shift
-will not happen automatically. Indeed, it will not happen at all unless there
-is strong resistance to governmental attempts to limit public access to
-information technology (e.g. encryption programs) and censor citizens'
-communications.
-
-How anarchists are very effectively using the Internet to co-ordinate
-struggles and spread information is discussed in [section
-J.4.9](secJ4.html#secj49).
+is only that the information revolution in combination with the other social
+developments **could** (but will not **necessarily**) contribute to a social
+paradigm shift. Obviously such a shift will not happen automatically. Indeed,
+it will not happen at all unless there is strong resistance to governmental
+and corporate attempts to limit public access to information, technology (e.g.
+encryption programs), censor peoples' communications and use of electronic
+media and track them on-line.
This use of the Internet and computers to spread the anarchist message is
ironic. The rapid improvement in price-performance ratios of computers,
-software, and other technology today seems to validate the faith in free
-markets. But to say that the information revolution proves the inevitable
-superiority of markets requires a monumental failure of short-term historical
-memory. After all, not just the Internet, but the computer sciences and
-computer industry represent a spectacular success of public investment. As
-late as the 1970s and early 1980s, according to Kenneth Flamm's 1988 book
-**Creating the Computer**, the federal government was paying for 40 percent of
-all computer-related research and probably 60 to 75 percent of basic research.
-Even such modern-seeming gadgets as video terminals, the light pen, the
-drawing tablet, and the mouse evolved from Pentagon-sponsored research in the
-1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Even software was not without state influence, with
-database software having its roots in US Air Force and Atomic Energy
+software, and other technology today is often used to validate the faith in
+free market capitalism but that requires a monumental failure of historical
+memory as not just the Internet but also the computer represents a spectacular
+success of public investment. As late as the 1970s and early 1980s, according
+to Kenneth Flamm's **Creating the Computer**, the federal government was
+paying for 40 percent of all computer-related research and 60 to 75 percent of
+basic research. Even such modern-seeming gadgets as video terminals, the light
+pen, the drawing tablet, and the mouse evolved from Pentagon-sponsored
+research in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Even software was not without state
+influence, with databases having their root in US Air Force and Atomic Energy
Commission projects, artificial intelligence in military contracts back in the
1950s and airline reservation systems in 1950s air-defence systems. More than
half of IBM's Research and Development budget came from government contracts
@@ -1620,23 +1532,16 @@ unlikely.
Looking beyond state aid to the computer industry we discover a _"do-it-
yourself"_ (and so self-managed) culture which was essential to its
development. The first personal computer, for example, was invented by
-amateurs who wanted to build their own cheap machines. The existence of a
-"gift" economy among these amateurs and hobbyists was a necessary precondition
-for the development of PCs. Without this free sharing of information and
-knowledge, the development of computers would have been hindered. In other
-words, socialistic relations between developers and within the working
-environment created the necessary conditions for the computer revolution. If
-this community had been marked by commercial relations, the chances are the
+amateurs who wanted their own cheap machines. The existence of a "gift"
+economy among these amateurs and hobbyists was a necessary precondition for
+the development of PCs. Without this free sharing of information and
+knowledge, the development of computers would have been hindered and so
+socialistic relations between developers and within the working environment
+created the necessary conditions for the computer revolution. If this
+community had been marked by commercial relations, the chances are the
necessary breakthroughs and knowledge would have remained monopolised by a few
companies or individuals, so hindering the industry as a whole.
-The first 20 years of the Internet's development was almost completely
-dependent on state aid -- such as the US military or the universities -- plus
-an anti-capitalist "gift economy" between hobbyists. Thus a combination of
-public funding and community based sharing helped create the framework of the
-Internet, a framework which is now being claimed as one of capitalism's
-greatest successes!
-
Encouragingly, this socialistic "gift economy" is still at the heart of
computer/software development and the Internet. For example, the **Free
Software Foundation** has developed the **General Public Licence** (GPL). GPL,
@@ -1656,267 +1561,85 @@ everyone, unlike commercial code.
Many will think that this essentially anarchistic system would be a failure.
In fact, code developed in this way is far more reliable and sturdy than
commercial software. Linux, for example, is a far superior operating system
-than DOS, for example, precisely **because** it draws on the collective
-experience, skill and knowledge of thousands of developers. Apache, the most
-popular web-server, is another freeware product and is acknowledged as the
-best available. While non-anarchists may be surprised, anarchists are not.
-Mutual aid and co-operation are beneficial in evolution of life, why not in
-the evolution of software?
-
-For anarchists, this "gift economy" at the heart of the communications
-revolution is an important development. It shows the superiority of common
-development and the walls to innovation and decent products generated by
-property systems. We hope that such an economy will spread increasingly into
-the "real" world.
-
-## J.4.8 What is the significance of the accelerating rate of change and the
-information explosion?
-
-As Philip Slater points out in **A Dream Deferred**, the cumbersomeness of
-authoritarian structures becomes more and more glaring as the rate of change
-speeds up. This is because all relevant information in authoritarian systems
-must be relayed to a central command before any decisions can be made, in
-contrast to decentralised systems where important decisions can be made by
-individuals and small autonomous groups responding immediately to new
-information. This means that decision making is slower in authoritarian
-structures, putting them at a disadvantage relative to more decentralised and
-democratic structures.
-
-The failure of centrally planned state-capitalist ("Communist") economies due
-to overwhelming bureaucratic inertia provides an excellent illustration of the
-problem in question. Similarly, under private-property capitalism, small and
-relatively decentralised companies are generally more innovative and
-productive than large corporations with massive bureaucracies, which tend to
-be nearly as inflexible and inefficient as their "Communist" counterparts. In
-a world where the proliferation of information is accelerating at the same
-time that crucial economic and political decisions must be made ever more
-quickly, authoritarian structures are becoming increasingly maladaptive. As
-Slater notes, authoritarian systems simply cannot cope effectively with the
-information explosion, and for this reason more and more nations are realising
-they must either "democratise" or fall behind. He cites the epidemic of
-"democratisation" in Eastern Europe as well as popular pressure for democracy
-in Communist China as symptomatic of this phenomenon.
-
-Unfortunately, Slater fails to note that the type of "democracy" to which he
-refers is ultimately a fraud (though better than state-capitalist
-totalitarianism), since the representative type of government at which it aims
-is a disguised form of political domination by the corporate rich.
-Nevertheless, the cumbersomeness of authoritarian structures on which he bases
-his argument is real enough, and it will continue to lend credibility to the
-anarchist argument that "representative" political structures embedded in a
-corporate-state complex of authoritarian institutions is very far from being
-either true democracy or an efficient way of organising society. Moreover, the
-critique of authoritarian structures is equally applicable to the workplace as
-capitalist companies are organised as mini-centrally planned states, with
-(official) power concentrated in the hands of bosses and managers. Any
-struggle for increased participation will inevitably take place in the
-workplace as well (as it has continually done so as long as wage slavery has
-existed).
-
-## J.4.9 What are Netwars?
-
-Netwars refers to the use of the Internet by autonomous groups and social
+than DOS precisely **because** it draws on the collective experience, skill
+and knowledge of thousands of developers. Apache, the most popular web-server,
+is another freeware product and is acknowledged as the best available. The
+same can be said of other key web-technologies (most obviously PHP) and
+projects (Wikipedia springs to mind, although that project while based on co-
+operative and free activity is owned by a few people who have ultimate
+control). While non-anarchists may be surprised, anarchists are not. Mutual
+aid and co-operation are beneficial in the evolution of life, why not in the
+evolution of software? For anarchists, this "gift economy" at the heart of the
+communications revolution is an important development. It shows both the
+superiority of common development as well as the walls built against
+innovation and decent products by property systems. We hope that such an
+economy will spread increasingly into the "real" world.
+
+Another example of co-operation being aided by new technologies is Netwar.
+This refers to the use of the Internet by autonomous groups and social
movements to co-ordinate action to influence and change society and fight
government or business policy. This use of the Internet has steadily grown
over the years, with a Rand corporation researcher, David Ronfeldt, arguing
that this has become an important and powerful force (Rand is, and has been
-since it's creation in 1948, a private appendage of the military industrial
-complex). In other words, activism and activists power and influence has been
+since its creation in 1948, a private appendage of the military industrial
+complex). In other words, activism and activists' power and influence has been
fuelled by the advent of the information revolution. Through computer and
-communication networks, especially via the world-wide Internet, grassroots
-campaigns have flourished, and the most importantly, government elites have
-taken notice.
+communication networks, especially via the Internet, grassroots campaigns have
+flourished, and the most importantly, government elites have taken notice.
Ronfeldt specialises in issues of national security, especially in the areas
of Latin American and the impact of new informational technologies. Ronfeldt
-and another colleague coined the term _**"netwar"_** a couple years ago in a
-Rand document entitled _"Cyberwar is Coming!"_. "Netwars" are actions by
-autonomous groups -- especially advocacy groups and social movements -- that
-use informational networks to co-ordinate action to influence, change or fight
-government policy.
-
-Ronfeldt's work became a flurry of discussion on the Internet in mid-March
-1995 when Pacific News Service corespondent Joel Simon wrote an article about
-Ronfeldt's opinions on the influence of netwars on the political situation in
-Mexico after the Zapatista uprising. According to Simon, Ronfeldt holds that
-the work of social activists on the Internet has had a large influence --
-helping to co-ordinate the large demonstrations in Mexico City in support of
-the Zapatistas and the proliferation of EZLN communiques across the world via
-computer networks. These actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a network of
-groups that oppose the Mexican Government to muster an international response,
-often within hours of actions by it. In effect, this has forced the Mexican
-government to maintain the facade of nnegotiations with the EZLN and has on
-many occasions, actually stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and
-brutally massacring the Zapatistas.
-
-Given that Ronfeldt is an employee of the Rand Corporation (described by Paul
-Dickson, author of the book _"Think Tanks"_, as the _"first military think
-tank. . . undoubtedly the most powerful research organisation associated with
-the American military"_) his comments indicate that the U.S. government and
-it's military and intelligence wings are very interested in what the Left and
-anarchists are doing on the Internet. Given that they would not be interested
-in this if it was not effective, we can say that this use of the "Information
-Super-Highway" is a positive example of the use of technology in ways un-
-planned of by those who initially developed it (let us not forget that the
-Internet was originally funded by the U.S. government and military). While the
-internet is being hyped as the next big marketplace, it is being subverted by
-activists -- an example of anarchistic trends within society worrying the
-powers that be.
-
-Ronfeldt argues that _"the information revolution. . . disrupts and erodes the
-hierarchies around which institutions are normally designed. It diffuses and
-redistributes power, often to the benefit of what may be considered weaker,
-smaller actors."_ He continues, _"multi-organisational networks consist of
-(often small) organisations or parts of institutions that have linked together
-to act jointly... making it possible for diverse, dispersed actors to
-communicate, consult, co-ordinate, and operate together across greater
-distances, and on the basis of more and better information than ever."_ He
-emphasises that _"some of the heaviest users of the new communications
-networks and technologies are progressive, centre-left, and social
-activists... [who work on] human rights, peace, environmental, consumer,
-labour, immigration, racial and gender-based issues."_ In other words, social
-activists are on the cutting edge of the new and powerful _"network"_ system
-of organising.
-
-All governments, especially the U.S. government, have been extremely
-antagonistic to this idea of effective use of information, especially by the
-political Left and anarchists. The use of the Internet may facilitate another
-"crisis in democracy" (i.e. the development of **real** democracy rather than
-the phoney elite kind favoured by capitalism). To fight this possible use of
-the internet to combat the elite, Ronfeldt maintains that the lesson is clear:
-_"institutions can be defeated by networks, and it may take networks to
-counter networks."_ He argues that if the U.S. government and/or military is
-to fight this ideological war properly with the intend of winning -- and he
-does specifically mention ideology -- it must completely reorganise itself,
-scrapping hierarchical organisation for a more autonomous and decentralised
-system: a network. In this way, he states, _"we expect that. . . netwar may be
-uniquely suited to fighting non-state actors"_.
-
-Ronfeldt's research and opinion should be flattering for the political Left.
-He is basically arguing that the efforts of activists on computers not only
-has been very effective or at least has the potential, but more importantly,
-argues that the only way to counter this work is to follow the lead of social
-activists. Ronfeldt emphasised in a personal correspondence that the
-_"information revolution is also strengthening civil-society actors in many
-positive ways, and moreover that netwar is not necessarily a 'bad' thing that
-necessarily is a 'threat' to U.S. or other interests. It depends."_ At the
-same time, anarchists and other activists should understand the important
-implications of Ronfeldt's work: government elites are not only watching these
-actions (big surprise), but are also attempting to work against them.
-
-This can be seen in many countries. For example, in 1995 a number of computer
-networks, so far confined to Europe, have been attacked or completely shut
-down. In Italy, members of the Carabinieri Anti-Crime Special Operations Group
-raided the homes of a number of activists -- many active in the anarchist
-movement. They confiscated journals, magazines, pamphlets, diaries, and video
-tapes. They also took their personal computers, one of which hosted _"BITS
-Against the Empire"_, a node of Cybernet and Fidonet networks. The warrant
-ridiculously charged them for _"association with intent to subvert the
-democratic order"_, carrying a penalty of 7 to 15 years imprisonment for a
-conviction.
-
-In Britain, Terminal Boredom bulletin board system (BBS) in Scotland was
-shutdown by police in 1995 after the arrest of a hacker who was affiliated
-with the BBS. In the same year Spunk Press, the largest anarchist archive of
-published material catalogued on computer networks faced a media barrage in
-the UK press which has falsely accused them of working with known terrorists
-like the Red Army Faction of Germany, of providing recipes for making bombs
-and of co-ordinating the _"disruption of schools, looting of shops and attacks
-on multinational firms."_ Articles by the computer trade magazine,
-**Computing**, and the **Sunday Times**, entitled _"Anarchism Runs Riot on the
-Superhighway"_ and _"Anarchists Use Computer Highway For Subversion"_
-respectively, nearly lead one of the organisers of Spunk Press loosing his job
-after the firm he works for received bad publicity. According to the book
-**Turning up the Heat: MI5 after that cold war** by Lara O'Hara, one of the
-journalists who wrote the Sunday Times article has contacts with MI5 (the
-British equivalent of the FBI).
-
-It is not coincidence that this attack has started first against anarchists
-and libertarian-socialists. They are currently one of the most organised
-political grouping on the Internet. Even Simon Hill, editor of **Computing**
-magazine, admits that _"we have been amazed at the level of organisation of
-these... groups who have appeared on the Internet in a short amount of time"_.
-According to Ronfeldt's thesis, this makes perfect sense. Who best can exploit
-a system that _"erodes hierarchy"_ and requires the co-ordination of
-decentralised, autonomous groups in co-operative actions than anarchists and
-libertarian-socialists?
-
-These attacks may not be confined to anarchists for long. Indeed, many
-countries have attempted to control the internet, using a number of issues as
-a means to do so (such as "terrorism", pornography and so on). Government is
-not the only institution to notice the power of the Internet in the hands of
-activists. In America, the Washington Post (_"Mexican Rebels Using a High-Tech
-Weapon; Internet Helps Rally Support"_, by Tod Robberson), Newsweek (_"When
-Words are the Best Weapon: How the Rebels Use the Internet and Satellite TV"_,
-by Russell Watson) and even CNN have done stories about the importance of the
-Internet and network communication organisation with respect to the
+and another colleague coined the term _**"netwar"_** in a Rand document
+entitled _"Cyberwar is Coming!"_. Ronfeldt's work became a source of
+discussion on the Internet in mid-March 1995 when Pacific News Service
+correspondent Joel Simon wrote an article about Ronfeldt's opinions on the
+influence of netwars on the political situation in Mexico after the Zapatista
+uprising. According to Simon, Ronfeldt holds that the work of social activists
+on the Internet has had a large influence -- helping to co-ordinate the large
+demonstrations in Mexico City in support of the Zapatistas and the
+proliferation of EZLN communiqus across the world via computer networks. These
+actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a network of groups that oppose the
+Mexican Government to muster an international response, often within hours of
+actions by it. In effect, this has forced the Mexican government to maintain
+the facade of negotiations with the EZLN and has on many occasions, actually
+stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and brutally massacring the
Zapatistas.
-It is important to point out that the mainstream media is not interested in
-the information that circulates across the Internet. No, they are interested
-in sensationalising the activity, even demonising it. They correctly see that
-the "rebels" possess an incredibly powerful tool, but the media does not
-report on what they either are missing or omitting.
+Given that Ronfeldt was an employee of the Rand Corporation his comments
+indicate that the U.S. government and its military and intelligence wings are
+very interested in what the Left is doing on the Internet. Given that they
+would not be interested in this if it were not effective, we can say that this
+use of the "Information Super-Highway" is a positive example of the use of
+technology in ways un-planned of by those who initially developed it (let us
+not forget that the Internet was originally funded by the U.S. government and
+military). While the internet is being hyped as the next big marketplace, it
+is being subverted by activists -- an example of anarchistic trends within
+society worrying the powers that be.
A good example of this powerful tool is the incredible speed and range at
which information travels the Internet about events concerning Mexico and the
Zapatistas. When Alexander Cockburn wrote an article exposing a Chase
-Manhattan Bank memo about Chiapas and the Zapatistas in Counterpunch, only a
-small number of people read it because it is only a newsletter with a limited
-readership. The memo, written by Riordan Roett, was very important because it
-argued that _"the [Mexican] government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas
-to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of
-security policy"_. In other words, if the Mexican government wants investment
-from Chase, it will have to crush the Zapatistas. This information was
-relatively ineffective when just confined to print. But when it was uploaded
-to the Internet (via a large number of List-servers and the USENET), it
-suddenly reached a very large number of people. These people in turn co-
-ordinated protests against the U.S and Mexican governments and especially
-Chase Manhattan. Chase was eventually forced to attempt to distance itself
-from the Roett memo that it commissioned.
-
-Anarchists and the Zapatistas is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
-Currently there are a myriad of social activist campaigns on the Internet.
-From local issues like the anti-Proposition 187 movement in California to a
-progressive college network campaign against the Republican _"Contract [on]
-America,"_ the network system of activism is not only working -- and working
-well as Ronfeldt admits -- but is growing. It is growing rapidly in numbers of
-people involved and growing in political and social effectiveness. There are
-many parallels between the current situation in Chiapas and the drawn out
-civil war in Guatemala, yet the Guatemalan military has been able to nearly
-kill without impunity while the Mexican military received a co-ordinated,
-international attack literally hours after they mobilise their troops. The
-reason is netwars are effective as Ronfeldt concedes, and when they are used
-they have been very influential.
-
-It is clear than Rand, and possibly other wings of the establishment, are not
-only interested in what activists are doing on the Internet, but they think it
-is working. It is also clear that they are studying our activities and
-analysing our potential power. We should do the same, but obviously not from
-the perspective of inhibiting our work, but the opposite: how to further
-facilitate it. Also, we should turn the tables as it were. They are studying
-our behaviour and actions -- we should study theirs. As was outlined above, we
-should analyse their movements and attempt to anticipate attacks as much as
-possible.
-
-As Ronfeldt argues repeatedly, the potential is there for us to be more
-effective. Information is getting out as is abundantly clear. But we can do
-better than just a co-ordination of raw information, which has been the
-majority of the "networking" so far on the Internet. To improve on the work
-that is being done, we should attempt to provide more -- especially in the
-area of in-depth analysis. Not just what we are doing and what the
-establishment is doing, but more to the point, we should attempt to co-
-ordinate the dissemination of solid analysis of important events. In this way
-members of the activist network will not only have the advantage of up-to-date
-information of events, but also a good background analysis of what each event
-means, politically, socially and/or economically as the case may be.
-
-Thus Netwars are a good example of anarchistic trends within society, the use
-of communications technology (developed for the state and used by capitalism
-as a means to aid the selling process) has become a means of co-ordinating
-activity across the world in a libertarian fashion.
-
-(This section of the FAQ is based on an article by Jason Wehling called
-_"'NetWars' and Activists' Power on the Internet"_ which has appeared in issue
-2 of **Scottish Anarchist** magazine as well as **Z Magazine**)
+Manhattan Bank memo about Chiapas and the Zapatistas in **Counterpunch**, only
+a small number of people read it because it is only a newsletter with a
+limited readership. The memo, written by Riordan Roett, argued that _"the
+[Mexican] government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate
+their effective control of the national territory and of security policy"_. In
+other words, if the Mexican government wants investment from Chase, it would
+have to crush the Zapatistas. This information was relatively ineffective when
+just confined to print but when it was uploaded to the Internet, it suddenly
+reached a very large number of people. These people in turn co-ordinated
+protests against the U.S and Mexican governments and especially Chase
+Manhattan. Chase was eventually forced to attempt to distance itself from the
+Roett memo that it commissioned. Since then net-activism has grown.
+
+Ronfeldt's research and opinion should be flattering for the Left. He is
+basically arguing that the efforts of activists on computers not only has been
+very effective (or at least has that potential), but more importantly, argues
+that the only way to counter this work is to follow the lead of social
+activists. Activists should understand the important implications of
+Ronfeldt's work: government elites are not only watching these actions (big
+surprise) but are also attempting to work against them. Thus Netwars and
+copyleft are good examples of anarchistic trends within society, using
+communications technology as a means of co-ordinating activity across the
+world in a libertarian fashion for libertarian goals.
diff --git a/markdown/secJ5.md b/markdown/secJ5.md
index c46ef5846bbede6bdf3b9cd7cf01fd84d82bc699..c86cb54d3719802ef6b426f94e44a0b9ec69a15a 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ5.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ5.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists create?
-Anarchism is all about **_"do it yourself,"_** people helping each other out
+Anarchism is all about **_"do it yourself"_**: people helping each other out
in order to secure a good society to live within and to protect, extend and
enrich their personal freedom. As such anarchists are keenly aware of the
importance of building alternatives to both capitalism and the state in the
@@ -13,41 +13,52 @@ organisations, the more advanced and prepared we will be on that day when we
come to adopt it completely."_ [C.N.T. member, quoted by Graham Kelsey,
**Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State**,p. 79]
-By building the new world in the shell of the old, we help create the
-environment within which individuals can manage their own affairs and develop
-their abilities to do so. In other words, we create **_"schools of
-anarchism"_** which lay the foundations for a better society as well as
-promoting and supporting social struggle against the current system. Make no
-mistake, the alternatives we discuss in this section are not an alternative to
-direct action and the need for social struggle - they are an expression of
-social struggle and a form of direct action. They are the framework by which
-social struggle can build and strengthen the anarchist tendencies within
-capitalist society which will ultimately replace it.
-
-Therefore it is wrong to think that anarchists are indifferent to making life
-more bearable, even more enjoyable, under capitalism. A free society will not
-just appear from nowhere, it will be created be individuals and communities
-with a long history of social struggle and organisation. For as Wilheim Reich
-so correctly pointed out:
+This idea (to quote the IWW) of _"building a new world in the shell of the
+old"_ is a long standing one in anarchism. Proudhon during the 1848 revolution
+_"propose[d] that a provisional committee be set up"_ in Paris and _"liaise
+with similar committees"_ elsewhere in France. This would be _"a body
+representative of the proletariat . . ., a state within the state, in
+opposition to the bourgeois representatives."_ He proclaimed to working class
+people that _"a new society be founded in the heart of the old society"_ for
+_"the government can do nothing for you. But you can do everything for
+yourselves."_ [_"Aux Pariotes"_, **La Reprsantant du Peuple**, No. 33] This
+was echoed by Bakunin (see [section H.2.8](secH2.html#sech28)) while for
+revolutionary syndicalists the aim was _"to constitute within the bourgeois
+State a veritable socialist (economic and anarchic) State."_ [Fernand
+Pelloutier, quoted by Jeremy Jennings, **Syndicalism in France**, p. 22] By so
+doing we help create the environment within which individuals can manage their
+own affairs and develop their abilities to do so. In other words, we create
+**_"schools of anarchism"_** which lay the foundations for a better society as
+well as promoting and supporting social struggle against the current system.
+Make no mistake, the alternatives we discuss in this section are not an
+alternative to direct action and the need for social struggle - they are an
+expression of social struggle and a form of direct action. They are the
+framework by which social struggle can build and strengthen the anarchist
+tendencies within capitalist society which will ultimately replace it.
+
+Therefore it is wrong to think that libertarians are indifferent to making
+life more bearable, even more enjoyable, under capitalism. A free society will
+not just appear from nowhere, it will be created be individuals and
+communities with a long history of social struggle and organisation. For as
+Wilheim Reich so correctly pointed out:
> _"Quite obviously, a society that is to consist of 'free individuals,' to
constitute a 'free community' and to administer itself, i.e. to 'govern
itself,' cannot be suddenly created by decrees. It has to **evolve**
organically."_ [**The Mass Psychology of Fascism**, p. 241]
-And it is this organic evolution that anarchists promote when they create
-anarchist alternatives within capitalist society. The alternatives anarchists
-create (be they workplace or community unions, co-operatives, mutual banks,
-and so on) are marked by certain common features such as being self-managed,
-being based upon equality and decentralisation and working with other groups
-and associations within a confederal network based upon mutual aid and
-solidarity. In other words, they are **anarchist** in both spirit and
-structure and so create a practical bridge between what is and what is
-possible.
-
-Therefore, anarchists consider the building of alternatives as a key aspect of
-their activity under capitalism. This is because they, like all forms of
-direct action, are "schools of anarchy" and also because they make the
+It is this organic evolution that anarchists promote when they create
+libertarian alternatives within capitalist society. These alternatives (be
+they workplace or community unions, co-operatives, mutual banks, and so on)
+are marked by certain common features such as being self-managed, being based
+upon equality, decentralised and working with other groups and associations
+within a confederal network based upon mutual aid and solidarity. In other
+words, they are **anarchist** in both spirit and structure and so create a
+practical bridge between now and the future free society.
+
+Anarchists consider the building of alternatives as a key aspect of their
+activity under capitalism. This is because they, like all forms of direct
+action, are _**"schools of anarchy"**_ and also because they make the
transition to a free society easier. _"Through the organisations set up for
the defence of their interests,"_ in Malatesta's words, _"the workers develop
an awareness of the oppression they suffer and the antagonism that divides
@@ -55,98 +66,101 @@ them from the bosses and as a result begin to aspire to a better life, become
accustomed to collective struggle and solidarity and win those improvements
that are possible within the capitalist and state regime."_ [**The Anarchist
Revolution**, p. 95] By creating viable examples of _**"anarchy in action"_**
-we can show that our ideas are practical and convince people of anarchist
-ideas by "good examples." Therefore this section of the FAQ will indicate the
-alternatives anarchists support and **why** we support them.
+we can show that our ideas are practical and convince people that they are not
+utopian. Therefore this section of the FAQ will indicate the alternatives
+anarchists support and **why** we support them.
The approach anarchists take to this activity could be termed **_"social
unionism"_** \-- the collective action of groups to change certain aspects
-(and, ultimately, all aspects) of their lives. This "social unionism" takes
-many different forms in many different areas (some of which, not all, are
-discussed here) -- but they share the same basic aspects of collective direct
-action, self-organisation, self-management, solidarity and mutual aid. These
-"social unions" would be a means (like the old labour movement) _"of raising
-the morale of the workers, accustom them to free initiative and solidarity in
-a struggle for the good of everyone and render them capable of imagining,
-desiring and putting into practice an anarchist life."_ [Errico Malatesta,
-**The Anarchist Revolution**, p. 28]
+(and, ultimately, all aspects) of their lives. This takes many different forms
+in many different areas (some of which, not all, are discussed here) \-- but
+they share the same basic aspects of collective direct action, self-
+organisation, self-management, solidarity and mutual aid. These are a means
+_"of raising the morale of the workers, accustom them to free initiative and
+solidarity in a struggle for the good of everyone and render them capable of
+imagining, desiring and putting into practice an anarchist life."_ [Malatesta,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 28] Kropotkin summed up the anarchist perspective well when
+he argued that working class people had _"to form their own organisations for
+a direct struggle against capitalism"_ and to _"take possession of the
+necessaries for production, and to control production."_ [**Memiors of a
+Revolutionist**, p. 359] As historian J. Romero Maura correctly summarised,
+the _"anarchist revolution, when it came, would be essentially brought about
+by the working class. Revolutionaries needed to gather great strength and must
+beware of underestimating the strength of reaction"_ and so anarchists
+_"logically decided that revolutionaries had better organise along the lines
+of labour organisations."_ [_"The Spanish case"_, pp. 60-83, **Anarchism
+Today**, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 66]
As will quickly become obvious in this discussion (as if it had not been so
before!) anarchists are firm supporters of **_"self-help,"_** an expression
that has been sadly corrupted (like freedom) by the right in recent times.
-Like "freedom", "self-help" should be saved from the clutches of the right who
+Like freedom, self-help should be saved from the clutches of the right who
have no real claim to that expression. Indeed, anarchism was created from and
based itself upon working class self-help -- for what other interpretation can
-be gathered from the famous slogan of the **First International** that _"the
-emancipation of the working class must be the task of the working class
-itself"_? So, Anarchists have great faith in the abilities of working class
+be gathered from Proudhon's 1848 statement that _"the proletariat must
+emancipate itself"_? [quoted by George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**,
+p. 125] So Anarchists have great faith in the abilities of working class
people to work out for themselves what their problems are and act to solve
them.
-Anarchist support, and promotion, of alternatives is a **key** aspect of this
+Anarchist support and promotion of alternatives is a **key** aspect of this
process of self-liberation, and so a key aspect of anarchism. While strikes,
-boycotts, and other forms of high profile direct action may be more sexy than
-the long and hard task of creating and building social alternatives, these are
-the nuts and bolts of creating a new world as well as the infrastructure which
-supports the "high profile" activities. Hence the importance of highlighting
-the alternatives anarchists support and build. The alternatives we discuss
-here is part of the process of building the new world in the shell of the old
--- and involve both combative organisations (such as community and workplace
-unions) as well as more defensive/supportive ones (such as co-operatives and
-mutual banks). Both have their part to play in the class struggle, although
-the combative ones are the most important in creating the spirit of revolt and
-the possibility of creating an anarchist society (which will be reflected in
-the growth of supportive organisations to aid that struggle).
-
-We must also stress that anarchists look to "natural" tendencies within social
+boycotts, and other forms of high profile direct action may be more "sexy"
+than the long and hard task of creating and building social alternatives,
+these are the nuts and bolts of creating a new world as well as the
+infrastructure which supports the other activities. These alternatives involve
+both combative organisations (such as community and workplace unions) as well
+as more defensive and supportive ones (such as co-operatives and mutual
+banks). Both have their part to play in the class struggle, although the
+combative ones are the most important in creating the spirit of revolt and the
+possibility of creating an anarchist society.
+
+We must also stress that anarchists look to organic tendencies within social
struggle as the basis of any alternatives we try to create. As Kropotkin put
it, anarchism is based _"on an analysis of **tendencies of an evolution that
-is already going on in society**, and on **induction** thereform as to the
+is already going on in society**, and on **induction** therefrom as to the
future."_ It is _"representative . . . of the creative, instructive power of
the people themselves who aimed at developing institutions of common law in
-order to protect them from the power-seeking minority."_ In other words,
-anarchism bases itself on those tendencies that are created by the self-
-activity of working class people and while developing within capitalism are
-**in opposition** to it -- such tendencies are expressed in organisational
-form as trade unions and other forms of workplace struggle, cooperatives (both
-productive and credit), libertarian schools, and so on. For anarchists,
-anarchism is _"born among the people - in the struggles of real life and not
-in the philosopher's studio"_ and owes its _"origin to the constructive,
-creative activity of the people . . . and to a protest - a revolt against the
-external force which hd thrust itself upon [communal] . . . institutions."_
-[**Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets**, p. 158, p. 147, p. 150, p. 149] This
-_"creative activity"_ is expressed in the organisations created in the class
-struggle by working people, some of which we discuss in this section of the
-FAQ. Therefore, the alternatives anarchists support should not be viewed in
-isolation of social struggle and working class resistance to hierarchy - the
-reverse in fact, as these alternatives are almost always expressions of that
-struggle.
-
-Lastly, we should note that this list of alternatives does not list all the
-forms of organisation anarchists create. For example, we have ignored
-solidarity groups and organisations which are created to campaign against or
-for certain issues or reforms. Anarchists are in favour of such organisations
-and work within them to spread anarchist ideas, tactics and organisational
-forms. However, these interest groups (while very useful) do not provide a
-framework for lasting change as do the ones we highlight below although we
-stress that anarchists do not ignore such organisations and struggles (see
-sections [J.1.4](secJ1.html#secj14) and [J.1.5](secJ1.html#secj15) for more
-details on anarchist opinions on such "single issue" campaigns).
-
-We have also ignored what have been called _"intentional communities"_. This
-is when a group of individuals squat or buy land and other resources within
-capitalism and create their own anarchist commune in it. Most anarchists
-reject this idea as capitalism and the state must be fought, not ignored. In
-addition, due to their small size, they are rarely viable experiments in
-communal living and nearly always fail after a short time (for a good summary
-of Kropotkin's attitude to such communities, which can be taken as typical, to
-such schemes see Graham Purchase's book **Evolution & Revolution**, pp.
-122-125). Dropping out will not stop capitalism and the state and while such
-communities may try to ignore the system, they will find that the system will
-not ignore them -- they will come under competitive and ecological pressures
-from capitalism whether they like it or not.
-
-Therefore the alternatives we discuss here are attempts to create anarchist
+order to protect them from the power-seeking minority."_ Anarchism bases
+itself on those tendencies that are created by the self-activity of working
+class people and while developing within capitalism are **in opposition** to
+it -- such tendencies are expressed in organisational form as unions and other
+forms of workplace struggle, co-operatives (both productive and credit),
+libertarian schools, and so on. For anarchism was _"born among the people --
+in the struggles of real life and not in the philosopher's studio"_ and owes
+its _"origin to the constructive, creative activity of the people . . . and to
+a protest -- a revolt against the external force which had thrust itself
+upon"_ social institutions. [**Anarchism**, p. 158, p. 147, p. 150 and p. 149]
+This _"creative activity"_ is expressed in the organisations created in the
+class struggle by working people, some of which we discuss in this section of
+the FAQ. Therefore, the alternatives anarchists support should not be viewed
+in isolation of social struggle and working class resistance to hierarchy --
+the reverse in fact, as these alternatives are almost always expressions of
+that struggle.
+
+Lastly, we should note we do not list all the forms of organisation anarchists
+create. For example, we have ignored solidarity groups (for workers on strike
+or in defence of struggles in other countries) and organisations which are
+created to campaign against or for certain issues or reforms. Anarchists are
+in favour of such organisations and work within them to spread anarchist
+ideas, tactics and organisational forms. However, these interest groups (while
+very useful) do not provide a framework for lasting change as do the ones we
+highlight below (see [section J.1.4](secJ1.html#secj14) for more details on
+anarchist opinions on such "single issue" campaigns). We have also ignored
+what have been called _"intentional communities."_ This is when a group of
+individuals squat or buy land and other resources within capitalism and create
+their own anarchist commune in it. Most anarchists reject this idea as
+capitalism and the state must be fought, not ignored. In addition, due to
+their small size, they are rarely viable experiments in communal living and
+nearly always fail after a short time (for a good summary of Kropotkin's
+attitude to such communities, which can be taken as typical, see Graham
+Purchase's **Evolution & Revolution** [pp. 122-125]). Dropping out will not
+stop capitalism and the state and while such communities may try to ignore the
+system, they will find that the system will not ignore them -- they will come
+under competitive and ecological pressures from capitalism whether they like
+it or not assuming they avoid direct political interference.
+
+So the alternatives we discuss here are attempts to create anarchist
alternatives within capitalism and which aim to **change** it (either by
revolutionary or evolutionary means). They are based upon **challenging**
capitalism and the state, not ignoring them by dropping out. Only by a process
@@ -156,114 +170,248 @@ lives can we revolutionise and change both ourselves and society.
## J.5.1 What is community unionism?
Community unionism is our term for the process of creating participatory
-communities (called "communes" in classical anarchism) within the state.
+communities (called "communes" in classical anarchism) within the current
+society in order to transform it.
Basically, a community union is the creation of interested members of a
-community who decide to form an organisation to fight against injustice in
-their local community and for improvements within it. It is a forum by which
-inhabitants can raise issues that affect themselves and others and provide a
-means of solving these problems. As such, it is a means of directly involving
-local people in the life of their own communities and collectively solving the
-problems facing them as both individuals and as part of a wider society.
-Politics, therefore, is not separated into a specialised activity that only
-certain people do (i.e. politicians). Instead, it becomes communalised and
-part of everyday life and in the hands of all.
+community who decide to form an organisation to fight against injustice and
+improvements locally. It is a forum by which inhabitants can raise issues that
+affect themselves and others and provide a means of solving these problems. As
+such, it is a means of directly involving local people in the life of their
+own communities and collectively solving the problems facing them as both
+individuals and as part of a wider society. In this way, local people take
+part in deciding what effects them and their community and create a self-
+managed "dual power" to the local and national state. They also, by taking
+part in self-managed community assemblies, develop their ability to
+participate and manage their own affairs, so showing that the state is
+unnecessary and harmful to their interests. Politics, therefore, is not
+separated into a specialised activity that only certain people do (i.e.
+politicians). Instead, it becomes communalised and part of everyday life and
+in the hands of all.
As would be imagined, like the participatory communities that would exist in
-an anarchist society, the community union would be based upon a mass assembly
-of its members. Here would be discussed the issues that effect the membership
-and how to solve them. Like the communes of a future anarchy, these community
+an anarchist society (see [section I.5](secI5.html)), the community union
+would be based upon a mass assembly of its members. Here would be discussed
+the issues that effect the membership and how to solve them. Thus issues like
+rent increases, school closures, rising cost of living, taxation, cuts and
+state-imposed "reforms" to the nature and quality of public services,
+utilities and resources, repressive laws and so on could be debated and action
+taken to combat them. Like the communes of a future anarchy, these community
unions would be confederated with other unions in different areas in order to
-co-ordinate joint activity and solve common problems. These confederations,
-like the basic union assemblies themselves, would be based upon direct
-democracy, mandated delegates and the creation of administrative action
-committees to see that the memberships decisions are carried out.
+co-ordinate joint activity and solve common problems. These confederations
+would be based upon self-management, mandated and recallable delegates and the
+creation of administrative action committees to see that the memberships
+decisions are carried out.
The community union could also raise funds for strikes and other social
-protests, organise pickets and boycotts and generally aid others in struggle.
-By organising their own forms of direct action (such as tax and rent strikes,
+protests, organise pickets, boycotts and generally aid others in struggle. By
+organising their own forms of direct action (such as tax and rent strikes,
environmental protests and so on) they can weaken the state while building an
self-managed infrastructure of co-operatives to replace the useful functions
-the state or capitalist firms currently provide.
-
-So, in addition to organising resistance to the state and capitalist firms,
-these community unions could play an important role in creating an alternative
-economy within capitalism. For example, such unions could have a mutual bank
-or credit union associated with them which could allow funds to be gathered
-for the creation of self-managed co-operatives and social services and
-centres. In this way a communalised co-operative sector could develop, along
-with a communal confederation of community unions and their co-operative
-banks.
+the state or capitalist firms currently provide. So, in addition to organising
+resistance to the state and capitalist firms, these community unions could
+play an important role in creating an alternative economy within capitalism.
+For example, such unions could have a mutual bank or credit union associated
+with them which could allow funds to be gathered for the creation of self-
+managed co-operatives and social services and centres. In this way a
+communalised co-operative sector could develop, along with a communal
+confederation of community unions and their co-operative banks.
Such community unions have been formed in many different countries in recent
-years to fight against particularly evil attacks on the working class. In
-Britain, groups were created in neighbourhoods across the country to organise
-non-payment of the conservative government's community charge (popularly known
-as the poll tax). Federations of these groups and unions were created to co-
-ordinate the struggle and pull resources and, in the end, ensured that the
+years to fight against numerous attacks on the working class. In the late
+1980s and early 1990s groups were created in neighbourhoods across Britain to
+organise non-payment of the Conservative government's Community Charge
+(popularly known as the poll tax, this tax was independent on income and was
+based on the electoral register). Federations of these groups were created to
+co-ordinate the struggle and pull resources and, in the end, ensured that the
government withdrew the hated tax and helped push Thatcher out of government.
In Ireland, similar groups were formed to defeat the privatisation of the
-water industry by a similar non-payment campaign.
+water industry by a similar non-payment campaign in the mid-1990s.
However, few of these groups have been taken as part of a wider strategy to
empower the local community but the few that have indicate the potential of
-such a strategy. This potential can be seen from two examples of community
-organising in Europe, one in Italy and another in Spain.
-
-In Italy, anarchists have organised a very successful **Municipal Federation
-of the Base** (FMB) in Spezzano Albanese (in the South of that country). This
-organisation is _"an alternative to the power of the town hall"_ and provides
-a _"glimpse of what a future libertarian society could be"_ (in the words of
-one activist). The aim of the Federation is _"the bringing together of all
-interests within the district. In intervening at a municipal level, we become
-involved not only in the world of work but also the life of the community. . .
-the FMB make counter proposals [to Town Hall decisions], which aren't
-presented to the Council but proposed for discussion in the area to raise
-people's level of consciousness. Whether they like it or not the Town Hall is
-obliged to take account of these proposals."_ [_"Community Organising in
-Southern Italy"_, pp. 16-19, **Black Flag** no. 210, p. 17, p. 18]
-
-In this way, local people take part in deciding what effects them and their
-community and create a self-managed "dual power" to the local, and national,
-state. They also, by taking part in self-managed community assemblies, develop
-their ability to participate and manage their own affairs, so showing that the
-state is unnecessary and harmful to their interests. In addition, the FMB also
-supports co-operatives within it, so creating a communalised, self-managed
-economic sector within capitalism. Such a development helps to reduce the
-problems facing isolated co-operatives in a capitalist economy -- see section
-[J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511) \-- and was actively done in order to _"seek to
-bring together all the currents, all the problems and contradictions, to seek
-solutions"_ to such problems facing co-operatives [**Ibid.**].
+such a strategy. This potential can be seen from two examples of libertarian
+community organising in Europe, one in Italy and another in Spain, while the
+neighbourhood assemblies in Argentina show that such popular self-government
+can and does develop spontaneously in struggle.
+
+In Southern Italy, anarchists organised a very successful **Municipal
+Federation of the Base** (FMB) in Spezzano Albanese. This organisation, in the
+words of one activist, is _"an alternative to the power of the town hall"_ and
+provides a _"glimpse of what a future libertarian society could be."_ Its aim
+is _"the bringing together of all interests within the district. In
+intervening at a municipal level, we become involved not only in the world of
+work but also the life of the community . . . the FMB make counter proposals
+[to Town Hall decisions], which aren't presented to the Council but proposed
+for discussion in the area to raise people's level of consciousness. Whether
+they like it or not the Town Hall is obliged to take account of these
+proposals."_ In addition, the FMB also supports co-operatives within it, so
+creating a communalised, self-managed economic sector within capitalism. Such
+a development helps to reduce the problems facing isolated co-operatives in a
+capitalist economy -- see [section J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511) \-- and was
+actively done in order to _"seek to bring together all the currents, all the
+problems and contradictions, to seek solutions"_ to such problems facing co-
+operatives. [_"Community Organising in Southern Italy"_, pp. 16-19, **Black
+Flag**, no. 210, p. 17 and p. 18]
Elsewhere in Europe, the long, hard work of the C.N.T. in Spain has also
resulted in mass village assemblies being created in the Puerto Real area,
near Cadiz. These community assemblies came about to support an industrial
-struggle by shipyard workers. As one C.N.T. member explains, _"[e]very
-Thursday of every week, in the towns and villages in the area, we had all-
-village assemblies where anyone connected with the particular issue [of the
+struggle by shipyard workers. One C.N.T. member explains: _"Every Thursday of
+every week, in the towns and villages in the area, we had all-village
+assemblies where anyone connected with the particular issue [of the
rationalisation of the shipyards], whether they were actually workers in the
-shipyard itself, or women or children or grandparents, could go along. . . and
-actually vote and take part in the decision making process of what was going
-to take place."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism in Puerto Real: from shipyard
-resistance to direct democracy and community control**, p. 6]
-
-With such popular input and support, the shipyard workers won their struggle.
-However, the assembly continued after the strike and _"managed to link
-together twelve different organisations within the local area that are all
-interested in fighting. . . various aspects [of capitalism]"_ including
-health, taxation, economic, ecological and cultural issues. Moreover, the
-struggle _"created a structure which was very different from the kind of
-structure of political parties, where the decisions are made at the top and
-they filter down. What we managed to do in Puerto Real was make decisions at
-the base and take them upwards."_ [**Ibid.**]
-
-In these ways, a grassroots movement from below has been created, with direct
+shipyard itself, or women or children or grandparents, could go along . . .
+and actually vote and take part in the decision making process of what was
+going to take place."_ With such popular input and support, the shipyard
+workers won their struggle. However, the assembly continued after the strike
+and _"managed to link together twelve different organisations within the local
+area that are all interested in fighting . . . various aspects"_ of capitalism
+including health, taxation, economic, ecological and cultural issues.
+Moreover, the struggle _"created a structure which was very different from the
+kind of structure of political parties, where the decisions are made at the
+top and they filter down. What we managed to do in Puerto Real was make
+decisions at the base and take them upwards."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism in
+Puerto Real: from shipyard resistance to direct democracy and community
+control**, p. 6]
+
+More recently, the December 2001 revolt against neo-liberalism in Argentina
+saw hundreds of neighbourhood assemblies created across the country. These
+quickly federated into _inter-barrial_ assemblies to co-ordinate struggles.
+The assemblies occupied buildings, created communal projects like popular
+kitchens, community centres, day-care centres and built links with occupied
+workplaces. As one participant put it: _"The initial vocabulary was simply:
+Let's do things for ourselves, and do them right. Let's decide for ourselves.
+Let's decide democratically, and if we do, then let's explicitly agree that
+we're all equals here, that there are no bosses . . . We lead ourselves. We
+lead together. We lead and decide amongst ourselves . . . no one invented it .
+. . It just happened. We met one another on the corner and decided, enough! .
+. . Let's invent new organisational forms and reinvent society."_ Another
+notes that this was people who _"begin to solve problems themselves, without
+turning to the institutions that caused the problems in the first place."_ The
+neighbourhood assemblies ended a system in which _"we elected people to make
+our decisions for us . . . now we will make our own decisions."_ While the
+_"anarchist movement has been talking about these ideas for years"_ the
+movement took them up _"from necessity."_ [Marina Sitrin (ed.),
+**Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina**, p. 41 and pp. 38-9]
+
+The idea of community organising has long existed within anarchism. Kropotkin
+pointed to the directly democratic assemblies of Paris during the French
+Revolution> These were _"constituted as so many mediums of popular
+administration, it remained of the people, and this is what made the
+revolutionary power of these organisations."_ This ensured that the local
+revolutionary councils _"which sprang from the popular movement was not
+separated from the people."_ In this popular self-organisation _"the masses,
+accustoming themselves to act without receiving orders from the national
+representatives, were practising what was described later on as Direct Self-
+Government."_ These assemblies federated to co-ordinate joint activity but it
+was based on their permanence: _"that is, the possibility of calling the
+general assembly whenever it was wanted by the members of the section and of
+discussing everything in the general assembly."_ In short, _"the Commune of
+Paris was not to be a governed State, but a people governing itself directly
+-- when possible -- without intermediaries, without masters"_ and so _"the
+principles of anarchism . . . had their origin, not in theoretic speculations,
+but in the **deeds** of the Great French Revolution."_ This _"laid the
+foundations of a new, free, social organisation"_and Kropotkin predicted that
+_"the libertarians would no doubt do the same to-day."_ [**Great French
+Revolution**, vol. 1, p. 201, p. 203, pp. 210-1, p. 210, p. 204 and p. 206]
+
+In Chile during 1925 _"a grass roots movement of great significance emerged,"_
+the tenant leagues (_ligas do arrendatarios_). The movement pledged to pay
+half their rent beginning the 1st of February, 1925, at huge public rallies
+(it should also be noted that _"Anarchist labour unionists had formed previous
+ligas do arrendatarios in 1907 and 1914."_). The tenants leagues were
+organised by ward and federated into a city-wide council. It was a vast
+organisation, with 12,000 tenants in just one ward of Santiago alone. The
+movement also _"press[ed] for a law which would legally recognise the lower
+rents they had begun paying . . . the leagues voted to declare a general
+strike . . . should a rent law not be passed."_ The government gave in,
+although the landlords tried to get around it and, in response, on April 8th
+_"the anarchists in Santiago led a general strike in support of the universal
+rent reduction of 50 percent."_ Official figures showed that rents _"fell
+sharply during 1915, due in part to the rent strikes"_ and for the anarchists
+_"the tenant league movement had been the first step toward a new social order
+in Chile."_ [Peter DeShazo, **Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile
+1902-1927**, p. 223, p. 327, p. 223, p. 225 and p. 226] As one Anarchist
+newspaper put it:
+
+> _"This movement since its first moments had been essentially revolutionary.
+The tactics of direct action were preached by libertarians with highly
+successful results, because they managed to instil in the working classes the
+idea that if landlords would not accept the 50 percent lowering of rents, they
+should pay nothing at all. In libertarian terms, this is the same as taking
+possession of common property. It completes the first stage of what will
+become a social revolution."_ [quoted by DeShazo, **Op. Cit.**, p. 226]
+
+A similar concern for community organising and struggle was expressed in
+Spain. While the collectives during the revolution are well known, the CNT had
+long organised in the community and around non-workplace issues. As well as
+neighbourhood based defence committees to organise and co-ordinate struggles
+and insurrections, the CNT organised various community based struggles. The
+most famous example of this must be the rent strikes during the early 1930s in
+Barcelona. In 1931, the CNT's Construction Union organised a **"Economic
+Defence Commission"** to organise against high rents and lack of affordable
+housing. Its basic demand was for a 40% rent decrease but it also addressed
+unemployment and the cost of food. The campaign was launched by a mass meeting
+on May 1st, 1931. A series of meetings were held in the various working class
+neighbourhoods of Barcelona and in surrounding suburbs. This culminated in a
+mass meeting held at the Palace of Fine Arts on July 5th which raised a series
+of demands for the movement. By July, 45,000 people were taking part in the
+rent strike and this rose to over 100,000 by August. As well as refusing to
+pay rent, families were placed back into their homes from which they had been
+evicted. The movement spread to a number of the outlying towns which set up
+their own Economic Defence Commissions. The local groups co-ordinated actions
+their actions out of CNT union halls or local libertarian community centres.
+The movement faced increased state repression but in many parts of Barcelona
+landlords had been forced to come to terms with their tenants, agreeing to
+reduced rents rather than facing the prospect of having no income for an
+extended period or the landlord simply agreed to forget the unpaid rents from
+the period of the rent strike. [Nick Rider, _"The Practice of Direct Action:
+the Barcelona rent strike of 1931"_, **For Anarchism**, David Goodway (ed.),
+pp. 79-105] As Abel Paz summarised:
+
+> _ "Unemployed workers did not receive or ask for state aid . . . The
+workers' first response to the economic crisis was the rent, gas, and
+electricity strike in mid-1933, which the CNT and FAI's Economic Defence
+Committee had been laying the foundations for since 1931. Likewise, house,
+street, and neighbourhood groups began to turn out en masse to stop evictions
+and other coercive acts ordered by the landlords (always with police support).
+The people were constantly mobilised. Women and youngsters were particularly
+active; it was they who challenged the police and stopped the endless
+evictions."_ [**Durrutu in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 308]
+
+In Gijon, the CNT _"reinforced its populist image by . . . its direct consumer
+campaigns. Some of these were organised through the federation's Anti-
+Unemployment Committee, which sponsored numerous rallies and marches in favour
+of 'bread and work.' While they focused on the issue of jobs, they also
+addressed more general concerns about the cost of living for poor families. In
+a May 1933 rally, for example, demonstrators asked that families of unemployed
+workers not be evicted from their homes, even if they fell behind on the
+rent."_ The _"organisers made the connections between home and work and tried
+to draw the entire family into the struggle."_ However, the CNT's _"most
+concerted attempt to bring in the larger community was the formation of a new
+syndicate, in the spring of 1932, for the Defence of Public Interests (SDIP).
+In contrast to a conventional union, which comprised groups of workers, the
+SDIP was organised through neighbourhood committees. Its specific purpose was
+to enforce a generous renters' rights law of December 1931 that had not been
+vigorously implemented. Following anarchosyndicalist strategy, the SDIP
+utilised various forms of direct action, from rent strikes, to mass
+demonstrations, to the reversal of evictions."_ This last action involved the
+local SDIP group going to a home, breaking the judge's official eviction seal
+and carrying the furniture back in from the street. They left their own sign:
+_"**opened by order** of the CNT."_ The CNT's direct action strategies
+_"helped keep political discourse in the street, and encouraged people to
+pursue the same extra-legal channels of activism that they had developed under
+the monarchy."_ [Pamela Beth Radcliff, **From mobilization to civil war**, pp.
+287-288 and p. 289]
+
+In these ways, grassroots movements from below were created, with direct
democracy and participation becoming an inherent part of a local political
culture of resistance, with people deciding things for themselves directly and
without hierarchy. Such developments are the embryonic structures of a world
-based around direct democracy and participation, with a strong and dynamic
+based around participation and self-management, with a strong and dynamic
community life. For, as Martin Buber argued, _"[t]he more a human group lets
-itself be represented in the management of its common affairs. . . the less
+itself be represented in the management of its common affairs . . . the less
communal life there is in it and the more impoverished it becomes as a
community."_ [**Paths in Utopia**, p. 133]
@@ -275,115 +423,174 @@ Moreover, the combination of community unionism with workplace assemblies (as
in Puerto Real), provides a mutual support network which can be very effective
in helping winning struggles. For example, in Glasgow, Scotland in 1916, a
massive rent strike was finally won when workers came out in strike in support
-of the rent strikers who been arrested for non-payment.
-
-Such developments indicate that Isaac Puente was correct to argue that:
+of the rent strikers who been arrested for non-payment. Such developments
+indicate that Isaac Puente was correct:
-_
-
-> "Libertarian Communism is a society organised without the state and without
+> _"Libertarian Communism is a society organised without the state and without
private ownership. And there is no need to invent anything or conjure up some
-new organization for the purpose. The centres about which life in the future
+new organisation for the purpose. The centres about which life in the future
will be organised are already with us in the society of today: the free union
-and the free municipality [or Commune].
-
->
+and the free municipality [or Commune]._
-> "**The union**: in it combine spontaneiously the workers from factories and
-all places of collective exploitation.
+> _"**The union**: in it combine spontaneously the workers from factories and
+all places of collective exploitation._
->
+> _"And **the free municipality**: an assembly . . . where, again in
+spontaneity, inhabitants . . . combine together, and which points the way to
+the solution of problems in social life . . . _
-> "And **the free municipality**: an assembly with roots stretching back into
-the past where, again in spontaneity, inhabitants of village and hamlet
-combine together, and which points the way to the solution of problems in
-social life in the countryside.
-
->
-
-> "Both kinds of organisation, run on federal and democratic principles, will
-be soveriegn in their decision making, without being beholden to any higher
+> _"Both kinds of organisation, run on federal and democratic principles, will
+be sovereign in their decision making, without being beholden to any higher
body, their only obligation being to federate one with another as dictated by
the economic requirement for liaison and communications bodies organised in
-industrial federations.
+industrial federations._
->
-
-> "The **union and the free municipality** will assume the collective or
+> _"The **union and the free municipality** will assume the collective or
common ownership of everything which is under private ownership at present
[but collectively used] and will regulate production and consumption (in a
-word, the economy) in each locality.
+word, the economy) in each locality._
+
->
-> "The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and libertarian) is
+ _"The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and libertarian) is
indicative in itself of the fusion of two ideas: one of them is collectivist,
-tending to bring about harmony in the whole through the contributions and
-cooperation of individuals, without undermining their independence in any way;
+tending to bring about harmony in the whole through the contributions and co-
+operation of individuals, without undermining their independence in any way;
while the other is individualist, seeking to reassure the individual that his
independence will be respected."_ [**Libertarian Communism**, pp. 6-7]
-The combination of community unionism, along with industrial unionism (see
-[next section](secJ5.html#secj52)), will be the key of creating an anarchist
+
+
+ The combination of community unionism, along with industrial unionism (see
+[next section](secJ5.html#secj52)), will be the key to creating an anarchist
society, Community unionism, by creating the free commune within the state,
allows us to become accustomed to managing our own affairs and seeing that an
injury to one is an injury to all. In this way a social power is created in
opposition to the state. The town council may still be in the hands of
-politicians, but neither they nor the central government can move without
-worrying about what the people's reaction might be, as expressed and organised
-in their community unions and assemblies.
+politicians, but neither they nor the central government would be able to move
+without worrying about what the people's reaction might be, as expressed and
+organised in their community assemblies and federations.
+
+
-## J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?
+ ## J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?
-Simply because it is effective, expresses our ideas on how industry will be
-organised in an anarchist society and is a key means of ending capitalist
-oppression and exploitation. As Max Stirner pointed out the _"labourers have
-the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly
+
+
+ Simply because it is effective in resisting capitalist exploitation and
+winning reforms, ending capitalist oppression and expresses our ideas on how
+industry will be organised in an anarchist society. For workers _"have the
+most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly
conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only
have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it.
This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and
-there."_ [**The Ego and Its Own**, p. 116]
-
-Libertarian workplace organisation is the best way of organising and
-exercising this power. However, before discussing why anarchists support
-industrial unionism, we must point out that the type of unionism anarchists
-support has very little in common with that associated with reformist or
-business unions like the TUC in Britain or the AFL-CIO in the USA (see [next
-section](secJ5.html#secj53)).
-
-In such unions, as Alexander Berkman points out, the _"rank and file have
-little say. They have delegated their power to leaders, and these have become
-the boss. . . Once you do that, the power you have delegated will be used
-against you and your interests every time."_ [**The ABC of Anarchism**, p. 58]
-Reformist unions, even if they do organise by industry rather than by trade or
-craft, are top-heavy and bureaucratic. Thus they are organised in the same
-manner as capitalist firms or the state -- and like both of these, the
-officials at the top have different interests than those at the bottom. Little
-wonder anarchists oppose such forms of unionism as being counter to the
-interests of their members. The long history of union officials betraying
-their members is proof enough of this.
-
-Therefore anarchists propose a different kind of workplace organisation, one
-that is organised in a totally different manner than the current, mainstream,
-unions. We will call this new kind of organisation **_"industrial unionism"_**
-(although perhaps industrial syndicalism or workplace assemblies may be a
-better, less confusing, name for it).
-
-Industrial unionism is based upon the idea that workers should directly
-control their own organisations and struggles. As such, it is based upon
-workplace assemblies and their confederation between different workplaces in
-the same industry as well as between different workplaces in the same
-locality. An industrial union is a union which organises all workers in a
-given type of industry together into one body. This means that all workers
-regardless of their actual trade would ideally be in the one union. On a
-building site, for example, brick-layers, plumbers, carpenters and so on would
-all be a member of the Building Workers Union. Each trade may have its own
-sections within the union (so that plumbers can discuss issues relating to
-their trade for example) but the core decision making focus would be an
-assembly of all workers employed in a workplace. As they all have the same
-boss it is logical for them to have the same union.
-
-However, industrial unionism should **not** be confused with a closed shop
+there."_ [Max Stirner, **The Ego and Its Own**, p. 116] Industrial unionism is
+simply libertarian workplace organisation and is the best way of organising
+and exercising this power.
+
+
+
+ Before discussing why anarchists support industrial unionism, we must point
+out that the type of unionism anarchists support has very little in common
+with that associated with reformist unions like the TUC in Britain or the AFL-
+CIO in the USA (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj53)). In such unions, as
+Alexander Berkman pointed out, the _"rank and file have little say. They have
+delegated their power to leaders, and these have become the boss . . . Once
+you do that, the power you have delegated will be used against you and your
+interests every time."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 205] Reformist unions,
+even if they do organise by industry rather than by trade or craft, are top-
+heavy and bureaucratic. Thus they are organised in the same manner as
+capitalist firms or the state -- and like both of these, the officials at the
+top have different interests than those at the bottom. Little wonder
+anarchists oppose such forms of unionism as being counter to the interests of
+their members. The long history of union officials betraying their members is
+proof enough of this.
+
+
+
+ Anarchists propose a different kind of workplace organisation, one that is
+organised in a different manner than the mainstream unions. We will call this
+new kind of organisation **_"industrial unionism"_** (although perhaps
+industrial syndicalism, or just syndicalism, might be a better name for it).
+Some anarchists (particularly communist-anarchists) reject calling these
+workplace organisations "unions" and instead prefer such terms as workplace
+resistance groups, workplace assemblies and workers councils. No matter what
+they are called, all class struggle anarchists support the same organisational
+structure we are going to outline. It is purely for convenience that we term
+this industrial unionism.
+
+
+
+ An industrial union is a union which organises all workers in a given
+workplace and so regardless of their actual trade everyone would be in the one
+union. On a building site, for example, brick-layers, plumbers, carpenters and
+so on would all be a member of the Building Workers Union. Each trade may have
+its own sections within the union (so that plumbers can discuss issues
+relating to their trade for example) but the core decision making focus would
+be an assembly of all workers employed in a workplace. As they all have the
+same employer, the same exploiter, it is logical for them to have the same
+union.
+
+
+
+ It is organised by the guiding principle that workers should directly control
+their own organisations and struggles. It is based upon workplace assemblies
+because workers have _"tremendous power"_ as the _"creator of all wealth"_ but
+_"the strength of the worker is not in the union meeting-hall; it is in the
+shop and factory, in the mill and mine. It is **there** that he [or she] must
+organise; there, on the job."_ It is there that workers _"decide the matters
+at issue and carry their decisions out through the shop committees"_ (whose
+members are _"under the direction and supervision of the workers"_ and can be
+_"recalled at will"_). These committees are _"associated locally, regionally
+and nationally"_ to produce _"a power tremendous in its scope and
+potentialities."_ [Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 205-6] This confederation is
+usually organised on two directions, between different workplaces in the same
+industry as well as between different workplaces in the same locality.
+
+
+
+ So industrial unionism is different from ordinary trade unionism (usually
+called business unionism by anarchists and syndicalists as it treats the
+union's job purely as the seller of its members' labour power). It is based on
+unions managed directly by the rank and file membership rather than by elected
+officials and bureaucrats. The industrial union is not based on where the
+worker lives (as is the case with many trade unions). Instead, the union is
+based and run from the workplace. It is there that union meetings are held,
+where workers are exploited and oppressed and where their economic power lies.
+Industrial unionism is based on local branch autonomy, with each branch
+managing its own affairs. No union officials have the power to declare strikes
+"unofficial" as every strike is decided upon by the membership is
+automatically "official" simply because the branch decided it in a mass
+meeting.
+
+
+
+ Power in such an organisation would be decentralised into the hands of the
+membership, as expressed in local workplace assemblies. To co-ordinate strikes
+and other forms of action, these autonomous branches are part of a federal
+structure. The mass meeting in the workplace mandates delegates to express the
+wishes of the membership at "labour councils" and "industrial federations."
+The labour council (_"Brouse du Travail"_, in French) is the federation of all
+workplace branches of all industries in a geographical area (say, for example,
+in a city or region) and it has the tasks of, among other things, education,
+propaganda and the promotion of solidarity between the different workplaces in
+its area. Due to the fact it combines all workers into one organisation,
+regardless of industry or union, the labour council plays a key role in
+increasing **class** consciousness and solidarity. The industrial federation
+organises all workplaces in the same industry so ensuring that workers in one
+part of the country or world are not producing goods so that the bosses _"can
+supply the market and lose nothing by the strike"_. So these federations are
+_"organised not by craft or trade but by industries, so that the whole
+industry -- and if necessary the whole working class -- could strike as one
+man."_ If that were done _"would any strike be lost?"_ [Berkman, **Op. Cit.**,
+p. 82] In practice, of course, the activities of these dual federations would
+overlap: labour councils would support an industry wide strike or action while
+industrial unions would support action conducted by its member unions called
+by labour councils.
+
+
+
+ However, industrial unionism should **not** be confused with a closed shop
situation where workers are forced to join a union when they become a wage
slave in a workplace. While anarchists do desire to see all workers unite in
one organisation, it is vitally important that workers can leave a union and
@@ -391,722 +598,961 @@ join another. The closed shop only empowers union bureaucrats and gives them
even more power to control (and/or ignore) their members. As anarchist
unionism has no bureaucrats, there is no need for the closed shop and its
voluntary nature is essential in order to ensure that a union be subject to
-"exit" as well as "voice" for it to be responsive to its members wishes.
-
-As Albert Meltzer argues, the closed shop means that _"the [trade union]
+"exit" as well as "voice" for it to be responsive to its members wishes. As
+Albert Meltzer argued, the closed shop means that _"the [trade union]
leadership becomes all-powerful since once it exerts its right to expel a
member, that person is not only out of the union, but out of a job."_ Anarcho-
syndicalism, therefore, _"rejects the closed shop and relies on voluntary
membership, and so avoids any leadership or bureaucracy."_ [**Anarchism:
-Arguments for and against**, p. 56 -- also see Tom Wetzel's excellent article
-_"The Origins of the Union Shop"_, part 3 of the series _"Why does the union
-bureaucracy exist?"_ in **Ideas & Action** no. 11, Fall 1989 for a fuller
-discussion of these issues] Without voluntary membership even the most
+Arguments for and against**, p. 56] Without voluntary membership even the most
libertarian union may become bureaucratic and unresponsive to the needs of its
-members and the class struggle (even anarcho-syndicalist unions are subject to
-hierarchical influences by having to work within the hierarchical capitalist
-economy although voluntary membership, along with a libertarian structure and
-tactics, helps combat these tendencies -- see section [
-J.3.9](secJ3.html#secj39)).
-
-Obviously this means that anarchist opposition to the closed shop has nothing
-in common with boss, conservative and right-wing libertarian opposition to it.
-These groups, while denouncing coercing workers into trades unions, support
-the coercive power of bosses over workers without a second thought (indeed,
-given their justifications of sexual harassment and other forms of oppressive
-behaviour by bosses, we can imagine that they would happily support workers
-having to join **company** unions to keep their jobs -- only when bosses
-dislike mandatory union membership do these defenders of "freedom" raise their
-opposition). Anarchist opposition to the closed shop (like their opposition to
-union bureaucracy) flows from their opposition to hierarchy and authoritarian
-social relationships. The right-wing's opposition is purely a product of their
-pro-capitalist and pro-authority position and the desire to see the worker
-subject only to **one** boss during working hours, not **two** (particularly
-if this second one has to represent workers interests to some degree).
-Anarchists, on the other hand, want to get rid of all bosses during working
-hours.
-
-In industrial unionism, the membership, assembled in their place of work, are
+members and the class struggle (also see Tom Wetzel's excellent article _"The
+Origins of the Union Shop"_, [**Ideas & Action** no. 11]). Needless to say, if
+the union membership refuses to work with non-union members then that is a
+different situation. Then this is an issue of free association (as free
+association clearly implies the right **not** to associate). This issue rarely
+arises and most syndicalist unions operate in workplaces with other unions
+(the excepts arise, as happened frequently in Spanish labour history with the
+Marxist UGT, when the other union scabs when workers are on strike).
+
+
+
+ In industrial unionism, the membership, assembled in their place of work, are
the ones to decide when to strike, when to pay strike pay, what tactics to
use, what demands to make, what issues to fight over and whether an action is
"official" or "unofficial". In this way the rank and file is in control of
-their unions and, by confederating with other assemblies, they co-ordinate
-their forces with their fellow workers. As syndicalist activist Tom Brown
-makes clear:
+their union and, by confederating with other assemblies, they co-ordinate
+their forces with their fellow workers. As syndicalist activist Tom Brown made
+clear:
> _"The basis of the Syndicate is the mass meeting of workers assembled at
-their place of work. . . The meeting elects its factory committee and
-delegates. The factory is Syndicate is federated to all other such committees
-in the locality. . . In the other direction, the factory, let us say
-engineering factory, is affiliated to the District Federation of Engineers. In
-turn the District Federation is affiliated to the National Federation of
-Engineers. . . Then, each industrial federation is affiliated to the National
-Federation of Labour . . . how the members of such committees are elected is
-most important. They are, first of all, not representatives like Members of
-Parliament who air their own views; they are delegates who carry the message
-of the workers who elect them. They do not tell the workers what the
-'official' policy is; the workers tell them.
-
->
-
-> "Delegates are subject to instant recall by the persons who elected them.
+their place of work . . . The meeting elects its factory committee and
+delegates. The factory Syndicate is federated to all other such committees in
+the locality . . . In the other direction, the factory, let us say engineering
+factory, is affiliated to the District Federation of Engineers. In turn the
+District Federation is affiliated to the National Federation of Engineers . .
+. Then, each industrial federation is affiliated to the National Federation of
+Labour . . . how the members of such committees are elected is most important.
+They are, first of all, not representatives like Members of Parliament who air
+their own views; they are delegates who carry the message of the workers who
+elect them. They do not tell the workers what the 'official' policy is; the
+workers tell them._
+
+> _"Delegates are subject to instant recall by the persons who elected them.
None may sit for longer than two successive years, and four years must elapse
before his [or her] next nomination. Very few will receive wages as delegates,
-and then only the district rate of wages for the industry. . .
+and then only the district rate of wages for the industry . . . _
->
-
-> "It will be seen that in the Syndicate the members control the organisation
-- not the bureaucrats controlling the members. In a trade union the higher up
+> _"It will be seen that in the Syndicate the members control the organisation
+-- not the bureaucrats controlling the members. In a trade union the higher up
the pyramid a man is the more power he wields; in a Syndicate the higher he is
-the less power he has.
-
->
+the less power he has._
-> "The factory Syndicate has full autonomy over its own affairs. . ."_
+> _"The factory Syndicate has full autonomy over its own affairs."_
[**Syndicalism**, pp. 35-36]
-As can be seen, industrial unionism reflects anarchist ideas of organisation -
-it is organised from the bottom up, it is decentralised and based upon
+
+
+ Such federalism exists to co-ordinate struggle, to ensure that solidarity
+becomes more than a word written on banners. We are sure that many radicals
+will argue that such decentralised, confederal organisations would produce
+confusion and disunity. However, anarchists maintain that the statist,
+centralised form of organisation of the trades unions would produce
+indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity,
+uniformity instead of unity, and elites instead of equality. The centralised
+form of organisation has been tried and tried again -- it has always failed.
+This is why the industrial union rejects centralisation, for it _"takes
+control too far away from the place of struggle to be effective on the
+workers' side."_ [Brown, **Op. Cit.**, p. 34] Centralisation leads to
+disempowerment, which in turn leads to indifference, **not** solidarity.
+Rudolf Rocker reminds us of the evil effects of centralism when he wrote:
+
+> _"For the state centralisation is the appropriate form of organisation,
+since it aims at the greatest possible uniformity in social life for the
+maintenance of political and social equilibrium. But for a movement whose very
+existence depends on prompt action at any favourable moment and on the
+independent thought and action of its supporters, centralism could but be a
+curse by weakening its power of decision and systematically repressing all
+immediate action. If, for example, as was the case in Germany, every local
+strike had first to be approved by the Central, which was often hundreds of
+miles away and was not usually in a position to pass a correct judgement on
+the local conditions, one cannot wonder that the inertia of the apparatus of
+organisation renders a quick attack quite impossible, and there thus arises a
+state of affairs where the energetic and intellectually alert groups no longer
+serve as patterns for the less active, but are condemned by these to
+inactivity, inevitably bringing the whole movement to stagnation. Organisation
+is, after all, only a means to an end. When it becomes an end in itself, it
+kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members and sets up that
+domination by mediocrity which is the characteristic of all bureaucracies."_
+[**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 61]
+
+
+
+ Centralised unions ensure that it is the highest level of union officialdom
+which decides when workers are allowed to strike. Instead of those affected
+acting, _"the dispute must be reported to the district office of the union
+(and in some cases to an area office) then to head office, then back again . .
+. The worker is not allowed any direct approach to, or control of the
+problem."_ [Brown, **Op. Cit.**, p. 34] The end result is that _"through the
+innate conservatism of officialdom"_ officials in centralised unions
+_"ordinarily use their great powers to prevent strikes or to drive their
+unions' members back to work after they have struck in concert with other
+workers."_ The notion that a centralised organisation will be more radical
+_"has not developed in practice"_ and the key problem _"is due not to the
+autonomy of the unions, but to the lack of it."_ [Earl C. Ford and William Z.
+Foster, **Syndicalism**, p. 38] So the industrial union _"is based on the
+principles of Federalism, on free combination from below upwards, putting the
+right of self-determination . . . above everything else"_ and so rejects
+centralism as an _"artifical organisation from above downwards which turns
+over the affairs of everybody in a lump to a small minority"_ and is _"always
+attended by barren official routine"_ as well as _"lifeless discipline and
+bureaucratic ossification."_ [Rocker, **Op. Cit.**, p. 60]
+
+
+
+ This implies that as well as being decentralised and organised from the
+bottom up, the industrial union differs from the normal trade union by having
+no full-time officials. All union business is conducted by elected fellow
+workers who do their union activities after work or, if it has to be done
+during work hours, they get the wages they lost while on union business. In
+this way no bureaucracy of well paid officials is created and all union
+militants remain in direct contact with their fellow workers. Given that it is
+**their** wages, working conditions and so on that are effected by their union
+activity they have a real interest in making the union an effective
+organisation and ensuring that it reflects the interests of the rank and file.
+In addition, all part-time union "officials" are elected, mandated and
+recallable delegates. If the fellow worker who is elected to the local labour
+council or other union committee is not reflecting the opinions of those who
+mandated him or her then the union assembly can countermand their decision,
+recall them and replace them with someone who **will** reflect these
+decisions. In short, _"the Syndicalist stands firmly by these things -- mass
+meetings, delegates not bosses, the right of recall . . . Syndicalism is
+organised from the bottom upwards . . . all power comes from below and is
+controlled from below. This is a revolutionary principle."_ [Brown, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 85]
+
+
+
+ As can be seen, industrial unionism reflects anarchist ideas of organisation
+-- it is organised from the bottom up, it is decentralised and based upon
federation and it is directly managed by its members in mass assemblies. It is
anarchism applied to industry and the needs of the class struggle. By
supporting such forms of organisations, anarchists are not only seeing
-"anarchy in action", they are forming effective tools which can win the class
-war. By organising in this manner, workers are building the framework of a co-
-operative society within capitalism. Rudolf Rocker makes this clear:
+_"anarchy in action"_, they are forming effective tools which can win the
+class war. By organising in this manner, workers are building the framework of
+a co-operative society within capitalism:
-> _"the syndicate. . . has for its purpose the defence of the interests of the
-producers within existing society and the preparing for and the practical
+> _"the syndicate . . . has for its purpose the defence of the interests of
+the producers within existing society and the preparing for and the practical
carrying out of the reconstruction of social life . . . It has, therefore, a
double purpose: 1. As the fighting organisation of the workers against their
-employers to enforce the demand of the workers for the safeguarding of their
+employers to enforce the demands of the workers for the safeguarding of their
standard of living; 2. As the school for the intellectual training of the
workers to make them acquainted with the technical management of production
-and economic life in general."_ [**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 51]
+and economic life in general, so that when a revolutionary situation arises
+they will be capable of taking the socio-economic organism into their own
+hands and remaking it according to Socialist principles."_ [Rocker, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 56-7]
-Given the fact that workers wages have been stagnating (or, at best, falling
+
+
+ So _"[a]t the same time that syndicalism exerts this unrelenting pressure on
+capitalism, it tries to build the new social order within the old. The unions
+and the 'labour councils' are not merely means of struggle and instruments of
+social revolution; they are also the very structure around which to build a
+free society. The workers are to be educated in the job of destroying the old
+propertied order and in the task of reconstructing a stateless, libertarian
+society. The two go together."_ [Murray Bookchin, **The Spanish Anarchists**,
+p. 121] The industrial union is seen as prefiguring the future society, a
+society which (like the union) is decentralised and self-managed in all
+aspects.
+
+
+
+ Given the fact that workers wages have been stagnating (or, at best, falling
behind productivity increases) across the world as the trade unions have been
weakened and marginalised (partly because of their own tactics, structure and
politics) it is clear that there exists a great need for working people to
organise to defend themselves. The centralised, top-down trade unions we are
accustomed to have proved themselves incapable of effective struggle (and,
-indeed, the number of times they have sabotaged such struggle are countless \-
-a result not of "bad" leaders but of the way these unions organise and their
-role within capitalism). Hence anarchists support industrial unionism (co-
-operation between workers assemblies) as an effective alternative to the
-malaise of official trade unionism. How anarchists aim to encourage such new
-forms of workplace organisation and struggle will be discussed in the [next
-section](secJ5.html#secj53).
-
-We are sure that many radicals will consider that such decentralised,
-confederal organisations would produce confusion and disunity. However,
-anarchists maintain that the statist, centralised form of organisation of the
-trades unions would produce indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness
-instead of solidarity, uniformity instead of unity, and elites instead of
-equality, nevermind killing all personal initiative by lifeless discipline and
-bureaucratic ossification and permitting no independent action. The old form
-of organisation has been tried and tried again - it has always failed. The
-sooner workers recognise this the better.
-
-One last point. We must note that many anarchists, particularly communist-
+indeed, the number of times they have sabotaged such struggle are countless
+\-- a result not of "bad" leaders but of the way these unions organise and
+their role within capitalism). Hence anarchists support industrial unionism as
+an effective alternative to the malaise of official trade unionism. How
+anarchists aim to encourage such new forms of workplace organisation and
+struggle will be discussed in the [section J.5.4](secJ5.html#secj54).
+
+
+
+ One last point. We noted that many anarchists, particularly communist-
anarchists, consider unions, even anarchosyndicalist ones, as having a strong
-reformist tendency (as discussed in section [J.3.9](secJ3.html#secj39)).
+reformist tendency (as discussed in [section J.3.9](secJ3.html#secj39)).
However, all anarchists recognise the importance of autonomous class struggle
and the need for organisations to help fight that struggle. Thus anarchist-
communists, instead of trying to organise industrial unions, apply the ideas
-of industrial unionism to workplace struggles. In other words, they would
-agree with the need to organise all workers into a mass assembly and to have
-elected, recallable administration committees to carry out the strikers
-wishes. This means that such anarchists they do not call their practical ideas
-"anarcho-syndicalism" nor the workplace assemblies they desire to create
-"unions," there are **extremely** similar in nature and so we can discuss both
-using the term "industrial unionism". The key difference is that many (if not
-most) anarcho-communists consider that permanent workplace organisations that
-aim to organise **all** workers would soon become reformist. Because of this
-they also see the need for anarchist to organise **as anarchists** in order to
-spread the anarchist message within them and keep their revolutionary aspects
-at the forefront (and so support industrial networks -- see [next
-section](secJ5.html#secj53)).
-
-Therefore while there are slight differences in terminology and practice, all
-anarchists would support the ideas of industrial unionism we have outlined
-above.
-
-## J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing unions?
-
-As noted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj52), anarchists desire to create
-organisations in the workplace radically different from the existing trade
-unions. The question now arises, what attitude do anarchists generally take to
-these existing unions?
-
-Before answering that question, we must stress that anarchists, no matter how
+of industrial unionism to workplace struggles. They would agree with the need
+to organise all workers into a mass assembly and to have elected, recallable
+administration committees to carry out the strikers wishes. This means that
+while such anarchists do not call their practical ideas "anarcho-syndicalism"
+nor the workplace assemblies they desire to create "unions," there are
+**extremely** similar in nature and so we can discuss both using the term
+"industrial unionism". The key difference is that many (if not most) anarcho-
+communists consider that permanent workplace organisations that aim to
+organise **all** workers would become reformist. Because of this they also see
+the need for anarchist to organise **as anarchists** in order to spread the
+anarchist message within them and keep their revolutionary aspects at the
+forefront.
+
+
+
+ Spontaneously created organisations of workers in struggle play an important
+role in both communist-anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist theory. Since both
+advocate that it is the workers, using their own organisations who will
+control their own struggles (and, eventually, their own revolution) in their
+own interests, not a vanguard party of elite political theorists, this is
+unsurprising. It matters little if the specific organisations are
+revolutionary industrial unions, factory committees, workers councils, or
+other labour formations. The important thing is that they are created and run
+by workers themselves. Meanwhile, anarchists are industrial guerrillas waging
+class war at the point of production in order to win improvements in the here
+and now and strengthen tendencies towards anarchism by showing that direct
+action and libertarian organisation is effective and can win partial
+expropriations of capitalist and state power. So while there are slight
+differences in terminology and practice, all anarchists would support the
+ideas of industrial organisation and struggle we have outlined above.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing unions?
+
+
+
+ As noted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj52), anarchists desire to
+create organisations in the workplace radically different from the existing
+unions. The question now arises, what attitude do anarchists take to trade
+unions?
+
+
+
+ Before answering that question, we must stress that anarchists, no matter how
hostile to trade unions as bureaucratic, reformist institutions, **are** in
favour of working class struggle. This means that when trade union members or
other workers are on strike anarchists will support them (unless the strike is
-totally reactionary -- for example, no anarchist would support a strike which
-is racist in nature). This is because almost all anarchists consider it basic
-to their politics that you don't scab and you don't crawl (a handful of
-individualist anarchists are the exception). So, when reading anarchist
+reactionary -- for example, no anarchist would support a strike which is
+racist in nature). This is because anarchists consider it basic to their
+politics that you do not scab and you do not crawl. So, when reading anarchist
criticisms of trade unions do not for an instant think we do not support
industrial struggles -- we do, we are just very critical of the unions that
are sometimes involved.
-So, what do anarchists think of the trade unions?
-For the most part, one could call the typical anarchist opinion toward them as
-one of "hostile support." It is hostile insofar as anarchists are well aware
-of how bureaucratic these unions are and how they continually betray their
-members. Given that they are usually little more than "business"
+
+ So, what do anarchists think of the trade unions?
+
+
+
+ For the most part, one could call the typical anarchist opinion toward them
+as one of "hostile support." It is hostile insofar as anarchists are well
+aware of how bureaucratic these unions are and how they continually betray
+their members. Given that they are usually little more than "business"
organisations, trying to sell their members labour-power for the best deal
possible, it is unsurprising that they are bureaucratic and that the interests
of the bureaucracy are at odds with those of its membership. However, our
attitude is "supportive" in that even the worse trade union represents an
-attempt at working class solidarity and self-help, even if the attempt is now
-far removed from the initial protests and ideas that set the union up. For a
-worker to join a trade union means having to recognise, to some degree, that
-he or she has different interests from their boss. There is no way to explain
-the survival of the unions other than the fact that there are different class
-interests, and workers have understood that to promote their own interests
-they have to organise on class lines.
-
-No amount of conservatism, bureaucracy or backwardness within the unions can
-obliterate the essential fact of different class interests. The very existence
-of trade unions testifies to the existence of some level of basic class
-consciousness -- even though most trade unions claim otherwise and that
-capital and labour have interests in common. As we have argued, anarchists
-reject this claim with good reason, and the very existence of trade unions
-show that this is not true. If workers and capitalists have the same
-interests, trade unions would not exist. Moreover, claiming that the interests
-of workers and bosses are the same theoretically disarms both the unions and
-its members and so weakens their struggles (after all, if bosses and workers
-have similar interests then any conflict is bad and the decisions of the boss
-must be in workers' interests!).
-
-Thus anarchist viewpoints reflect the contradictory nature of business/trade
-unions -- on the one hand they are products of workers' struggle, but on the
-other they are **very** bureaucratic, unresponsive and centralised and
-(therefore) their full-time officials have no real interest in fighting
-against wage labour as it would put them out of a job. Indeed, the very nature
-of trade unionism ensures that the interests of the union (i.e. the full-time
-officials) come into conflict with the people they claim to represent.
-
-This can best be seen from the disgraceful activities of the TGWU with respect
-to the Liverpool dockers in Britain. The union officials (and the TUC itself)
-refused to support their members after they had been sacked in 1995 for
-refusing to cross a picket line. The dockers organised their own struggle,
-contacting dockers' unions across the world and organising global solidarity
+attempt at working class solidarity and self-help, even if the organisation is
+now far removed from the initial protests and ideas that set the union up. For
+a worker to join a trade union means recognising, to some degree, that he or
+she has different interests from their boss (_"If the interests of labour and
+capital are the same, why the union?"_ [Alexander Berkman, **What is
+Anarchism?**, p. 76]).
+
+
+
+ There is no way to explain the survival of unions other than the fact that
+there are different class interests and workers have understood that to
+promote their own interests they have to organise collectively. No amount of
+conservatism, bureaucracy or backwardness within the unions can obliterate
+this. The very existence of trade unions testifies to the existence of some
+level of basic class consciousness and the recognition that workers and
+capitalists do not have the same interests. Claims by trade union officials
+that the interests of workers and bosses are the same theoretically disarms
+both the union and its members and so weakens their struggles (after all, if
+bosses and workers have similar interests then any conflict is bad and the
+decisions of the boss must be in workers' interests!). That kind of nonsense
+is best left to the apologists of capitalism (see [section
+F.3.2](secF3.html#secf32)).
+
+
+
+ It is no surprise, then, the _"extreme opposition to the existing political
+and economic power"_ to unions as they _"not only suspected every labour
+organisation of aiming to improve the condition of its members within the
+limits of the wage system, but they also looked upon the trade union as the
+deeply enemy of wage-slavery -- and they were right. Every labour organisation
+of sincere character must needs wage war upon the existing economic
+conditions, since the continuation of the same is synonymous with the
+exploitation and enslavement of labour."_ [Max Baginski, _"Aim and Tactics of
+the Trade-Union Movement"_, pp. 297-306, **Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma
+Goldman's Mother Earth**, Peter Glassgold (ed.), pp. 302-3] Thus anarchist
+viewpoints on this issue reflect the contradictory nature of trade unions --
+on the one hand they are products of workers' struggle, but on the other they
+are bureaucratic, unresponsive, centralised and their full-time officials have
+no real interest in fighting against wage labour as it would put them out of a
+job. Indeed, the very nature of trade unionism ensures that the interests of
+the union (i.e. the full-time officials) come into conflict with the people
+they claim to represent.
+
+
+
+ This can best be seen from the disgraceful activities of the TGWU with
+respect to the Liverpool dockers in Britain. The union officials (and the TUC
+itself) refused to support their members after they had been sacked in 1995
+for refusing to cross a picket line. The dockers organised their own struggle,
+contacting dockers' unions across the world and organised global solidarity
actions. Moreover, a network of support groups sprung up across Britain to
gather funds for their struggle (and, we are proud to note, anarchists have
played their role in supporting the strikers). Many trade unionists could tell
similar stories of betrayal by "their" union.
-This occurs because trade unions, in order to get recognition from a company,
-must be able to promise industrial pieces. They need to enforce the contracts
+
+
+ This occurs because trade unions, in order to get recognition from a company,
+must be able to promise industrial peace. They need to enforce the contracts
they sign with the bosses, even if this goes against the will of its members.
Thus trade unions become a third force in industry, somewhere between
management and the workers and pursuing its own interests. This need to
enforce contracts soon ensures that the union becomes top-down and centralised
-- otherwise its members would violate the unions agreements. They have to be
-able to control their members - which usually means stopping them fighting the
-boss - if they are to have anything to bargain with at the negotiation table.
-This may sound odd, but the point is that the union official has to sell the
-employer labour discipline and freedom from unofficial strikes as part of its
-side of the bargain. Otherwise the employer will ignore them. The nature of
-trade unionism is to take power away from out of local members and centralise
-it into the hands of officials at the top of the organisation.
-
-Thus union officials sell out their members because of the role trade unions
-play within society, not because they are nasty individuals (although some
-are). They behave as they do because they have too much power and, being full-
-time and highly paid, are unaccountable, in any real way, to their members.
-Power -- and wealth -- corrupts, no matter who you are. (also see Chapter 11
-of Alexander Berkman's **What is Communist Anarchism?** for an excellent
+able to control their members -- which usually means stopping them fighting
+the boss -- if they are to have anything to bargain with at the negotiation
+table. This may sound odd, but the point is that the union official has to
+sell the employer labour discipline and freedom from unofficial strikes as
+part of its side of the bargain otherwise the employer will ignore them.
+
+
+
+ The nature of trade unionism, then, is to take power away from out of local
+members and centralise it into the hands of officials at the top of the
+organisation. Thus union officials sell out their members because of the role
+trade unions play within society, not because they are nasty individuals
+(although some are). They behave as they do because they have too much power
+and, being full-time and highly paid, are unaccountable, in any real way, to
+their members. Power -- and wealth -- corrupts, no matter who you are (see
+_Chapter XI_ of Alexander Berkman's **What is Anarchism?** for an excellent
introduction to anarchist viewpoints on trade unions).
-While, in normal times, most workers will not really question the nature of
+
+
+ While, in normal times, most workers will not really question the nature of
the trade union bureaucracy, this changes when workers face some threat. Then
they are brought face to face with the fact that the trade union has interests
separate from theirs. Hence we see trade unions agreeing to wage cuts,
redundancies and so on -- after all, the full-time trade union official's job
is not on the line! But, of course, while such a policy is in the short term
interests of the officials, in the longer term it goes against their interests
--- after all, who wants to join a union which rolls over and presents no
-effective resistance to employers? Little wonder Michael Moore has a chapter
-entitled _"Why are Union Leaders So F#!@ing Stupid?"_ in his book **Downsize
-This!** \-- essential reading to realise how moronic trade union bureaucrats
-can actually be. Sadly trade union bureaucracy seems to afflict all who enter
-it with short-sightedness, as seen by the countless times the trade unions
-have sold-out their members -- although the chickens do, finally, come home to
-roost, as the bureaucrats of the AFL, TUC and other trade unions are finding
-out in this era of global capital and falling membership. So while the
-activities of trade union leaders may seem crazy and short-sighted, these
-activities are forced upon them by their position and role within society --
-which explains why they are so commonplace and why even radical leaders end up
-doing exactly the same thing in time.
-
-Few anarchists would call upon members of a trade union to tear-up their
-membership cards. While some anarchists, particularly communist anarchists and
-some anarcho-syndicalists have nothing but contempt (and rightly so) for trade
-unions (and so do not work within them -- but will support trade union members
-in struggle), the majority of anarchists take a more pragmatic viewpoint. If
-no alternative syndicalist union exists, anarchists will work within the
-existing unions (perhaps becoming shop-stewards -- few anarchists would agree
-to be elected to positions above this in any trade union, particularly if the
-post was full-time), spreading the anarchist message and trying to create a
-libertarian undercurrent which would hopefully blossom into a more anarchistic
-labour movement.
-
-So most anarchists "support" the trade unions only until they have created a
-viable libertarian alternative. Thus we will become trade union members while
-trying to spread anarchist ideas within and outwith them. This means that
-anarchists are flexible in terms of their activity in the unions. For example,
-many IWW members were "two-carders." This meant that as well as being members
-of the IWW, they were also in the local AFL branch in their place of work and
-turned to the IWW when the AFL hierarchy refused to back strikes or other
-forms of direct action. Anarchists encourage rank and file self-activity,
-**not** endless calls for trade union bureaucrats to act for us (as is
-unfortunately far too common on the left).
-
-Anarchist activity within trade unions reflects our ideas on hierarchy and its
-corrupting effects. We reject totally the response of left-wing social
-democrats, Stalinists and mainstream Trotskyists to the problem of trade union
-betrayal, which is to try and elect and/or appoint 'better' officials. They
-see the problem primarily in terms of the individuals who hold the posts.
-However this ignores the fact that individuals are shaped by the environment
-they live in and the role they play in society. Thus even the most left-wing
-and progressive individual will become a bureaucrat if they are placed within
-a bureaucracy -- and we must note that the problem of corruption does not
-spring from the high-wages officials are paid (although this is a factor), but
-from the power they have over their members (which partly expresses itself in
-high pay).
-
-Any claim that electing "radical" full-time officials who refuse to take the
-high wages associated with the position will be better is false. The
-hierarchical nature of the trade union structure has to be changed, not side-
-effects of it. As the left has no problem with hierarchy as such, this
-explains why they support this form of "reform." They do not actually want to
-undercut whatever dependency the members has on leadership, they want to
-replace the leaders with "better" ones (i.e. themselves or members of their
-party) and so endlessly call upon the trade union bureaucracy to act **for**
-its members. In this way, they hope, trade unionists will see the need to
-support a "better" leadership -- namely themselves. Anarchists, in stark
-contrast, think that the problem is not that the leadership of the trade
-unions is weak, right-wing or does not act but that the union's membership
-follows them. Thus anarchists aim at undercutting reliance on leaders (be they
-left or right) by encouraging self-activity by the rank and file and awareness
-that hierarchical leadership as such is bad, not individual leaders.
-
-Instead of "reform" from above (which is doomed to failure), anarchists work
+-- who wants to join a union which rolls over and presents no effective
+resistance to employers? Little wonder Michael Moore had a chapter entitled
+_"Why are Union Leaders So F#!@ing Stupid?"_ in his book **Downsize This!**
+\-- essential reading on how moronic trade union bureaucrats can actually be.
+Sadly trade union bureaucracy seems to afflict all who enter it with short-
+sightedness -- although the chickens do, finally, come home to roost, as the
+bureaucrats of the AFL, TUC and other trade unions are finding out in this era
+of global capital and falling membership. So while the activities of trade
+union leaders may seem crazy and short-sighted, these activities are forced
+upon them by their position and role within society -- which explains why they
+are so commonplace and why even radical leaders end up doing exactly the same
+thing in time.
+
+
+
+ However, few anarchists would call upon members of a trade union to tear-up
+their membership cards. While some anarchists have nothing but contempt (and
+rightly so) for trade unions (and so do not work within them -- but will
+support trade union members in struggle), the majority of anarchists take a
+more pragmatic viewpoint. If no alternative syndicalist union exists,
+anarchists will work within the existing unions (perhaps becoming shop-
+stewards -- few anarchists would agree to be elected to positions above this
+in any trade union, particularly if the post were full-time), spreading the
+anarchist message and trying to create a libertarian undercurrent which would
+hopefully blossom into a more anarchistic labour movement. So most anarchists
+"support" the trade unions only until we have created a viable libertarian
+alternative. Thus we will become trade union members while trying to spread
+anarchist ideas within and outwith them. This means that anarchists are
+flexible in terms of our activity in the unions. For example, many IWW members
+were "two-carders" which meant they were also in the local AFL branch in their
+place of work and turned to the IWW when the AFL hierarchy refused to back
+strikes or other forms of direct action.
+
+
+
+ Anarchist activity within trade unions reflects our ideas on hierarchy and
+its corrupting effects. We reject the response of left-wing social democrats,
+Stalinists and mainstream Trotskyists to the problem of trade union betrayal,
+which is to try and elect 'better' officials. They see the problem primarily
+in terms of the individuals who hold the posts so ignoring the fact that
+individuals are shaped by the environment they live in and the role they play
+in society. Thus even the most left-wing and progressive individual will
+become a bureaucrat if they are placed within a bureaucracy.
+
+
+
+ We must note that the problem of corruption does not spring from the high-
+wages officials are paid (although this is a factor), but from the power they
+have over their members (which partly expresses itself in high pay). Any claim
+that electing "radical" full-time officials who refuse to take the high wages
+associated with the position will be better is false. The hierarchical nature
+of the trade union structure has to be changed, not side-effects of it. As the
+left has no problem with hierarchy as such, this explains why they support
+this form of "reform." They do not actually want to undercut whatever
+dependency the members have on leadership, they want to replace the leaders
+with "better" ones (i.e. themselves or members of their party) and so
+endlessly call upon the trade union bureaucracy to act **for** its members. In
+this way, they hope, trade unionists will see the need to support a "better"
+leadership -- namely themselves. Anarchists, in stark contrast, think that the
+problem is not that the leadership of the trade unions is weak, right-wing or
+does not act but that the union's membership follows them. Thus anarchists aim
+at undercutting reliance on leaders (be they left or right) by encouraging
+self-activity by the rank and file and awareness that hierarchical leadership
+as such is bad, not individual leaders. Anarchists encourage rank and file
+self-activity, **not** endless calls for trade union bureaucrats to act for us
+(as is unfortunately far too common on the left).
+
+
+
+ Instead of "reform" from above (which is doomed to failure), anarchists work
at the bottom and attempt to empower the rank and file of the trade unions. It
-is self-evident that the more power, initiative and control that lies with the
-rank & file membership on the shop floor, the less it will lie with the
-bureaucracy. Thus anarchists work within and outwith the trade unions in order
-to increase the power of workers where it actually lies: at the point of
-production. This is usually done by creating networks of activists who spread
-anarchist ideas to their fellow workers (see next section -- ["What are
-Industrial Networks?"](secJ5.html#secj54)).
-
-These groups _"within the unions should strive to ensure that they [the trade
-unions] remain open to all workers of whatever opinion or party on the sole
-condition that there is solidarity in the struggle against the bosses. They
-should oppose the corporatist spirit and any attempt to monopolise labour or
-organisation. They should prevent the Unions from becoming the tools of the
-politicians for electoral or other authoritarian ends; they should preach and
-practice direct action, decentralisation, autonomy and free initiative. They
-should strive to help members learn how to participate directly in the life of
-the organisation and to do without leaders and permanent officials.
-
-"They must, in short, remain anarchists, remain always in close touch with
+is self-evident that the more power, initiative and control that lies on the
+shop floor, the less the bureaucracy has. Thus anarchists work within and
+outwith the trade unions in order to increase the power of workers where it
+actually lies: at the point of production. This is usually done by creating
+networks of activists who spread anarchist ideas to their fellow workers (see
+[next section](secJ5.html#secj54)). Hence Malatesta:
+
+> _"The anarchists within the unions should strive to ensure that they remain
+open to all workers of whatever opinion or party on the sole condition that
+there is solidarity in the struggle against the bosses. They should oppose the
+corporatist spirit and any attempt to monopolise labour or organisation. They
+should prevent the Unions from becoming the tools of the politicians for
+electoral or other authoritarian ends; they should preach and practice direct
+action, decentralisation, autonomy and free initiative. They should strive to
+help members learn how to participate directly in the life of the organisation
+and to do without leaders and permanent officials._
+
+> _"They must, in short, remain anarchists, remain always in close touch with
anarchists and remember that the workers' organisation is not the end but just
one of the means, however important, of preparing the way for the achievement
-of anarchism."_ [Errico Malatesta, **The Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 26-27]
+of anarchism."_ [**The Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 26-7]
+
-As part of this activity anarchists promote the ideas of Industrial Unionism
+
+ As part of this activity anarchists promote the ideas of Industrial Unionism
we highlighted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj52) \-- namely direct
workers control of struggle via workplace assemblies and recallable committees
-\-- during times of struggle. However, anarchists are aware that economic
+-- during times of struggle. However, anarchists are aware that economic
struggle (and trade unionism as such) _"cannot be an end in itself, since the
struggle must also be waged at a political level to distinguish the role of
-the State."_ [Errico Malatesta, **Life and Ideas**, p, 115] Thus, as well as
-encouraging worker self-organisation and self-activity, anarchist groups also
-seek to politicise struggles and those involved in them. Only this process of
-self-activity and political discussion between equals **within** social
-struggles can ensure the process of working class self-liberation and the
-creation of new, more libertarian, forms of workplace organisation.
-
-The result of such activity may be a new form of workplace organisation
+the State."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p, 115]
+Thus, as well as encouraging worker self-organisation and self-activity,
+anarchist groups also seek to politicise struggles and those involved in them.
+Only this process of self-activity and political discussion between equals
+**within** social struggles can ensure the process of working class self-
+liberation and the creation of new, more libertarian, forms of workplace
+organisation.
+
+
+
+ The result of such activity may be a new form of workplace organisation
(either workplace assemblies or an anarcho-syndicalist union) or a reformed,
more democratic version of the existing trade union (although few anarchists
-believe that the current trade unions can be reformed). But either way, the
-aim is to get as many members of the current labour movement to become
-anarchists as possible or, at the very least, take a more libertarian and
-radical approach to their unions and workplace struggle.
-
-## J.5.4 What are industrial networks?
-
-Industrial networks are the means by which revolutionary industrial unions and
-other forms of libertarian workplace organisation can be created. The idea of
-Industrial Networks originated with the British section of the anarcho-
-syndicalist International Workers' Association in the late 1980s. It was
-developed as a means of promoting anarcho-syndicalist/anarchist ideas within
-the workplace, so creating the basis on which a workplace movement based upon
-the ideas of industrial unionism (see section [J.5.2](secJ5.html#secj52))
-could grow and expand.
-
-The idea is very simple. An Industrial Network is a federation of militants in
-a given industry who support the ideas of anarchism and/or anarcho-
+believe that the current trade unions can be reformed). Either way, the aim is
+to get as many members of the current labour movement to become anarchists as
+possible or, at the very least, take a more libertarian and radical approach
+to their unions and workplace struggle.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.4 What are industrial networks?
+
+
+
+ Industrial networks are the means by which revolutionary industrial unions
+and other forms of libertarian workplace organisation can be created. The idea
+of Industrial Networks originated with the British section of the anarcho-
+syndicalist **International Workers Association** in the late 1980s. It was
+developed as a means of promoting libertarian ideas within the workplace, so
+creating the basis on which a workplace movement based upon the ideas of
+industrial unionism (see [section J.5.2](secJ5.html#secj52)) could grow and
+expand.
+
+
+
+ The idea is very simple. An Industrial Network is a federation of militants
+in a given industry who support the ideas of anarchism and/or anarcho-
syndicalism, namely direct action, solidarity and organisation from the bottom
up (the difference between purely anarchist networks and anarcho-syndicalist
-ones will be highlighted later). In other words, it would _"initially be a
-political grouping in the economic sphere, aiming to build a less reactive but
-positive organisation within the industry. The long term aim. . . is,
-obviously, the creation of an anarcho-syndicalist union."_ [**Winning the
-Class War**, p. 18]
-
-The Industrial Network would be an organisation of groups of anarchists and
-syndicalists within a workplace united into an industrial basis. They would
-pull their resources together to fund a regular bulletin and other forms of
-propaganda which they would distribute within their workplace and industry.
-These bulletins and leaflets would raise and discuss issues related to work
-and how to right back and win as well as placing workplace issues in a social
-and political context. This propaganda would present anarchist ideas of
-workplace organisation and resistance as well as general anarchist ideas and
-analysis. In this way anarchist ideas and tactics would be able to get a wider
-hearing and anarchists can have an input **as anarchists** into workplace
-struggles.
-
-Traditionally, many syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists advocated the **_One
-Big Union_** strategy, the aim of which was to organise all workers into one
-organisation representing the whole working class. Today, however, most
-anarcho-syndicalists and all social anarchists advocate workers assemblies for
-decision making during struggles (the basic form of which we discussed in
-section [J.5.2](secJ5.html#secj52)). The role of the anarchist group or
-anarcho-syndicalist (or revolutionary) union would basically be to call such
-workplace assemblies, argue for direct workers control of struggle by these
-mass assemblies, promote direct action and solidarity, put across anarchist
-ideas and politics and keep things on the boil, so to speak.
-
-This support for industrial networks exists because most anarcho-syndicalists
-recognise that they face dual unionism (which means there are more than one
-union within a given workplace or country). This was the case, historically,
-in all countries with a large anarcho-syndicalist union movement - in Spain
-and Italy there were the socialist unions along with the syndicalist ones and
-so on). Therefore most anarcho-syndicalists do not expect to ever get a
-majority of the working class into a revolutionary union before a
-revolutionary situation develops. In addition, anarcho-syndicalists recognise
-that a revolutionary union _"is not just an economic fighting force, but also
-an organisation with a political context. To build such a union requires a lot
-of work and experience"_ of which the Industrial Networks are but one aspect.
-[**Ibid.**]
-
-Thus industrial networks are intended to deal with the actual situation that
+ones will be highlighted later). It would _"initially be a political grouping
+in the economic sphere, aiming to build a less reactive but positive
+organisation within the industry. The long term aim . . . is, obviously, the
+creation of an anarcho-syndicalist union."_ [**Winning the Class War**, p. 18]
+
+
+
+ The Industrial Network would be an organisation of groups of libertarians
+within a workplace united on an industrial basis. They would pull their
+resources together to fund a regular bulletin and other forms of propaganda
+which they would distribute within their workplaces. These bulletins and
+leaflets would raise and discuss issues related to work, how to fight back and
+win as well as placing workplace issues in a social and political context.
+This propaganda would present anarchist ideas of workplace organisation and
+resistance as well as general anarchist ideas and analysis. In this way
+anarchist ideas and tactics would be able to get a wider hearing and
+anarchists can have an input **as anarchists** into workplace struggles.
+
+
+
+ Traditionally, many syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists advocated the
+**_One Big Union_** strategy, the aim of which was to organise all workers
+into one organisation representing the whole working class. Today, however,
+most anarcho-syndicalists, like other revolutionary anarchists, advocate
+workers assemblies for decision making during struggles which are open to all
+workers (union members or not) as they recognise that they face dual unionism
+(which means there are more than one union within a given workplace or
+country). This was the case, historically, in all countries with a large
+syndicalist union movement there were also socialist unions. Therefore most
+anarcho-syndicalists do not expect to ever get a majority of the working class
+into a revolutionary union before a revolutionary situation develops. In
+addition, revolutionary unions do not simply appear, they develop from
+previous struggles and require a lot of work and experience of which the
+Industrial Networks are but one aspect. The most significant revolutionary
+unions (such as the IWW, USI and CNT) were originally formed by unions and
+union militants with substantial experience of struggle behind them, some of
+whom were part of existing trade union bodies.
+
+
+
+ Thus industrial networks are intended to deal with the actual situation that
confronts us, and provide a strategy for moving from our present reality
-toward out ultimate goals. Where one has only a handful of anarchists and
-syndicalists in a workplace or scattered across several workplaces there is a
-clear need for developing ways for these fellow workers to effectively act in
-union, rather than be isolated and relegated to more general agitation. A
-handful of anarchists cannot meaningfully call a general strike. But we can
-agitate around specific industrial issues and organise our fellow workers to
-do something about them. Through such campaigns we demonstrate the advantages
-of rank-and-file unionism and direct action, show our fellow workers that our
-ideas are not mere abstract theory but can be implemented here and now,
-attract new members and supporters, and further develop our capacity to
-develop revolutionary unions in our workplaces.
-
-Thus the creation of Industrial Networks and the calling for workplace
-assemblies is a recognition of where we are now -- with anarchist ideas very
-much in the minority. Calling for workers assemblies is not an anarchist
-tactic per se, we must add, but a working class one developed and used plenty
-of times by workers in struggles (indeed, it was how the current trade unions
-were created). It also puts the onus on the reformists and reactionary unions
-by appealing directly to their members as workers and showing their bureaucrat
-organisations and reformist politics by creating an effective alternative to
-them.
-
-A few anarchists reject the idea of Industrial Networks and instead support
+toward out ultimate goals. The role of the anarchist group or syndicalist
+union would be to call workplace assemblies and their federation into
+councils, argue for direct workers control of struggle by these mass
+assemblies, promote direct action and solidarity, put across anarchist ideas
+and politics and keep things on the boil, so to speak. When one has only a
+handful of anarchists and syndicalists in a workplace or scattered across
+several workplaces there is a clear need for developing ways for these fellow
+workers to effectively act in union, rather than be isolated and relegated to
+more general agitation. A handful of anarchists cannot meaningfully call a
+general strike but we can agitate around specific industrial issues and
+organise our fellow workers to do something about them. Through such campaigns
+we demonstrate the advantages of rank-and-file unionism and direct action,
+show our fellow workers that our ideas are not mere abstract theory but can be
+implemented here and now, attract new members and supporters, and further
+develop our capacity to develop revolutionary unions in our workplaces. Thus
+the creation of Industrial Networks and the calling for workplace assemblies
+is a recognition of where we are now -- with anarchist ideas very much in the
+minority. Calling for workers assemblies is not an anarchist tactic per se, we
+must add, but a working class one developed and used plenty of times by
+workers in struggle (indeed, it was how the current trade unions were
+created). It also puts the onus on the reformists unions by appealing directly
+to their members as workers and exposing their bureaucrat organisations and
+reformist politics by creating an effective alternative to them.
+
+
+
+ A few anarchists reject the idea of Industrial Networks and instead support
the idea of **_"rank and file"_** groups which aim to put pressure on the
-current trade unions to become more militant and democratic (a few anarcho-
-syndicalists think that such groups can be used to reform the trade-unions
-into libertarian, revolutionary organisations -- called _"boring from within"_
-\-- but most reject this as utopia, viewing the trade union bureaucracy as
-unreformable as the state's). Moreover, opponents of "rank and file" groups
-argue that they direct time and energy **away** from practical and
-constructive activity and instead waste them _"[b]y constantly arguing for
-changes to the union structure. . . the need for the leadership to be more
-accountable, etc., [and so] they not only [offer] false hope but [channel]
-energy and discontent away from the real problem - the social democratic
-nature of reformist trade unions."_ [**Winning the Class War**, p. 11]
-
-Supporters of the "rank and file" approach fear that the Industrial Networks
+current trade unions to become more militant and democratic. Some even think
+that such groups can be used to reform the trade-unions into libertarian,
+revolutionary organisations -- called _"boring from within"_ \-- but most
+reject this as utopian, viewing the trade union bureaucracy as unreformable as
+the state's (and it is likely that rather than change the trade union, "boring
+from within" would change the syndicalists by watering down their ideas).
+Moreover, opponents of "rank and file" groups argue that they direct time and
+energy **away** from practical and constructive activity and instead waste
+them _"[b]y constantly arguing for changes to the union structure . . . the
+need for the leadership to be more accountable, etc., [and so] they not only
+[offer] false hope but [channel] energy and discontent away from the real
+problem -- the social democratic nature of reformist trade unions."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 11]
+
+
+
+ Supporters of the "rank and file" approach fear that the Industrial Networks
will isolate anarchists from the mass of trade union members by creating tiny
-"pure" syndicalist unions or anarchist groups. But such a claim is rejected by
-supporters of Industrial Networks. They maintain that they will be working
-with trade union members where it counts, in the workplace and not in badly
-attended, unrepresentative branch meetings. So:
+"pure" syndicalist groups. Such a claim is rejected by supporters of
+Industrial Networks who argue that rather than being isolated from the
+majority of trade unionists they would be in contact with them where it
+counts, in the workplace and in struggle rather than in trade union meetings
+which many workers do not even attend:
> _"We have no intention of isolating ourselves from the many workers who make
up the rest of the rank and file membership of the unions. We recognise that a
large proportion of trade union members are only nominally so as the main
-activity of social democratic [i.e. reformist] unions is outside the
-workplace. . . **We aim to unite and not divide workers.**
-
->
+activity of social democratic unions is outside the workplace . . . **We aim
+to unite and not divide workers.**_
-> "It has been argued that social democratic unions will not tolerate this
+> _"It has been argued that social democratic unions will not tolerate this
kind of activity, and that we would be all expelled and thus isolated. So be
-it. We, however, don't think that this will happen until. . . workplace
+it. We, however, don't think that this will happen until . . . workplace
militants had found a voice independent of the trade unions and so they become
less useful to us anyway. Our aim is not to support social democracy, but to
show it up as irrelevant to the working class."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 19]
-Whatever the merits and disadvantages of both approaches are, it seems likely
+
+
+ Whatever the merits and disadvantages of both approaches are, it seems likely
that the activity of both will overlap in practice with Industrial Networks
operating within trade union branches and "rank and file" groups providing
alternative structures for struggle.
-As noted above, there is a slight difference between anarcho-syndicalist
+
+
+ As noted above, there is a slight difference between anarcho-syndicalist
supporters of Industrial Networks and communist-anarchist ones. This is to do
-with how they see the function and aim of these networks. While both agree
-that such networks should agitate in their industry and call and support mass
-assemblies to organise resistance to capitalist exploitation and oppression
-they disagree on who can join the network groups and what they aims should be.
-Anarcho-syndicalists aim for the Industrial Networks to be the focal point for
-the building of permanent syndicalist unions and so aim for the Industrial
-Networks to be open to all workers who accept the general aims of the
-organisation. Anarcho-communists, however, view Industrial Networks as a means
-of increasing anarchist ideas within the working class and are not primarily
-concerned about building syndicalist unions (while many anarcho-communists
-would support such a development, some do not).
-
-These anarchists, therefore, see the need for workplace-based branches of an
+with how they see the function and aim of these networks. In the short run,
+both agree that such networks should agitate in their industry and call mass
+assemblies to organise resistance to capitalist exploitation and oppression.
+They disagree on who can join the network groups and what their medium term
+aims should be. Anarcho-syndicalists aim for the Industrial Networks to be the
+focal point for the building of permanent syndicalist unions and so aim for
+the Industrial Networks to be open to all workers who accept the general aims
+of the organisation. Anarcho-communists, however, view Industrial Networks as
+a means of increasing anarchist ideas within the working class and are not
+primarily concerned about building syndicalist unions (while many anarcho-
+communists would support such a development, some do not). In the long term,
+they both aim for social revolution and workers' self-management of
+production.
+
+
+
+ These anarchists, therefore, see the need for workplace-based branches of an
anarchist group along with the need for networks of militant 'rank and file'
workers, but reject the idea of something that is one but pretends to be the
other. They argue that, far from avoiding the problems of classical anarcho-
syndicalism, such networks seem to emphasise one of the worst problems --
namely that of how the organisation remains anarchist but is open to non-
-anarchists.
+anarchists. However, the similarities between the two positions are greater
+than the differences and so can be summarised together, as we have done here.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?
+
+
+
+ Anarchists tend to support must forms of co-operation, including those
+associated with credit and money. This co-operative banking takes many forms,
+such as credit unions, LETS schemes and so on. In this section we discuss two
+main forms of co-operative credit, _**mutualism**_ and _**LETS_**.
-But the similarities between the two positions are greater than the
-differences and so can be summarised together, as we have done here.
-## J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?
-Anarchists tend to support must forms of co-operation, including those
-associated with credit and money. This co-operative credit/banking takes many
-forms, such as credit unions, LETS schemes and so on. In this section we
-discuss two main forms of co-operative credit, _**mutualism**_ and _**LETS_**.
+ Mutualism is the name for the ideas associated with Proudhon and his **Bank
+of the People**. Essentially, it is a confederation of credit unions in which
+working class people pool their funds and savings so allowing credit to be
+supplied at cost (no interest), so increasing the options available to them.
+LETS stands for **Local Exchange Trading Schemes** and is a similar idea in
+many ways (see **Bringing the Economy Home from the Market** by Ross V.G.
+Dobson on LETS). From its start in Canada, LETS has spread across the world
+and there are now hundreds of schemes involving hundreds of thousands of
+people.
-Mutualism is the name for the ideas associated with Proudhon and his **Bank of
-the People**. Essentially, it is a confederation of credit unions in which
-working class people pool their funds and savings. This allows credit to be
-arranged at cost, so increasing the options available to working people as
-well as abolishing interest on loans by making increasing amount of cheap
-credit available to working people. LETS stands for Local Exchange Trading
-Schemes and is a similar idea in many ways (and apparently discovered
-independently) -- see **Bringing the Economy Home from the Market** by V.G.
-Dobson for a detailed discussion on LETS.
-Both schemes revolve around creating an alternative form of currency and
+
+ Both schemes revolve around creating an alternative form of currency and
credit within capitalism in order to allow working class people to work
-outwith the capitalist money system by creating _"labour notes"_ as a new
-circulating medium. In this way, it is hoped, workers would be able to improve
-their living and working conditions by having a source of community-based
-(very low interest) credit and so be less dependent on capitalists and the
-capitalist banking system. Some supporters of mutualism considered it as the
-ideal way of reforming capitalism away. By making credit available to the
-ordinary worker at very cheap rates, the end of wage slavery would soon occur
-as workers would work for themselves by either purchasing the necessary tools
-required for their work or, by their increased bargaining power within the
-economy, gain industrial democracy from the capitalists by buying them out.
-
-Such ideas have had a long history within the socialist movement, originating
-in the British socialist movement in the early 19th century. Robert Owen and
-other Socialists active at the time considered the idea of labour notes and
-exchanges as a means of improving working class conditions within capitalism
-and as the means of reforming capitalism into a society of confederated, self-
-governing communities. Indeed, _"Equitable Labour Exchanges"_ were _"founded
-at London and Birmingham in 1832"_ with _"Labour notes and the exchange of
-small products"_ [E.P. Thompson, **The Making of the English Working Class**,
-p. 870] Apparently independently of these early attempts in England at what
-would later be called mutualism, P-J Proudhon arrived at the same ideas
-decades later in France. In his words, _"The People's Bank quite simply
-embodies the financial and economic aspects of the principle of modern
-democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of the republican
-motto, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'"_ [**Selected Writings of P-J
-Proudhon**, p. 75] Similarly, in the USA (partly as a result of Joshua
+outwith the capitalist money system by creating a new circulating medium. In
+this way, it is hoped, workers would be able to improve their living and
+working conditions by having a source of community-based (very low interest)
+credit and so be less dependent on capitalists and the capitalist banking
+system. Supporters of mutualism considered it as the ideal way of reforming
+capitalism away for by making credit available to the ordinary worker at very
+cheap rates, the end of wage slavery could occur as workers would work for
+themselves by either purchasing the necessary tools required for their work or
+by buying the capitalists out.
+
+
+
+ Mutual credit, in short, is a form of credit co-operation, in which
+individuals pull their resources together in order to benefit themselves as
+individuals and as part of a community. It has the following key aspects:
+
+> \-- **Co-operation**: No-one owns the network. It is controlled by its
+members democratically.
+
+> \-- **Non-exploitative**: No interest is charged on account balances or
+credit. At most administrative costs are charged, a result of it being
+commonly owned and managed.
+
+> \-- **Consent**: Nothing happens without it, there is no compulsion to
+trade.
+
+> \-- **Labour-Notes**: They use their own type of money as a means of aiding
+"honest exchange."
+
+
+
+ It is hoped, by organising credit, working class people will be able to work
+for themselves and slowly but surely replace capitalism with a co-operative
+system based upon self-management. While LETS schemes do not have such grand
+schemes, historically mutualism aimed at working within and transforming
+capitalism to socialism. At the very least, LETS schemes reduce the power and
+influence of banks and finance capital within society as mutualism ensures
+that working people have a viable alternative to such parasites.
+
+
+
+ These ideas have had a long history within the socialist movement,
+originating in Britain in the early 19th century when Robert Owen and other
+Socialists raised the idea of labour notes and labour-exchanges as both a
+means of improving working class conditions within capitalism and of reforming
+capitalism into a society of confederated, self-governing communities. Such
+_"Equitable Labour Exchanges"_ were _"founded at London and Birmingham in
+1832"_ with _"Labour notes and the exchange of small products."_ [E. P.
+Thompson, **The Making of the English Working Class**, p. 870] Apparently
+independently of these attempts in Britain at what would later be called
+mutualism, Proudhon arrived at the same ideas decades later in France: _"The
+People's Bank quite simply embodies the financial and economic aspects of the
+principle of modern democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of
+the republican motto, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'"_ [**Selected Writings
+of P-J Proudhon**, p. 75] Similarly, in the USA (partly as a result of Joshua
Warren's activities, who got the idea from Robert Owen) there was extensive
discussion on labour notes, exchanges and free credit as a means of protecting
workers from the evils of capitalism and ensuring their independence and
freedom from wage slavery. When Proudhon's works appeared in North America,
-the basic arguments were well known.
+the basic arguments were well known and they were quickly adopted by radicals
+there.
-Therefore the idea that mutual banking using labour money as a means to
+
+
+ Therefore the idea that mutual banking using labour money as a means to
improve working class living conditions, even, perhaps, to achieve industrial
democracy, self-management and the end of capitalism has a long history in
Socialist thought. Unfortunately this aspect of socialism became less
important with the rise of Marxism (which called these early socialists
-_"utopian"_) attempts at such credit unions and alternative exchange schemes
-were generally replaced with attempts to build working class political
-parties. With the rise of Marxian social democracy, constructive socialistic
-experiments and collective working class self-help was replaced by working
-within the capitalist state. Fortunately, history has had the last laugh on
-Marxism with working class people yet again creating anew the ideas of
-Mutualism (as can be seen by the growth of LETS and other schemes of community
-money).
-
-## J.5.6 What are the key features of mutual credit schemes?
-
-Mutualism, as noted in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj55), is a form of
-credit co-operation, in which individuals pull their resources together in
-order to benefit themselves as individuals and as part of a community. LETS is
-another form of mutualism which developed recently, and apparently developed
-independently (from its start in Canada, LETS has spread across the world and
-there are now hundreds of schemes involved hundreds of thousands of people).
-Mutual banks and LETS have the following key aspects:
-
-1) Co-operation: No-one owns the network. It is controlled by its members
-directly.
-2) Non-exploitative: No interest is charged on account balances or credit. At
-most administrative costs are charged, a result of it being commonly owned and
-managed.
-3) Consent: Nothing happens without it, there is no compulsion to trade.
-4) Money: They use their own type of money (traditionally called "labour-
-notes") as a means of aiding "honest exchange".
-
-It is hoped, by organising credit, working class people will be able to work
-for themselves and slowly but surely replace capitalism with a co-operative
-system based upon self-management. While LETS schemes do not have such grand
-schemes, historically mutualism aimed at working within and transforming
-capitalism to socialism. At the very least, LETS schemes reduce the power and
-influence of banks and finance capital within society as mutualism ensures
-that working people have a viable alternative to such parasites.
+_"utopian"_). Attempts at such credit unions and alternative exchange schemes
+were generally replaced with attempts to build working class political parties
+and so constructive socialistic experiments and collective working class self-
+help was replaced by working within the capitalist state. Fortunately, history
+has had the last laugh on Marxism with working class people yet again creating
+anew the ideas of mutualism (as can be seen by the growth of LETS and other
+schemes of community money).
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.6 Why are mutual credit schemes important?
-This point is important, as the banking system and money is often considered
-"neutral" (particularly in capitalist economics). However, as Malatesta
-correctly argues, it would be _"a mistake to believe . . . that the banks are,
-or are in the main, a means to facilitate exchange; they are a means to
-speculate on exchange and currencies, to invest capital and to make it produce
-interest, and to fulfil other typically capitalist operations."_ [**Life and
-Ideas**, p. 100]
-
-Within capitalism, money is still to a large degree a commodity which is more
-than a convenient measure of work done in the production of goods and
-services. As a commodity it can and does go anywhere in the world where it can
-get the best return for its owners, and so it tends to drain out of those
-communities that need it most. It is the means by which capitalists can buy
-the liberty of working people and get them to produce a surplus for them
-(wealth is, after all, _"a power invested in certain individuals by the
-institutions of society, to compel others to labour for their benefit."_
-[William Godwin, **The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin**, p. 130]. From
-this consideration alone, working class control of credit and money is an
-important part of the class struggle as having access to alternative sources
-of credit can increase working class options and power.
-
-Moreover, credit is also an important form of social control -- people who
-have to pay their mortgage or visa bill are more pliable, less likely to
-strike or make other forms of political trouble. And, of course, credit
-expands the consumption of the masses in the face of stagnant or falling wages
-while allowing capitalists to profit from it. Indeed, there is a link between
-the rising debt burden on households in the 1980s and 1990s and the increasing
-concentration of wealth. This is _"because of the decline in real hourly wages
-and the stagnation in household incomes, the middle and lower classes have
-borrowed to stay in place; they've borrowed from the very rich who have gotten
-richer. The rich need a place to earn interest on their surplus funds, and the
-rest of the population makes a juicy lending target."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall
-Street**, pp. 64-65]
-
-Little wonder that the state (and the capitalists who run it) is so concerned
+
+
+ Mutual credit schemes are important because they are a way to improve working
+class life under capitalism and ensure that what money we do have is used to
+benefit ourselves rather than the elite. By organising credit, we retain
+control over it and so rather than being used to invest in capitalist schemes
+it can be used for socialist alternatives.
+
+
+
+ For example, rather than allow the poorest to be at the mercy of loan sharks
+a community, by organising credit, can ensure its members receive cheap
+credit. Rather than give capitalist banks bundles of cash to invest in
+capitalist firms seeking to extract profits from a locality, it can be used to
+fund a co-operative instead. Rather than invest pension schemes into the stock
+market and so help undermine workers pay and living standards by increasing
+rentier power, it can be used to invest in schemes to improve the community
+and its economy. In short, rather than bolster capitalist power and so
+control, mutual credit aims to undermine the power of capitalist banks and
+finance by placing as much money as much possible in working class hands.
+
+
+
+ This point is important, as the banking system is often considered "neutral"
+(particularly in capitalist economics). However, as Malatesta correctly
+argued, it would be _"a mistake to believe . . . that the banks are, or are in
+the main, a means to facilitate exchange; they are a means to speculate on
+exchange and currencies, to invest capital and to make it produce interest,
+and to fulfil other typically capitalist operations."_ [**Errico Malatesta:
+His Life and Ideas**, p. 100] Within capitalism, money is still to a large
+degree a commodity which is more than a convenient measure of work done in the
+production of goods and services. It can and does go anywhere in the world
+where it can get the best return for its owners, and so it tends to drain out
+of those communities that need it most (why else would a large company invest
+in a community unless the money it takes out of the area handsomely exceeds
+that put it?). It is the means by which capitalists can buy the liberty of
+working people and get them to produce a surplus for them (wealth is, after
+all, _"a power invested in certain individuals by the institutions of society,
+to compel others to labour for their benefit."_ [William Godwin, **The
+Anarchist Writings of William Godwin**, p. 130]). From this consideration
+alone, working class control of credit and money is an important part of the
+class struggle as having access to alternative sources of credit can increase
+working class options and power.
+
+
+
+ As we discussed in [section B.3.2](secB3.html#secb32), credit is also an
+important form of social control -- people who have to pay their mortgage or
+visa bill are more pliable, less likely to strike or make other forms of
+political trouble. Credit also expands the consumption of the masses in the
+face of stagnant or falling wages so blunting the impact of increasing
+exploitation. Moreover, as an added bonus, there is a profit to be made as the
+_"rich need a place to earn interest on their surplus funds, and the rest of
+the population makes a juicy lending target."_ [Doug Henwood, **Wall Street**,
+p. 65]
+
+
+
+ Little wonder that the state (and the capitalists who run it) is so concerned
to keep control of money in its own hands or the hands of its agents. With an
increase in mutual credit, interest rates would drop, wealth would stay more
in working class communities, and the social power of working people would
increase (for people would be more likely to struggle for higher wages and
-better conditions -- as the fear of debt repayments would be less).
-
-Therefore, mutualism is an example of what could be termed **_"counter-
-economics"_**. By counter-economics we mean the creation of community-based
-credit unions that do not put their money into "Capital Markets" or into
-capitalist Banks. We mean finding ways for workers to control their own
-retirement funds. We mean finding ways of using money as a means of
-undermining capitalist power and control and supporting social struggle and
-change.
-
-In this way working people are controlling more and more of the money supply
-and using it ways that will stop capital from using it to oppress and exploit
-the working class. An example of why this can be important can be seen from
-the results of the existing workers' pension fund system. Currently workers
-pension funds are being used to invest in capitalist firms (particularly
-transnationals and other forms of Big Business) and these companies use the
-invested money to fund their activities. The idea is that by so investing,
-workers will receive an adequate pension in their old age.
-
-However, the only people actually winning are bankers and big companies.
-Unsurprisingly, the managers of these pension fund companies are investing in
-those firms with the highest returns, which are usually those who are
-downsizing or extracting most surplus value from their workforce (which in
-turn forces other companies to follow the same strategies to get access to the
-available funds in order to survive).
-
-Basically, if you are lending your money to be used to put your fellow worker
-out of work or increase the power of capital, then you are not only helping to
-make things harder for others like you, you are also helping making things
-worse for yourself. No person is an island, and increasing the clout of
-capital over the working class is going to affect you directly or indirectly.
-And, of course, it seems crazy to suggest that workers desire to experience
-insecurity, fear of downsizing and stagnating wages during their working lives
-in order to have slightly more money when they retire.
-
-This highlights one of the tricks the capitalists are using against us, namely
-to get us to buy into the system through our fear of old age. Whether it is
-going into lifelong debt to buy a home or lending our money to capitalists, we
-are being encouraged to buy into something which we value more than what is
-right and wrong. This allows us to be more easily controlled by the
-government. We need to get away from living in fear and stop allowing
-ourselves to be deceived into behaving like "stakeholders" in Capitalistic and
-Plutocratic systems. As can be seen from the use of pension funds to buy out
-firms, increase the size of transnationals and downsize the workforce, such
-"stakeholding" amounts to trading in the present **and** the future while
-others benefit.
-
-The real enemies are **not** working people who take part in such pension
+better conditions -- as the fear of debt repayments would be less). By the
+creation of community-based credit unions that do not put their money into
+"Capital Markets" or into capitalist Banks working class people can control
+their own credit, their own retirement funds, and find ways of using money as
+a means of undermining capitalist power and supporting social struggle and
+change. In this way working people are controlling more and more of the money
+supply and using it in ways that will stop capital from using it to oppress
+and exploit them.
+
+
+
+ An example of why this can be important can be seen from the existing
+workers' pension fund system which is invested in the stock market in the hope
+that workers will receive an adequate pension in their old age. However, the
+only people actually winning are bankers and big companies. Unsurprisingly,
+the managers of these pension fund companies are investing in those firms with
+the highest returns, which are usually those who are downsizing or extracting
+most surplus value from their workforce (which in turn forces other companies
+to follow the same strategies to get access to the available funds in order to
+survive). Basically, if your money is used to downsize your fellow workers or
+increase the power of capital, then you are not only helping to make things
+harder for others like you, you are also helping making things worse for
+yourself. No person is an island, and increasing the clout of capital over the
+working class is going to affect you directly or indirectly. As such, the
+whole scheme is counter-productive as it effectively means workers have to
+experience insecurity, fear of downsizing and stagnating wages during their
+working lives in order to have slightly more money when they retire (assuming
+that they are fortunate enough to retire when the stock market is doing well
+rather than during one of its regular periods of financial instability, of
+course).
+
+
+
+ This highlights one of the tricks the capitalists are using against us,
+namely to get us to buy into the system through our fear of old age. Whether
+it is going into lifelong debt to buy a home or putting our money in the stock
+market, we are being encouraged to buy into the system which exploits us and
+so put its interests above our own. This makes us more easily controlled. We
+need to get away from living in fear and stop allowing ourselves to be
+deceived into behaving like "stakeholders" in a Plutocratic system where most
+shares really are held by an elite. As can be seen from the use of pension
+funds to buy out firms, increase the size of transnationals and downsize the
+workforce, such "stakeholding" amounts to sacrificing both the present **and**
+the future while others benefit.
+
+
+
+ The real enemies are **not** working people who take part in such pension
schemes. It is the people in power, those who manage the pension schemes and
-companies, who are trying to squeeze every last cent out of working people to
+companies, who are trying to squeeze every last penny out of working people to
finance higher profits and stock prices -- which the unemployment and
impoverishment of workers on a world-wide scale aids. They control the
governments of the world. They are making the "rules" of the current system.
Hence the importance of limiting the money they have available, of creating
community-based credit unions and mutual risk insurance co-operatives to
-increase our control over our money and create our own, alternative, means of
-credit and exchange (as presented as mutualism) which can be used to empower
-ourselves, aid our struggles and create our own alternatives. Money,
-representing as it does the power of capital and the authority of the boss, is
-not "neutral" and control over it plays a role in the class struggle. We
-ignore such issues at our own peril.
-
-## J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
+increase our control over our money which can be used to empower ourselves,
+aid our struggles and create our own alternatives (see [section
+B.3.2](secB3.html#secb32) for more anarchist views on mutual credit and its
+uses). Money, representing as it does the power of capital and the authority
+of the boss, is not "neutral" and control over it plays a role in the class
+struggle. We ignore such issues at our own peril.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
capitalism?
-The short answer is no, they do not. While the Individualist Anarchists and
-Mutualists (followers of Proudhon) do think that mutual banking is the only
-sure way of abolishing capitalism, most anarchists do not see mutualism as an
-end in itself. Few think that capitalism can be reformed away in the manner
-assumed by Proudhon. Increased access to credit does not address the relations
-of production and market power which exist within the economy and so any move
-for financial transformation has to be part of a broader attack on all forms
-of capitalist social power in order to be both useful and effective (see
-section [B.3.2](secB3.html#secb32) for more anarchist views on mutual credit
-and its uses). So, for most anarchists, it is only in combination with other
-forms of working class self-activity and self-management that mutualist
-institutions could play an important role in the class struggle.
-
-By creating a network of mutual banks to aid in creating co-operatives, union
+
+
+ The short answer is no, they do not. While the Individualist and Mutualist
+Anarchists do think that mutual banking is the only sure way of abolishing
+capitalism, most anarchists do not see it as an end in itself. Few think that
+capitalism can be reformed away in the manner assumed by Proudhon or Tucker.
+
+
+
+ In terms of the latter, increased access to credit does not address the
+relations of production and market power which exist within the economy and so
+any move for financial transformation has to be part of a broader attack on
+all forms of capitalist social power in order to be both useful and effective.
+In short, assuming that Individualist Anarchists do manage to organise a
+mutual banking scheme it cannot be assumed that as long as firms use wage-
+labour that any spurt in economic activity will have a long term effect of
+eliminating exploitation. What is more likely is that an economic crisis would
+develop as lowering unemployment results in a profits squeeze (as occurred in,
+say, the 1970s). Without a transformation in the relations of production, the
+net effect would be the usual capitalist business cycle.
+
+
+
+ For the former, for mutualists like Proudhon, mutual credit **was** seen as a
+means of transforming the relations of production (as discussed in [section
+G.4.1](secG4.html#secg41), unlike Proudhon, Tucker did not oppose wage-labour
+and just sought to make it non-exploitative). For Proudhon, mutual credit was
+seen as the means by which co-operatives could be created to end wage-labour.
+The organisation of labour would combine with the organisation of credit to
+end capitalism as workers would fund co-operative firms and their higher
+efficiency would soon drive capitalist firms out of business. Thus _"the
+Exchange Bank is the organisation of labour's greatest asset_ as it allowed
+_"the new form of society to be defined and created among the workers."_
+[Proudhon, **Correspondance**, vol. 2, pp. 307-8] _"To organise credit and
+circulation is to increase production,"_ Proudhon stressed, _"to determine the
+new shapes of industrial society."_ [**Op. Cit.**, vol. 6, p. 372] So,
+overtime, co-operative credit would produce co-operative production while
+associated labour would increase the funds available to associated credit. For
+Proudhon the _"organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one
+and the same"_ and by recognising this the workers _"would soon have wrested
+alienated capital back again, through their organisation and competition."_
+[**No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, pp. 59-60]
+
+
+
+ Bakunin, while he was _"convinced that the co-operative will be the
+preponderant form of social organisation in the future"_ and could _"hardly
+oppose the creation of co-operatives associations"_ now as _we find them
+necessary in many respects,"_ argued that Proudhons hope for gradual change by
+means of mutual banking and the higher efficiency of workers co-operatives
+were unlikely to be realised. This was because such claims _"do not take into
+account the vast advantage that the bourgeoisie enjoys against the proletariat
+through its monopoly on wealth, science, and secular custom, as well as
+through the approval -- overt or covert but always active -- of States and
+through the whole organisation of modern society. The fight is too unequal for
+success reasonably to be expected."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 153 and p.
+152] Thus capitalism _"does not fear the competition of workers' associations
+-- neither consumers', producers', nor mutual credit associations -- for the
+simple reason that workers' organisations, left to their own resources, will
+never be able to accumulate sufficiently strong aggregations of capital
+capable of waging an effective struggle against bourgeois capital."_ [**The
+Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 293]
+
+
+
+ So, for most anarchists, it is only in combination with other forms of
+working class self-activity and self-management that mutualist institutions
+could play an important role in the class struggle. In other words, few
+anarchists think that mutualist credit or co-operatives are enough in
+themselves to end capitalism. Revolutionary action is also required -- such as
+the expropriation of capital by workers associations.
+
+
+
+ This does not mean anarchists reject co-operation under capitalism. By
+creating a network of mutual banks to aid in creating co-operatives, union
organising drives, supporting strikes (either directly by gifts/loans or
-funding food and other co-operatives which could supply food and other
-essentials free or at a reduction), mutualism can be used as a means of
-helping build libertarian alternatives within the capitalist system. Such
-alternatives, while making life better under the current system, also can play
-a role in overcoming that system by being a means of aiding those in struggle
-make ends meet and providing alternative sources of income for black-listed or
-sacked workers. Thus Bakunin's comments:
+funding consumer co-operatives which could supply food and other essentials
+free or at a reduced cost), mutualism can be used as a means of helping build
+libertarian alternatives within the capitalist system. Such alternatives,
+while making life better under the current system, also play a role in
+overcoming that system by aiding those in struggle. Thus Bakunin:
> _"let us co-operate in our common enterprise to make our lives a little bit
more supportable and less difficult. Let us, wherever possible, establish
@@ -1116,70 +1562,72 @@ free us, are nevertheless important inasmuch they train the workers in the
practices of managing the economy and plant the precious seeds for the
organisation of the future."_ [**Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 173]
-Therefore, while few anarchists think that mutualism would be enough in
-itself, it can play a role in the class struggle. As a compliment to direct
-action and workplace and community struggle and organisation, mutualism has an
-important role in working class self-liberation. For example, community unions
-(see section [J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51)) could create their own mutual banks
-and money which could be used to fund co-operatives and support strikes and
-other forms of social struggle. In this way a healthy communalised co-
-operative sector could develop within capitalism, overcoming the problems of
-isolation facing workplace co-operatives (see section
-[J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)) as well as providing a firm framework of support
-for those in struggle.
-
-Moreover, mutual banking can be a way of building upon and strengthening the
+
+
+ So while few anarchists think that mutualism would be enough in itself, it
+can play a role in the class struggle. As a compliment to direct action and
+workplace and community struggle and organisation, mutualism has an important
+role in working class self-liberation. For example, community unions (see
+[section J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51)) could create their own mutual banks and
+money which could be used to fund co-operatives and support social struggle.
+In this way a healthy communalised co-operative sector could develop within
+capitalism, overcoming the problems of isolation facing workplace co-
+operatives (see [section J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)) as well as providing
+solidarity for those in struggle.
+
+
+
+ Mutual banking can be a way of building upon and strengthening the
anarchistic social relations within capitalism. For even under capitalism and
statism, there exists extensive mutual aid and, indeed, anarchistic and
communistic ways of living. For example, communistic arrangements exist within
families, between friends and lovers and within anarchist organisations.
-
-Mutual banking could be a means of creating a bridge between this alternative
+Mutual credit could be a means of creating a bridge between this alternative
(gift) "economy" and capitalism. The mutualist alternative economy would help
strength communities and bonds of trust between individuals, and this would
-increase the scope for increasing the scope of the communistic sector as more
-and more people help each other out without the medium of exchange - in other
-words, mutualism will help the gift economy that exists within capitalism to
-grow and develop.
-
-## J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
-
-The mutual banking ideas of Proudhon could be adapted to the conditions of
-modern society, as will be described in what follows. (Note: Proudhon is the
-definitive source on mutualism, but for those who don't read French, there are
-the works of his American disciples, e.g. William B. Greene's **Mutual
-Banking**, and Benjamin Tucker's **Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to
-Write One**).
-
-One scenario for an updated system of mutual banking would be for a community
-barter association to begin issuing an alternative currency accepted as money
-by all individuals within the system. This "currency" would not at first take
-the form of coins or bills, but would be circulated entirely through
-transactions involving the use of barter-cards, personal checks, and "e-money"
-transfers via modem/Internet. Let's call this currency-issuing type of barter
-association a "mutual barter clearinghouse," or just "clearinghouse" for
-short.
-
-The clearinghouse would have a twofold mandate: first, to extend credit at
+increase the scope of the communistic sector as more and more people help each
+other without the medium of exchange. In other words, mutualism will help the
+gift economy that exists within capitalism to grow and develop.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
+
+
+
+ One scenario for an updated system of mutual banking would be for a community
+to begin issuing an alternative currency accepted as money by all individuals
+within it. Let us call this currency-issuing association a "mutual barter
+clearinghouse," or just "clearinghouse" for short.
+
+
+
+ The clearinghouse would have a twofold mandate: first, to extend credit at
cost to members; second, to manage the circulation of credit-money within the
-system, charging only a small service fee (probably one percent or less) which
-is sufficient to cover its costs of operation, including labour costs involved
-in issuing credit and keeping track of transactions, insuring itself against
-losses from uncollectable debts, and so forth.
-
-The clearinghouse would be organised and function as follows. Members of the
-original barter association would be invited to become subscriber-members of
-the clearinghouse by pledging a certain amount of property as collateral. On
-the basis of this pledge, an account would be opened for the new member and
-credited with a sum of mutual dollars equivalent to some fraction of the
-assessed value of the property pledged. The new member would agree to repay
-this amount plus the service fee by a certain date. The mutual dollars in the
-new account could then be transferred through the clearinghouse by using a
-barter card, by writing a personal check, or by sending e-money via modem to
-the accounts of other members, who have agreed to receive mutual money in
-payment for all debts.
-
-The opening of this sort of account is, of course, the same as taking out a
+system, charging only a small service fee (one percent or less) sufficient to
+cover its costs of operation, including labour costs involved in issuing
+credit and keeping track of transactions, insuring itself against losses from
+uncollectable debts, and so forth. Some current experiments in community money
+use labour time worked as their basis (thus notes would be marked one-hour)
+while others have notes tied to the value of the state currency (thus, say, a
+Scottish town would issue pounds assumed to be the same as a British pound
+note).
+
+
+
+ The clearinghouse would be organised and function as follows. People could
+join the clearinghouse by pledging a certain amount of property (including
+savings) as collateral. On the basis of this pledge, an account would be
+opened for the new member and credited with a sum of mutual pounds equivalent
+to some fraction of the assessed value of the property pledged. The new member
+would agree to repay this amount plus the service fee into their account by a
+certain date. The mutual pounds could then be transferred through the
+clearinghouse to the accounts of other members, who have agreed to receive
+mutual money in payment for all debts or work done.
+
+
+
+ The opening of this sort of account is, of course, the same as taking out a
"loan" in the sense that a commercial bank "lends" by extending credit to a
borrower in return for a signed note pledging a certain amount of property as
security. The crucial difference is that the clearinghouse does not purport to
@@ -1190,7 +1638,9 @@ telling the clearinghouse that one wants an account and then arranging with
other people who already have balances to transfer mutual money into one's
account in exchange for goods or services.
-Another form is that associated with LETS systems. In this a number of people
+
+
+ Another form of mutual credit are LETS systems. In this a number of people
get together to form an association. They create a unit of exchange (which is
equal in value to a unit of the national currency usually), choose a name for
it and offer each other goods and services priced in these units. These offers
@@ -1203,7 +1653,9 @@ and periodically sends members a statement of their accounts. The accounts
administration is elected by, and accountable to, the membership and
information about balances is available to all members.
-Unlike the first system described, members do not have to present property as
+
+
+ Unlike the first system described, members do not have to present property as
collateral. Members of a LETS scheme can go into "debt" without it, although
"debt" is the wrong word as members are not so much going into debt as
committing themselves to do some work within the system in the future and by
@@ -1211,10 +1663,12 @@ so doing they are creating spending power. The willingness of members to incur
such a commitment could be described as a service to the community as others
are free to use the units so created to trade themselves. Indeed, the number
of units in existence exactly matches the amount of real wealth being
-exchanged. The system only works if members are willing to spend and runs on
+exchanged. The system only works if members are willing to spend. It runs on
trust and builds up trust as the system is used.
-It is likely that a fully functioning mutual banking system would incorporate
+
+
+ It is likely that a fully functioning mutual banking system would incorporate
aspects of both these systems. The need for collateral may be used when
members require very large loans while the LETS system of negative credit as a
commitment to future work would be the normal function of the system. If the
@@ -1223,90 +1677,109 @@ collateral for transactions that exceed this limit. However, it is obvious
that any mutual banking system will find the best means of working in the
circumstances it finds itself.
-## J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?
-Let's consider an example of how business would be transacted in the new
-system. There are two possibilities, depending on whether the mutual credit is
-based upon whether the creditor can provide collateral or not. we will take
-the case with collateral first.
-Suppose that A, an organic farmer, pledges as collateral a certain plot of
+ ## J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?
+
+
+
+ Let us consider an example of how business would be transacted using mutual
+credit within capitalism. There are two possibilities, depending on whether
+the mutual credit is based upon whether the creditor can provide collateral or
+not. We will take the case with collateral first.
+
+
+
+ Suppose that A, an organic farmer, pledges as collateral a certain plot of
land that she owns and on which she wishes to build a house. The land is
-valued at, say, $40,000 in the capitalist market. By pledging the land, A is
-able to open a credit account at the clearinghouse for, say, $30,000 in mutual
-money (a ratio of 3/4). She does so knowing that there are many other members
-of the system who are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, hardware dealers,
-and so on who are willing to accept mutual dollars in payment for their
-products or services.
-
-It's easy to see why other subscriber-members, who have also obtained mutual
-credit and are therefore in debt to the clearinghouse for mutual dollars,
-would be willing to accept such dollars in return for their goods and
-services. For they need to collect mutual dollars to repay their debts. But
-why would someone who is not in debt for mutual dollars be willing to accept
-them as money?
-
-To see why, let's suppose that B, an underemployed carpenter, currently has no
-account at the clearinghouse but that he knows about the clearinghouse and the
-people who operate it. After examining its list of members and becoming
-familiar with the policies of the new organisation, he's convinced that it
-does not extend credit frivolously to untrustworthy recipients who are likely
-to default. He also knows that if he contracts to do the carpentry on A's new
-house and agrees to be paid for his work in mutual money, he'll then be able
-to use it to buy groceries, clothes, car repairs, and other goods and services
-from various people in the community who already belong to the system.
-
-Thus B will be willing, and perhaps even eager (especially if the economy is
+valued at, say, 40,000 in the capitalist market and by pledging the land, A is
+able to open a credit account at the clearinghouse for, say, 30,000 in mutual
+money. She does so knowing that there are many other members of the system who
+are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, hardware suppliers, and so on who are
+willing to accept mutual pounds in payment for their products or services.
+
+
+
+ It is easy to see why other subscriber-members, who have also obtained mutual
+credit and are therefore in debt to the clearinghouse, would be willing to
+accept such notes in return for their goods and services. They need to collect
+mutual currency to repay their debts. Why would someone who is not in debt for
+mutual currency be willing to accept it as money?
+
+
+
+ To see why, let us suppose that B, an underemployed carpenter, currently has
+no account at the clearinghouse but that he knows about it and the people who
+operate and use it. After examining its list of members and becoming familiar
+with the policies of the new organisation, he is convinced that it does not
+extend credit frivolously to untrustworthy recipients who are likely to
+default. He also knows that if he contracts to do the carpentry on A's new
+house and agrees to be paid for his work in mutual money, he will then be able
+to use it to buy groceries, clothes, and other goods and services from various
+people in the community who already belong to the system.
+
+
+
+ Thus B will be willing, and perhaps even eager (especially if the economy is
in recession and regular money is tight) to work for A and receive payment in
-mutual dollars. For he knows that if he is paid, say, $8,000 in mutual money
-for his labour on A's house, this payment constitutes, in effect, 20 percent
-of a mortgage on her land, the value of which is represented by her mutual
-credit. B also understands that A has promised to repay this mortgage by
-producing new value -- that is, by growing organic fruits and vegetables and
-selling them for mutual dollars to other members of the system -- and that it
-is this promise to produce new wealth which gives her mutual credit its value
-as a medium of exchange.
-
-To put this point slightly differently, A's mutual credit can be thought of as
-a lien against goods or services which she has guaranteed to create in the
-future. As security of this guarantee, she agrees that if she is unable for
-some reason to fulfil her obligation, the land she has pledged will be sold
-for mutual dollars to other members. In this way, a value sufficient to cancel
-her debt (and probably then some) will be returned to the system. This
-provision insures that the clearinghouse is able to balance its books and
-gives members confidence that mutual money is sound.
-
-It should be noticed that since new wealth is continually being created, the
+mutual credit. For he knows that if he is paid, say, 8,000 in mutual money for
+his labour on A's house, this payment constitutes, in effect, 20 percent of a
+mortgage on her land, the value of which is represented by her mutual credit.
+B also understands that A has promised to repay this mortgage by producing new
+value -- that is, by growing organic fruits and vegetables and selling them to
+other members of the system -- and that it is this promise to produce new
+wealth which gives her mutual credit its value as a medium of exchange.
+
+
+
+ To put this point slightly differently, A's mutual credit can be thought of
+as a lien against goods or services which she will create in the future. As
+security of this guarantee, she agrees that if she is unable for some reason
+to fulfil her obligation, the land she has pledged will be sold to other
+members. In this way, a value sufficient to cancel her debt (and probably then
+some) will be returned to the system. This provision insures that the
+clearinghouse is able to balance its books and gives members confidence that
+mutual money is sound.
+
+
+
+ It should be noticed that since new wealth is continually being created, the
basis for new mutual credit is also being created at the same time. Thus,
suppose that after A's new house has been built, her daughter, C, along with a
-group of friends D, E, F, . . . , decide that they want to start a
-collectively owned and operated organic restaurant (which will incidentally
-benefit A, as an outlet for her produce), but that C and her friends do not
-have enough collateral to obtain a start-up loan. A, however, is willing to
-co-sign a note for them, pledging her new house (valued at say, $80,000) as
-security. On this basis, C and her partners are able to obtain $60,000 worth
-of mutual credit, which they then use to buy equipment, supplies, furniture,
-advertising, etc. and lease the building necessary to start their restaurant.
-
-This example illustrates one way in which people without property are able to
+group of friends D, E, F, . . . , decide that they want to start a co-
+operative restaurant but that C and her friends do not have enough collateral
+to obtain a start-up loan. A, however, is willing to co-sign a note for them,
+pledging her new house (valued at say, 80,000) as security. On this basis, C
+and her partners are able to obtain 60,000 worth of mutual credit, which they
+then use to buy equipment, supplies, furniture, advertising, etc. to start
+their restaurant.
+
+
+
+ This example illustrates one way in which people without property are able to
obtain credit in the new system. Another way -- for those who cannot find (or
-perhaps don't wish to ask) someone with property to co-sign for them -- is to
+perhaps do not wish to ask) someone with property to co-sign for them -- is to
make a down payment and then use the property which is to be purchased on
-credit as security, as in the current method of obtaining a home or auto loan.
-With mutual credit, however, this form of financing can be used to purchase
-anything, including capital goods.
-
-Which brings us to the case of an individual without means for providing
-collateral - say, for example A, the organic farmer, does not own the land she
-works. In such a case, A, who still desires work done, would contact other
-members of the mutual bank with the skills she requires. Those members with
-the appropriate skills and who agree to work with her commit themselves to do
-the required tasks. In return, A gives them a check in mutual dollars which is
-credited to their account and deducted from hers. She does not pay interest on
-this issue of credit and the sum only represents her willingness to do some
-work for other members of the bank at some future date.
-
-The mutual bank does not have to worry about the negative balance, as this
+credit as security, as in the current method of obtaining a home or other
+loan. With mutual credit, however, this form of financing can be used to
+purchase anything, including the means of production and other equipment
+required for workers to work for themselves instead of a boss.
+
+
+
+ Which brings us to the case of an individual without means for providing
+collateral -- say, for example Z, a plumber, who currently does not own the
+land she uses. In such a case, Z, who still desires work done, would contact
+other members of the mutual bank with the skills she requires. Those members
+with the appropriate skills and who agree to work with her commit themselves
+to do the required tasks. In return, Z gives them a check in mutual dollars
+which is credited to their account and deducted from hers. She does not pay
+interest on this issue of credit and the sum only represents her willingness
+to do some work for other members of the bank at some future date.
+
+
+
+ The mutual bank does not have to worry about the negative balance, as this
does not create a loss within the group as the minuses which have been
incurred have already created wealth (pluses) within the system and it stays
there. It is likely, of course, that the mutual bank would agree an upper
@@ -1314,83 +1787,95 @@ limit on negative balances and require some form of collateral for credit
greater than this limit, but for most exchanges this would be unlikely to be
relevant.
-It is important to remember that mutual dollars have no **intrinsic** value,
-since they can't be redeemed (at the mutual bank) in gold or anything else.
-All they are promises of future labour. Thus, as Greene points out in his work
-on mutual banking, mutual dollars are _"a mere medium for the facilitation of
-barter."_ In this respect they are closely akin to the so-called "barter
-dollars" now being circulated by barter associations through the use of checks
-and barter cards. To be precise, then, we should refer to the units of mutual
-money as "mutual barter dollars." But whereas ordinary barter dollars are
-created at the same time that a barter transaction occurs and are used to
-record the values exchanged in that transaction, mutual barter dollars are
-created **before** any actual barter transaction occurs and are intended to
-facilitate **future** barter transactions. This fact is important because it
-can be used as the basis for a legal argument that clearinghouses are
-essentially barter associations rather than banks, thrifts, or credit unions,
-and therefore should not be subject to the laws governing the latter
-institutions.
-
-## J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?
-
-Support for co-operatives is a common feature in anarchist writings. Indeed,
-anarchist support for co-operatives is as old as use of the term anarchist to
-describe our ideas is. So why do anarchists support co-operatives? Basically
-it is because a co-operative is seen as an example of the future social
-organisation anarchists want in the present. As Bakunin argued, _"the co-
-operative system. . . carries within it the germ of the future economic
-order."_ [**The Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 385]
-
-Anarchists support all kinds of co-operatives - housing, food, credit unions
-and productive ones. All forms of co-operation are useful as they accustom
-their members to work together for their common benefit as well as ensuring
-extensive experience in managing their own affairs. As such, all forms of co-
-operatives are useful examples of self-management and anarchy in action (to
-some degree). However, here we will concentrate on productive co-operatives,
-i.e. workplace co-operatives. This is because workplace co-operatives,
-potentially, could **replace** the capitalist mode of production with one
-based upon associated, not wage, labour. As long as capitalism exists within
-industry and agriculture, no amount of other kinds of co-operatives will end
-that system. Capital and wealth accumulates by oppression and exploitation in
-the workplace, therefore as long as wage slavery exists anarchy will not.
-
-Co-operatives are the _"germ of the future"_ because of two facts. Firstly,
-co-operatives are based on one worker, one vote. In other words those who do
-the work manage the workplace within which they do it (i.e. they are based on
-workers' self-management in some form). Thus co-operatives are an example of
-the "horizontal" directly democratic organisation that anarchists support and
-so are an example of "anarchy in action" (even if in an imperfect way) within
-the economy. In addition, they are an example of working class self-help and
-self-activity. Instead of relying on others to provide work, co-operatives
-show that production can be carried on without the existence of a class of
-masters employing a class of order takers.
-
-Workplace co-operatives also present evidence of the viability of an anarchist
-"economy." It is well established that co-operatives are usually more
+
+
+ It is important to remember that mutual money has no **intrinsic** value,
+since they cannot be redeemed (at the mutual bank) in gold or anything else.
+All they are promises of future labour. They are a mere medium for the
+facilitation of exchange used to facilitate the increase production of goods
+and services (as discussed in [section G.3.6](secG3.html#sech36), it is this
+increase which ensures that mutual credit is not inflationary). This also
+ensures enough work for all and, ultimately, the end of exploitation as
+working people can buy their own means of production and so end wage-labour by
+self-employment and co-operation.
+
+
+
+ For more information on how mutual banking is seen to work see the collection
+of Proudhon's works collected in **Proudhon's Solution to the Social
+Problem**. William B. Greene's **Mutual Baking** and Benjamin Tucker's
+**Instead of a Book** should also be consulted.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?
+
+
+
+ Support for co-operatives is a common feature in anarchist writings. In fact,
+support for democratic workplaces is as old as use of the term anarchist to
+describe our ideas. So why do anarchists support co-operatives? It is because
+they are the only way to guarantee freedom in production and so _"the co-
+operative system . . . carries within it the germ of the future economic
+order."_ [Bakunin, **The Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 385]
+
+
+
+ Anarchists support all kinds of co-operatives: housing, food, consumer,
+credit and workplace ones. All forms of co-operation are useful as they
+accustom their members to work together for their common benefit as well as
+ensuring extensive experience in managing their own affairs. As such, all
+forms of co-operatives are (to some degree) useful examples of self-management
+and anarchy in action. Here we will concentrate on producer co-operatives as
+only these can **replace** the capitalist mode of production. They are
+examples of a new mode of production, one based upon associated, not wage,
+labour. As long as wage-labour exists within industry and agriculture then
+capitalism remains and no amount of other kinds of co-operatives will end it.
+If wage slavery exists, then so will exploitation and oppression and anarchy
+will remain but a hope.
+
+
+
+ Co-operatives are the _"germ of the future"_ for two reasons. Firstly, co-
+operatives are based on one worker, one vote. In other words those who do the
+work manage the workplace within which they do it (i.e. they are based on
+workers' self-management). Thus co-operatives are an example of the
+"horizontal" directly democratic organisation that anarchists support and so
+are an example of _"anarchy in action"_ (even if in an imperfect way) within
+capitalism. Secondly, they are an example of working class self-help and self-
+activity. Instead of relying on others to provide work, co-operatives show
+that production can be carried on without the existence of a class of masters
+employing a class of order takers.
+
+
+
+ Workplace co-operatives also present evidence of the viability of an
+anarchist economy. It is well established that co-operatives are usually more
productive and efficient than their capitalist equivalents. This indicates
that hierarchical workplaces are **not** required in order to produce useful
-goods and indeed can be harmful. Indeed, it also indicates that the capitalist
-market does not actually allocate resources efficiently (as we will discuss in
-section [J.5.12](secJ5.html#secj512)). So why should co-operatives be more
-efficient?
-
-Firstly there are the positive effects of increased liberty associated with
-co-operatives.
-
-Co-operatives, by abolishing wage slavery, obviously increases the liberty of
-those who work in them. Members take an active part in the management of their
-working lives and so authoritarian social relations are replaced by
-libertarian ones. Unsurprisingly, this liberty also leads to an increase in
-productivity - just as wage labour is more productive than slavery, so
-associated labour is more productive than wage slavery. Little wonder
-Kropotkin argued that _"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of
-your labour is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really produces
-most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his
-occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees
-his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing
-in little to idlers."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 145]
-
-There are also the positive advantages associated with participation (i.e.
+goods and indeed can be harmful. It also indicates that the capitalist market
+does not actually allocate resources efficiently nor has any tendency to do
+so.
+
+
+
+ So why should co-operatives be more efficient? Firstly, there are the
+positive effects of increased liberty. Co-operatives, by abolishing wage
+slavery, obviously increase the liberty of those who work in them. Members
+take an active part in the management of their working lives and so
+authoritarian social relations are replaced by libertarian ones.
+Unsurprisingly, this liberty also leads to an increase in productivity -- just
+as wage labour is more productive than slavery, so associated labour is more
+productive than wage slavery. As Kropotkin argued: _"the only guarantee not to
+be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour
+. . . man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain
+choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
+when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him,
+but bringing in little to idlers."_ [**The Conquest of Bread**, p. 145]
+
+
+
+ There are also the positive advantages associated with participation (i.e.
self-management, liberty in other words). Within a self-managed, co-operative
workplace, workers are directly involved in decision making and so these
decisions are enriched by the skills, experiences and ideas of all members of
@@ -1412,22 +1897,26 @@ they would rather not be there anyway: they are there through economic
necessity rather than through identification with a common task which throws
up its own shifting and functional leadership.
->
-> "Perhaps the greatest crime of the industrial system is the way it
+
+ "Perhaps the greatest crime of the industrial system is the way it
systematically thwarts the investing genius of the majority of its workers."_
[**Anarchy in Action**, p. 41]
-Also, as workers also own their place of work, they have an interest in
+
+
+ Also, as workers also own their place of work, they have an interest in
developing the skills and abilities of their members and, obviously, this also
means that there are few conflicts within the workplace. Unlike capitalist
-firms, there is no need for conflict between bosses and wage slaves over work
-loads, conditions or the division of value created between them. All these
-factors will increase the quality, quantity and efficiency of work and so
-increases efficient utilisation of available resources and facilities the
-introduction of new techniques and technologies.
+firms, there is no conflict between bosses and wage slaves over work loads,
+conditions or the division of value created between them. All these factors
+will increase the quality, quantity and efficiency of work, increase efficient
+utilisation of available resources and aids the introduction of new techniques
+and technologies.
+
-Secondly, the increased efficiency of co-operatives results from the benefits
+
+ Secondly, the increased efficiency of co-operatives results from the benefits
associated with co-operation itself. Not only does co-operation increase the
pool of knowledge and abilities available within the workplace and enriches
that source by communication and interaction, it also ensures that the
@@ -1435,144 +1924,172 @@ workforce are working together instead of competing and so wasting time and
energy. As Alfie Kohn notes (in relation to investigations of in-firm co-
operation):
-> _"Dean Tjosvold of Simon Frazer. . .conducted [studies] at utility
-companies, manufacturing plants, engineering firms, and many other kinds of
+> _"Dean Tjosvold . . . conducted [studies] at utility companies,
+manufacturing plants, engineering firms, and many other kinds of
organisations. Over and over again, Tjosvold has found that 'co-operation
makes a work force motivated' whereas 'serious competition undermines co-
-ordination.' . . . Meanwhile, the management guru. . . T. Edwards Demming, has
+ordination' . . . Meanwhile, the management guru . . . T. Edwards Demming, has
declared that the practice of having employees compete against each other is
-'unfair [and] destructive. We cannot afford this nonsense any longer. . . [We
+'unfair [and] destructive. We cannot afford this nonsense any longer . . . [We
need to] work together on company problems [but] annual rating of performance,
-incentive pay, [or] bonuses cannot live with team work. . . What takes the joy
-out of learning. . .[or out of] anything? Trying to be number one.'"_ [**No
-Contest**, p. 240]
+incentive pay, [or] bonuses cannot live with team work . . . What takes the
+joy out of learning . . . [or out of] anything? Trying to be number one.'"_
+[**No Contest**, p. 240]
+
-(The question of co-operation and participation within capitalist firms will
-be discussed in section [J.5.12](secJ5.html#secj512)).
-Thirdly, there are the benefits associated with increased equality. Studies
+ Thirdly, there are the benefits associated with increased equality. Studies
prove that business performance deteriorates when pay differentials become
excessive. In a study of over 100 businesses (producing everything from
kitchen appliances to truck axles), researchers found that the greater the
wage gap between managers and workers, the lower their product's quality.
[Douglas Cowherd and David Levine, _"Product Quality and Pay Equity,"_
-**Administrative Science Quarterly** no. 37 (June 1992), pp. 302-30]
-Businesses with the greatest inequality were plagued with a high employee
-turnover rate. Study author David Levine said: _"These organisations weren't
-able to sustain a workplace of people with shared goals."_ [quoted by John
-Byrne in _"How high can CEO pay go?"_ **Business Week**, April 22, 1996]
-
-(In fact, the negative effects of income inequality can be seen on a national
-level as well. Economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini conducted a
-thorough statistical analysis of historical inequality and growth, and found
-that nations with more equal incomes generally experience faster productive
-growth. [_"Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?"_, **American Economic Review**
-no. 84, June 1994, pp. 600-21] Numerous other studies have also confirmed
-their findings. Real life yet again disproves the assumptions of capitalism -
-inequality harms us all, even the capitalist economy which produces it).
-
-This is to be expected. Workers, seeing an increasing amount of the value they
-create being monopolised by top managers and a wealthy elite and not re-
+**Administrative Science Quarterly**, No. 37, pp. 302-30] Businesses with the
+greatest inequality were plagued with a high employee turnover rate. Study
+author David Levine said: _"These organisations weren't able to sustain a
+workplace of people with shared goals."_ [quoted by John Byrne, _"How high can
+CEO pay go?"_ **Business Week**, April 22, 1996] The negative effects of
+income inequality can also be seen on a national level as well. Economists
+Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini conducted a thorough statistical analysis
+of historical inequality and growth, and found that nations with more equal
+incomes generally experience faster productive growth. [_"Is Inequality
+Harmful for Growth?"_, **American Economic Review** no. 84, pp. 600-21]
+Numerous other studies have also confirmed their findings (the negative
+impacts on inequality on all aspects of life are summarised by Richard
+Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in **The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies
+Almost Always Do Better**). Real life yet again disproves the assumptions of
+capitalism: inequality harms us all, even the capitalist economy which
+produces it.
+
+
+
+ This is to be expected. Workers, seeing an increasing amount of the value
+they create being monopolised by top managers and a wealthy elite and not re-
invested into the company to secure their employment prospects, will hardly be
inclined to put in that extra effort or care about the quality of their work.
-Managers who use the threat of unemployment to extract more effort from their
+Bosses who use the threat of unemployment to extract more effort from their
workforce are creating a false economy. While they will postpone decreasing
profits in the short term due to this adaptive strategy (and enrich themselves
-in the process) the pressures placed upon the system will bring a harsh long
-term effects - both in terms of economic crisis (as income becomes so skewed
+in the process) the pressures placed upon the system will bring harsh long
+term effects -- both in terms of economic crisis (as income becomes so skewed
as to create realisation problems and the limits of adaptation are reached in
the face of international competition) and social breakdown.
-As would be imagined, co-operative workplaces tend to be more egalitarian than
-capitalist ones. This is because in capitalist firms, the incomes of top
+
+
+ As would be imagined, co-operative workplaces tend to be more egalitarian
+than capitalist ones. This is because in capitalist firms, the incomes of top
management must be justified (in practice) to a small number of individuals
(namely, those shareholders with sizeable stock in the firm), who are usually
quite wealthy and so not only have little to lose in granting huge salaries
but are also predisposed to see top managers as being very much like
-themselves and so are entitled to comparable incomes. In contrast, the incomes
-of top management in worker controlled firms have to be justified to a
-workforce whose members experience the relationship between management incomes
-and their own directly and who, no doubt, are predisposed to see their top
-managers as being workers like themselves and accountable to them. Such an
-egalitarian atmosphere will have a positive impact on production and
-efficiency as workers will see that the value they create is not being
-accumulated by others but distributed according to work actually done (and not
-control over power). In the Mondragon co-operatives, for example, the maximum
-pay differential is 14 to 1 (increased from 3 to 1 in a response to outside
-pressures after much debate, with the actual maximum differential at 9 to 1)
-while (in the USA) the average CEO is paid over 140 times the average factory
-worker (up from 41 times in 1960).
-
-Therefore, we see that co-operatives prove (to a greater or lesser extent) the
-advantages of (and interrelationship between) key anarchist principles such as
-liberty, equality, solidarity and self-management. Their application, whether
-all together or in part, has a positive impact on efficiency and work -- and,
-as we will discuss in section [J.5.12](secJ5.html#secj512), the capitalist
-market actively **blocks** the spread of more efficient productive techniques
-instead of encouraging them. Even by its own standards, capitalism stands
-condemned \- it does not encourage the efficient use of resources and actively
-places barriers in the development of human "resources."
-
-From all this its clear to see why co-operatives are supported by anarchists.
-We are _"convinced that the co-operative could, potentially, replace
-capitalism and carries within it the seeds of economic emancipation. . . The
-workers learn from this precious experience how to organise and themselves
-conduct the economy without guardian angels, the state or their former
-employers."_ [Michael Bakunin, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 399] Co-operatives
+themselves and so are entitled to comparable incomes (and let us not forget
+that _"corporate boards, largely selected by the CEO, hire compensation
+experts, almost always chosen by the CEO, to determine how much the CEO is
+worth."_ [Paul Krugman, **The Conscience of a Liberal**, p. 144]). In
+contrast, the incomes of management in worker controlled firms have to be
+justified to a workforce whose members experience the relationship between
+management incomes and their own directly and who, no doubt, are predisposed
+to see their elected managers as being workers like themselves and accountable
+to them. Such an egalitarian atmosphere will have a positive impact on
+production and efficiency as workers will see that the value they create is
+not being accumulated by others but distributed according to work actually
+done (and not control over power). In the Mondragon co-operatives, for
+example, the maximum pay differential is 9 to 1 (increased from 3 to 1 after
+much debate in a response to outside pressures from capitalist firms hiring
+away workers) while (in the USA) the average CEO is paid well over 100 times
+the average worker (up from 41 times in 1960).
+
+
+
+ Therefore, we see that co-operatives prove the advantages of (and the inter-
+relationship between) key anarchist principles such as liberty, equality,
+solidarity and self-management. Their application, whether all together or in
+part, has a positive impact on efficiency and work -- and, as we will discuss
+in [section J.5.12](secJ5.html#secj512), the capitalist market actively
+**blocks** the spread of these more egalitarian and efficient productive
+techniques instead of encouraging them. Even by its own standards, capitalism
+stands condemned -- it does not encourage the efficient use of resources and
+actively places barriers in their development.
+
+
+
+ From all this it is clear to see why co-operatives are supported by
+anarchists. We are _"convinced that the co-operative could, potentially,
+replace capitalism and carries within it the seeds of economic emancipation .
+. . The workers learn from this precious experience how to organise and
+themselves conduct the economy without guardian angels, the state or their
+former employers."_ [Bakunin, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 399] Co-operatives
give us a useful insight into the possibilities of a free, socialist, economy.
Even within the hierarchical capitalist economy, co-operatives show us that a
better future is possible and that production can be organised in a co-
operative fashion and that by so doing we can reap the individual and social
benefits of working together as equals.
-However, this does not mean that all aspects of the co-operative movement find
-favour with anarchists. As Bakunin pointed out, _"there are two kinds of co-
-operative: bourgeois co-operation, which tends to create a privileged class, a
-sort of new collective bourgeoisie organised into a stockholding society: and
-truly Socialist co-operation, the co-operation of the future which for this
-very reason is virtually impossible of realisation at present."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 385] In other words, while co-operatives are the germ of the
-future, in the present they are often limited by the capitalist environment
-they find themselves and narrow their vision to just surviving within the
-current system.
-
-For most anarchists, the experience of co-operatives has proven without doubt
+
+
+ However, this does not mean that all aspects of the co-operative movement
+find favour with anarchists. As Bakunin pointed out, _"there are two kinds of
+co-operative: bourgeois co-operation, which tends to create a privileged
+class, a sort of new collective bourgeoisie organised into a stockholding
+society: and truly Socialist co-operation, the co-operation of the future
+which for this very reason is virtually impossible of realisation at
+present."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 385] In other words, while co-operatives are the
+germ of the future, in the present they are often limited by the capitalist
+environment they find themselves, narrow their vision to just surviving within
+the current system and so adapt to it.
+
+
+
+ For most anarchists, the experience of co-operatives has proven without doubt
that, however excellent in principle and useful in practice, if they are kept
-within the narrow circle of "bourgeois" existence they cannot become dominant
-and free the masses. This point is argued in Section
-[J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511) and so will be ignored here. In order to fully
+within capitalism they cannot become the dominant mode of production and free
+the masses (see [section J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)). In order to fully
develop, co-operatives must be part of a wider social movement which includes
community and industrial unionism and the creation of a anarchistic social
framework which can encourage _"truly Socialist co-operation"_ and discourage
-_"bourgeois co-operation."_ As Murray Bookchin correctly argues, _"[r]emoved
+_"bourgeois co-operation."_ As Murray Bookchin correctly argued: _"Removed
from a libertarian municipalist [or other anarchist] context and movement
-focused on achieving revolutionary municipalist [or communalist] goals as a
-**dual power** against corporations and the state, food [and other forms of]
-co-ops are little more than benign enterprises that capitalism and the state
-can easily tolerate with no fear of challenge."_ [**Democracy and Nature** no.
-9, p. 175]
+focused on achieving revolutionary municipalist goals as a **dual power**
+against corporations and the state, food [and other forms of] co-ops are
+little more than benign enterprises that capitalism and the state can easily
+tolerate with no fear of challenge."_ [**Democracy and Nature**, no. 9, p.
+175]
+
-Therefore, while co-operatives are an important aspect of anarchist ideas and
+
+ So while co-operatives are an important aspect of anarchist ideas and
practice, they are not the be all or end all of our activity. Without a wider
social movement which creates all (or at least most) of the future society in
the shell of the old, co-operatives will never arrest the growth of capitalism
or transcend the narrow horizons of the capitalist economy.
-## J.5.11 If workers really want self-management, why aren't there more
-producer co-operatives?
-Supporters of capitalism suggest that producer co-operatives would spring up
-spontaneously if workers really wanted them. Their argument is that co-
-operatives could be financed at first by _"wealthy radicals"_ or by affluent
-workers pooling their resources to buy out existing capitalist firms; then, if
-such co-operatives were really economically viable and desired by workers,
-they would spread until eventually they undermined capitalism. They conclude
+
+ ## J.5.11 If workers really want self-management then why are there so few
+co-operatives?
+
+
+
+ Supporters of capitalism suggest that producer co-operatives would spring up
+spontaneously if workers really wanted them. To quote leading propertarian
+Robert Nozick, under capitalism _"it is open to any wealthy radical or group
+of workers to buy an existing factory or establish a new one, and to . . .
+institute worker-controlled, democratically-run firms."_ If _"they are
+superior, by market standards, to their more orthodox competitors"_ then
+_"there should be little difficulty in establishing successful factories of
+this sort."_ Thus there is _"a means of realising the worker-control scheme
+that can be brought about by the voluntary actions of people in a free [sic!]
+society."_ [**Anarchy, State, and Utopia**, pp. 250-2] So if such co-
+operatives were really economically viable and desired by workers, they would
+spread until eventually they undermined capitalism. Propertarians conclude
that since this is not happening, it must be because workers' self-management
-is either economically unfeasible or is not really attractive to workers or
-both (see, for example, Robert Nozick, **Anarchy, State, and Utopia**, pp.
-250-52).
+is either economically inefficient or is not really attractive to workers, or
+both.
+
-David Schweickart has decisively answered this argument by showing that the
+
+ David Schweickart has decisively answered this argument by showing that the
reason there are not more producer co-operatives is structural:
> _"A worker-managed firm lacks an expansionary dynamic. When a capitalist
@@ -1589,169 +2106,251 @@ the absence of a large and growing co-operative movement proves nothing about
the viability of worker self-management, nor about the preferences of
workers."_ [**Against Capitalism**, p. 239]
-There are other structural problems as well. For one thing, since their pay
-levels are set by members' democratic vote, co-operatives tend to be more
-egalitarian in their income structure. But this means that in a capitalist
-environment, co-operatives are in constant danger of having their most skilled
-members hired away. Moreover, there is a difficulty in raising capital:
-
-> _"Quite apart from ideological hostility (which may be significant),
-external investors will be reluctant to put their money into concerns over
-which they will have little or no control -- which tends to be the case with a
-co-operative. Because co-operatives in a capitalist environment face special
-difficulties, and because they lack the inherent expansionary dynamic of a
-capitalist firm, it is hardy surprising that they are far from dominant."_
-[**Ibid.**, p 240]
-
-In addition, co-operatives face the negative externalities generated by a
-capitalist economy. The presence of wage labour and investment capital in the
-economy will tempt successful co-operatives to increase their flexibility to
-adjust to changes in market changes by hiring workers or issuing shares to
-attract new investment. In so doing, however, they may end up losing their
-identities as co-operatives by diluting ownership or by making the co-
-operative someone's boss:
-
-> _"To meet increased production, the producer co-operatives hired outside
-wage workers. This created a new class of workers who exploit and profit from
-the labour of their employees. And all this fosters a bourgeois mentality."_
-[Michael Bakunin, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 399]
-
-Hence the pressures of working in a capitalist market may result in co-
-operatives pursuing activities which may result in short term gain or
-survival, but are sure to result in harm in the long run. Far from co-
-operatives slowly expanding within and changing a capitalist environment it is
-more likely that capitalist logic will expand into and change the co-
-operatives that work in it (this can be seen from the Mondragon co-operatives,
-where there has been a slight rise in the size of wage labour being used and
-the fact that the credit union, since 1992, has invested in non-co-operative
-firms). These externalities imposed upon isolated co-operatives within
-capitalism (which would not arise within a fully co-operative context) block
-local moves towards anarchism. The idea that co-operation will simply win out
-in competition within well developed capitalist economic systems is just
-wishful thinking. Just because a system is more liberatory and just does not
-mean it will survive in an authoritarian economic and social environment.
-There are also cultural problems as well. As Jon Elster points out, it is a
+
+ This means that in, say, a mutualist economy there would be more firms of a
+smaller size supplying a given market compared to capitalism. So a free
+economy, with the appropriate institutional framework, need not worry about
+unemployment for while individual co-operatives may not expand as fast as
+capitalist firms, more co-operatives would be set up (see [section
+I.3.1](secI3.html#seci31) for why the neo-classical analysis of co-operatives
+which Nozick implicitly invokes is false). In short, the environment within
+which a specific workplace operates is just as important as its efficiency.
+
+
+
+ This is important, as the empirical evidence is strong that self-management
+**is** more efficient than wage-slavery. As economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson
+summarises, support for _"the proposition that participatory and co-operatives
+firms enjoy greater productivity and longevity comes from a large amount of .
+. . case study and econometric evidence"_ and _"the weight of testimony"_ is
+_"in favour or [indicates] a positive correlation between participation and
+productivity."_ [_"Organizational Form and Economic Evolution: A critique of
+the Williamsonian hypothesis"_, pp. 98-115, **Democracy and Efficiency in
+Economic Enterprises**, U. Pagano and R. E. Rowthorn (eds.), p. 100] This is
+ignored by the likes of Nozick in favour of thought-experiments rooted in the
+dubious assumptions of bourgeois economics. He implicitly assumed that because
+most firms are hierarchical today then they must be more efficient. In short,
+Nozick abused economic selection arguments by simply assuming, without
+evidence, that the dominant form of organisation is, _ipso facto_, more
+efficient. In reality, this is not the case.
+
+
+
+ The question now becomes one of explaining why, if co-operation is more
+efficient than wage-slavery, does economic liberty not displace capitalism?
+The awkward fact is that individual efficiency is not the key to survival as
+such an argument _"ignores the important point that the selection of the
+'fitter' in evolution is not simply relative to the less successful but is
+dependent upon the general circumstances and environment in which selection
+takes place."_ Moreover, an organism survives because it birth rate exceeds
+its death rate. If more capitalist firms secure funding from capitalist banks
+then, obviously, it is more likely for them to secure dominance in the economy
+simply because there are more of them rather than because they are more
+efficient. As such, large numbers do not imply greater efficiency as the
+_"rapid flow of new entrants of hierarchical form"_ may _"swamp the less
+hierarchical firms even if other selection processes are working in favour of
+the latter."_ [Hodgson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 100 and p. 103] Thus:
+
+> _"The degree of fitness of any organism can only be meaningfully considered
+in relation to its environment . . . the market may help to select firms that
+are fit for the market, but these surviving firms needn't be the most
+'efficient' in some absolute sense. In fact, the specification of 'the market'
+as a selection process is incomplete because the market is only one
+institution of many needed to specify an environment."_ [Michael J. Everett
+and Alanson P. Minkler, _"Evolution and organisational choice in nineteenth-
+century Britain"_, pp. 51-62, **Cambridge Journal of Economics** vol. 17, No.
+1, p. 53]
+
+
+
+ As an obvious example there are the difficulties co-operatives can face in
+finding access to credit facilities required by them from capitalist banks and
+investors. As Tom Cahill notes, co-operatives in the nineteenth century _"had
+the specific problem of . . . **giving credit**"_ while _"**competition with
+price cutting capitalist** firms . . . highlighting the inadequate reservoirs
+of the under-financed co-ops."_ [_"Co-operatives and Anarchism: A contemporary
+Perspective"_, pp 235-58, **For Anarchism**, Paul Goodway (ed.), p. 239] This
+points to a general issue, namely that there are often difficulties for co-
+operatives in raising money:
+
+> _"Co-operatives in a capitalist environment are likely to have more
+difficulty in raising capital. Quite apart from ideological hostility (which
+may be significant), external investors will be reluctant to put their money
+into concerns over which they will have little or no control \-- which tends
+to be the case with a co-operative. Because co-operatives in a capitalist
+environment face special difficulties, and because they lack the inherent
+expansionary dynamic of a capitalist firm, it is hardy surprising that they
+are far from dominant."_ [Schweickart, **Op. Cit.**, p 240]
+
+
+
+ In addition, the _"return on capital is limited"_ in co-operatives. [Tom
+Cahill, **Op. Cit.**, p. 247] This means that investors are less-likely to
+invest in co-operatives, and so co-operatives will tend to suffer from a lack
+of investment. So despite _"the potential efficiency of such [self-managed]
+workplaces"_, capitalism _"may be systematically biased against participatory
+workplaces"_ and as _"a result the economy can be trapped in a socially
+suboptimal position."_ Capital market issues, amongst others, help explain
+this as such firms _"face higher transaction costs for raising equity and
+loans."_ [David I. Levine and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, _"Participation,
+Productivity, and the Firm's Environment"_, pp. 183-237, **Paying for
+Productivity**, Alan S. Blinder (ed.), pp. 235-6 and p. 221]
+
+
+
+ Tom Cahill outlines the investment problem when he writes that the
+_"financial problem"_ is a major reason why co-operatives failed in the past,
+for _"basically the unusual structure and aims of co-operatives have always
+caused problems for the dominant sources of capital. In general, the finance
+environment has been hostile to the emergence of the co-operative spirit."_ He
+also notes that they were _"unable to devise structuring to **maintain a
+boundary** between those who work and those who own or control . . . It is
+understood that when outside investors were allowed to have power within the
+co-op structure, co-ops lost their distinctive qualities."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+238-239] So even **if** co-operative do attract investors, the cost of so
+doing may be to transform the co-operatives into capitalist firms. So while
+all investors experience risk, this _"is even more acute"_ in co-operatives
+_"because investors must simultaneously cede control **and** risk their entire
+wealth. Under an unlimited liability rule, investors will rationally demand
+some control over the firm's operations to protect their wealth. Since [co-
+operatives] cannot cede control without violating one of the organisation's
+defining tenets, investors will demand an investment premium, a premium not
+required from equity investments."_ [Everett and Minkler, **Op. Cit.**, p. 52]
+Needless to say, such a premium is a strain on a co-operative and makes it
+harder to survive simply because it has higher costs for debt repayment. If
+such external investment is not forthcoming, then the co-operative is
+dependent on retained earnings and its members' savings which, unsurprisingly,
+are often insufficient.
+
+
+
+ All of which suggests that Nozick's assertion that _"don't say that its
+against the class interest of investors to support the growth of some
+enterprise that if successful would end or diminish the investment system.
+Investors are not so altruistic. They act in personal and not their class
+interests"_ is false. [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 252-3] Nozick is correct, to a
+degree, but he forgets that class interest is a fusion of individual
+interests. Given a choice between returns from investments in capitalist firms
+because a management elite has similar interests in maximising unpaid labour
+and workers in a co-operative which controls any surplus, the investor will
+select the former. Moreover, lack of control by investors plays its role as
+they cannot simply replace the management in a co-operative -- that power lies
+in the hands of the workforce. The higher premiums required by investors to
+forsake such privileges place a burden on the co-operative, so reducing their
+likelihood of getting funds in the first place or surviving and, needless to
+say, increasing the risk that investors face. Thus the personal and class
+interest of investors merge, with the personal desire to make money ensuring
+that the class position of the individual is secured. This does not reflect
+the productivity or efficiency of the investment -- quite the reverse! -- it
+reflects the social function of wage labour in maximising profits and returns
+on capital (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj512) for more on this). In other
+words, the personal interests of investors will generally support their class
+interests (unsurprisingly, as class interests are not independent of personal
+interests and will tend to reflect them!).
+
+
+
+ There are other structural problems as well. Co-operatives face the negative
+externalities generated by the capitalist economy they operate within. For one
+thing, since their pay levels are set by members' democratic vote, co-
+operatives tend to be more egalitarian in their income structure. This means
+that in a capitalist environment, co-operatives are in constant danger of
+having their most skilled members hired away by capitalist firms who can, due
+to their resources, out-bid the co-operative. While this may result in
+exploitation of the worker, the capitalist firm has the resources to pay
+higher wages and so it makes sense for them to leave (_"As to the employer who
+pays an engineer twenty times more than a labourer, it is simply due to
+personal interest; if the engineer can economise $4000 a year on the cost of
+production; the employer pays him $800 . . . He parts with an extra $40 when
+he expects to gain $400 by it; and this is the essence of the Capitalist
+system."_ [Kropotkin, **The Conquest of Bread**, p. 165]). However, in a co-
+operative system there would not be the inequalities of economic wealth
+(created by capitalist firms and finance structures) which allows such
+poaching to happen.
+
+
+
+ There are cultural issues as well. As Jon Elster points out, it is a
_"truism, but an important one, that workers' preferences are to a large
extent shaped by their economic environment. Specifically, there is a tendency
to adaptive preference formation, by which the actual mode of economic
organisation comes to be perceived as superior to all others."_ [_"From Here
-to There"_, in **Socialism**, p. 110] In other words, people view "what is" as
-given and feel no urge to change to "what could be." In the context of
-creating alternatives within capitalism, this can have serious effects on the
-spread of alternatives and indicates the importance of anarchists encouraging
-the spirit of revolt to break down this mental apathy.
+to There"_, pp. 93-111, **Socialism**, Paul, Miller Jr., Paul, and Greenberg
+(eds.), p. 110] In other words, people view "what is" as given and feel no
+urge to change to "what could be." In the context of creating alternatives
+within capitalism, this can have serious effects on the spread of alternatives
+and indicates the importance of anarchists encouraging the spirit of revolt to
+break down this mental apathy.
-This acceptance of "what is" can be seen, to some degree, by some companies
+
+
+ This acceptance of "what is" can be seen, to some degree, by some companies
which meet the formal conditions for co-operatives, for example ESOP owned
-firms in the USA, but lack effective workers' control. ESOP (Employee Stack
-Ownership Plans) firms enable a firms workforce to gain the majority of a
-companies shares but the unequal distribution of shares amongst employees
-prevents the great majority of workers from having any effective control or
-influence on decisions. Unlike real co-operatives (based on "one worker, one
-vote") these firms are based on "one share, one vote" and so have more in
-common with capitalist firms than co-operatives.
-
-Moreover, we have ignored such problems as natural barriers to entry into, and
-movement within, a market (which is faced by all firms) and the difficulties
-co-operatives can face in finding access to long term credit facilities
-required by them from capitalist banks (which would effect co-operatives more
-as short term pressures can result in their co-operative nature being
-diluted). As Tom Cahill notes, the _"old co-ops [of the nineteenth century]
-also had the specific problem of . . . **giving credit** . . . [as well as]
-problems . . . of **competition with price cutting capitalist** firms,
-highlighting the inadequate reservoirs of the under-financed co-ops."_ [_"Co-
-operatives and Anarchism: A contemporary Perspective"_, in **For Anarchism**,
-edited by Paul Goodway, p. 239]
-
-In addition, the _"return on capital is limited"_ in co-operatives [Tom
-Cahill, **Op. Cit.**, p. 247] which means that investors are less-likely to
-invest in co-operatives, and so co-operatives will tend to suffer from a lack
-of investment. Which also suggests that Nozick's argument that _"don't say
-that its against the class interest of investors to support the growth of some
-enterprise that if successful would end or diminish the investment system.
-Investors are not so altruistic. They act in personal and not their class
-interests"_ is false [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 252-3]. Nozick is correct, to a degree
--- but given a choice between high returns from investments in capitalist
-firms and lower ones from co-operatives, the investor will select the former.
-This does not reflect the productivity or efficiency of the investment --
-quite the reverse! -- it reflects the social function of wage labour in
-maximising profits and returns on capital (see [next
-section](secJ5.html#secj512) for more on this). In other words, the personal
-interests of investors will generally support their class interests
-(unsurprisingly, as class interests are not independent of personal interests
-and will tend to reflect them!).
-
-Tom Cahill outlines the investment problem when he writes that the _"financial
-problem"_ is a major reason why co-operatives failed in the past, for
-_"basically the unusual structure and aims of co-operatives have always caused
-problems for the dominant sources of capital. In general, the finance
-environment has been hostile to the emergence of the co-operative spirit. .
-."_ And he also notes that they were _"unable to devise structuring to
-**maintain a boundary** between those who work and those who own or control. .
-. It is understood that when outside investors were allowed to have power
-within the co-op structure, co-ops lost their distinctive qualities."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, pp. 238-239] Meaning that even **if** co-operative do attract
-investors, the cost of so doing may be to transform the co-operatives into
-capitalist firms.
-
-Thus, in spite of _"empirical studies suggest[ing] that co-operatives are at
-least as productive as their capitalist counterparts,"_ with many having _"an
-excellent record, superior to conventionally organised firms over a long
-period"_ [Jon Elster, **Op. Cit.**, p. 96], co-operatives are more likely to
-adapt to capitalism than replace it and adopt capitalist principles of
-rationality in order to survive. All things being equal, co-operatives are
-more efficient than their capitalist counterparts - but when co-operatives
-compete in a capitalist economy, all things are **not** equal.
-
-In spite of these structural and cultural problems, however, there has been a
-dramatic increase in the number of producer co-operatives in most Western
-countries in recent years. For example, Saul Estrin and Derek Jones report
-that co-operatives in the UK grew from 20 in 1975 to 1,600 by 1986; in France
-they increased from 500 to 1,500; and in Italy, some 7,000 new co-operatives
-came into existence between 1970 and 1982 [_"Can Employee-owned Firms
-Survive?"_, Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, Hamilton College
-(April, May, 1989)]. Italian co-operatives now number well over 20,000, many
-of them large and having many support structures as well (which aids their
-development by reducing their isolation and providing long term financial
-support lacking within the capitalist market).
-
-We have already noted the success of the Mondragon co-operatives in Spain,
-which created a cluster of inter-locking co-operatives with its own credit
-union to provide long term financial support and commitment. Thus, in Europe
-at least, it appears that there **is** a rather _"large and growing co-
-operative movement,"_ which gives the lie to Nozick's and other supporters of
-capitalism arguments about co-operatives' lack of economic viability and/or
-attractiveness to workers.
-
-However, because co-operatives can survive in a capitalist economy it does not
-automatically mean that they shall **replace** that economy. Isolated co-
-operatives, as we argued above, will more likely adapt to capitalist realities
-than remain completely true to their co-operative promise. For most
-anarchists, therefore, co-operatives can reach their full potential only as
-part of a social movement aiming to change society. As part of a wider
-movement of community and workplace unionism, with mutualist banks to provide
-long terms financial support and commitment, co-operatives could be
-communalised into a network of solidarity and support that will reduce the
-problems of isolation and adaptation. Hence Bakunin:
-
-> _"We hardly oppose the creation of co-operative associations; we find them
-necessary in many respects. . . they accustom the workers to organise, pursue,
-and manage their interests themselves, without interference either by
-bourgeois capital or by bourgeois control. . . [they must] above all [be]
-founded on the principle of solidarity and collectivity rather than on
-bourgeois exclusivity, then society will pass from its present situation to
-one of equality and justice without too many great upheavals."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-p. 153]
-
-Co-operation _"will prosper, developing itself fully and freely, embracing all
-human industry, only when it is based on equality, when all capital . . .
-[and] the soil, belong to the people by right of collective property."_
-[**Ibid.**]
-
-Until then, co-operatives will exist within capitalism but not replace it by
-market forces - only a **social** movement and collective action can fully
-secure their full development. As David Schweickart argues:
+firms in the USA, but lack effective workers' control. ESOP (Employee Stock
+Ownership Plans) enable a firm's workforce to gain the majority of a company's
+shares but the unequal distribution of shares amongst employees prevents the
+great majority of workers from having any effective control or influence on
+decisions. Unlike real co-operatives (based on "one worker, one vote") these
+firms are based on "one share, one vote" and so have more in common with
+capitalist firms than co-operatives.
+
+
+
+ Finally, there is the question of history, of path dependency. Path
+dependency is the term used to describe when the set of decisions one faces
+for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions made in the past, even
+though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. This is often associated
+with the economics of technological change in a society which depends
+quantitatively and/or qualitatively on its own past (the most noted example
+this is the QWERTY keyboard, which would not be in use today except that it
+happened to be chosen in the nineteenth century). Evolutionary systems are
+path dependent, with historical events pushing development in specific
+directions. Thus, if there were barriers against or encouragement for certain
+forms of organisational structure in the past then the legacy of this will
+continue to dominate due to the weight of history rather than automatically
+being replaced by new, more efficient, forms.
+
+
+
+ This can be seen from co-operatives, as _"labour managed firms were
+originally at a substantial disadvantage compared to their capitalist
+counterparts"_ as the law _"imposed additional risks and costs"_ on them while
+_"early financial instruments were ill-suited to the establishment and
+continuation of worker co-operatives. The subsequent coevolution of firms and
+supporting institutions involved a path-dependent process where labour-managed
+firms were at a continual disadvantage, even after many of the earlier
+impediments were removed."_ [Hodgson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 103] _"Historically,"_
+argue Everett and Minkler _"both company and co-operative law were
+incompatible with democratic decision-making by workers."_ The law ensured
+that the _"burden was more costly"_ to labour-managed firms and these _
+"obstacles led to an environment dominated by investor-controlled firms
+(capitalist firms) in which informal constraints (behaviours and routines)
+emerged to reinforce the existing institutions. A path-dependent process
+incorporating these informal constraints continued to exclude [their]
+widespread formation."_ When the formal constraints which prevented the
+formation of co-operatives were finally removed, the _"informal constraints"_
+produced as a result of these _"continued to prevent the widespread
+formation"_ of co-operatives. So the lack of co-operatives _"can thus be
+explained quite independently of any of the usual efficiency criteria."_
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 58 and p. 60] Nor should we forget that the early industrial
+system was influenced by the state, particularly by rewarding war related
+contracts to hierarchical firms modelled on the military and that the state
+rewarded contracts to run various state services and industries to capitalist
+firms rather than, as Proudhon urged, to workers associations.
+
+
+
+ However, _"there are several good reasons why more efficient firms need not
+always be selected in a competitive and 'evolutionary' process."_ [Hodgson,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 99] So it is not efficiency as such which explains the
+domination of capitalist firms for _"empirical studies suggest that co-
+operatives are at least as productive as their capitalist counterparts,"_ with
+many having _"an excellent record, superior to conventionally organised firms
+over a long period."_ [Jon Elster, **Op. Cit.**, p. 96] So all things being
+equal, co-operatives are more efficient than their capitalist counterparts --
+but when co-operatives compete in a capitalist economy, all things are **not**
+equal. As David Schweickart argues:
> _"Even if worker-managed firms are preferred by the vast majority, and even
if they are more productive, a market initially dominated by capitalist firms
@@ -1761,43 +2360,166 @@ free competition has never been the whole truth with respect to anything; with
respect to workplace organisation it is barely a half-truth."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
p. 240]
-This means that while anarchists support, create and encourage co-operatives
-within capitalism, they understand _"the impossibility of putting into
-practice the co-operative system under the existing conditions of the
-predominance of bourgeois capital in the process of production and
-distribution of wealth."_ Because of this, most anarchists stress the need for
-more combative organisations such as industrial and community unions and other
-bodies _"formed,"_ to use Bakunin's words, _"for the organisation of toilers
-against the privileged world"_ in order to help bring about a free society.
-[Michael Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 185]
-
-## J.5.12 If self-management is more efficient, surely capitalist firms will
-be forced to introduce it by the market?
-
-While it may be admitted that co-operatives cannot reform capitalism away (see
-[last section](secJ5.html#secj511)), many supporters of "free market"
-capitalism will claim that a laissez-faire system would see workers self-
-management spread within capitalism. This is because, as self-management is
-more efficient than wage slavery, those capitalist firms that introduce it
-will gain a competitive advantage, and so their competitors will be forced to
-introduce it or go bust. While not being true anarchistic production, it would
-(it is argued) be a very close approximation of it and so capitalism could
-reform itself naturally to get rid of (to a large degree) its authoritarian
-nature.
-
-While such a notion seems plausible in theory, in practice it does not work.
-Free market capitalism places innumerable barriers to the spread of worker
+
+
+ It is illuminating, though, to consider why Nozick ignored the substantial
+empirical evidence that participation **is** more efficient than hierarchy
+and, as a result, why _"market criteria"_ does not result in the more
+productive and efficient co-operative production displacing the authoritarian
+workplace. Far better, it must be supposed, to just assume that the dominant
+form of workplace is more "efficient" and implicitly invoke a quasi-Darwinian
+individualistic selection mechanism in an ahistorical and institution-less
+framework. So people like Nozick who suggest that because worker co-operatives
+are few in number that this means they are forced out by competition because
+they are inefficient miss the point. A key reason for this lack of co-
+operative firms, argues Hodgson, _"is that competitive selection depends on
+the economic context, and while the institutional context of a capitalist
+system may be more conducive for the capitalist firm, a different context may
+favour the co-operative firm."_ [**Economics and Utopia**, p. 288]
+
+
+
+ As discussed in [section I.3.5](secI3.html#seci35), Proudhon was well aware
+that for mutualism to prosper and survive an appropriate institutional
+framework was required (the _"agro-industrial federation"_ and mutual
+banking). So an organisation's survival also depends on the co-evolution of
+supporting informal constraints. If a co-operative is isolated within a
+capitalist economy, without co-operative institutions around it, it comes as
+no great surprise to discover that they find it difficult to survive never
+mind displace its (usually larger and well-established) capitalist
+competitors.
+
+
+
+ Yet in spite of these structural problems and the impact of previous state
+interventions, co-operatives do exist under capitalism but just because they
+can survive in such a harsh environment it does not automatically mean that
+they shall **replace** that economy. Co-operatives face pressures to adjust to
+the dominant mode of production. The presence of wage labour and investment
+capital in the wider economy will tempt successful co-operatives to hire
+workers or issue shares to attract new investment. In so doing, however, they
+may end up losing their identities as co-operatives by diluting ownership (and
+so re-introducing exploitation by having to pay non-workers interest) or by
+making the co-operative someone's boss (which creates _"a new class of workers
+who exploit and profit from the labour of their employees. And all this
+fosters a bourgeois mentality."_ [Bakunin, **Bakunin on Anarchism**, p. 399]).
+
+
+
+ Hence the pressures of working in a capitalist market may result in co-
+operatives pursuing activities which may result in short term gain or
+survival, but are sure to result in harm in the long run. Far from co-
+operatives slowly expanding within and changing a capitalist environment it is
+more likely that capitalist logic will expand into and change the co-
+operatives that work in it (this can be seen from the Mondragon co-operatives,
+where there has been a slight rise in the size of wage labour being used and
+the fact that the credit union has, since 1992, invested in non-co-operative
+firms). These externalities imposed upon isolated co-operatives within
+capitalism (which would not arise within a fully co-operative context) block
+local moves towards anarchism. The idea that co-operation will simply win out
+in competition within well developed capitalist economic systems is just
+wishful thinking. Just because a system is more liberatory, just and efficient
+does not mean it will survive or prosper in an authoritarian economic and
+social environment.
+
+
+
+ So both theory and history suggests that isolated co-operatives will more
+likely adapt to capitalist realities than remain completely true to their co-
+operative promise. For most anarchists, therefore, co-operatives can reach
+their full potential only as part of a social movement aiming to change
+society. Only as part of a wider movement of community and workplace unionism,
+with mutualist banks to provide long terms financial support and commitment,
+can co-operatives be communalised into a network of solidarity and support
+that will reduce the problems of isolation and adaptation. Hence Bakunin:
+
+> _"We want co-operation too . . . But at the same time, we know that it
+prosper, developing itself fully and freely, embracing all human industry,
+only when it is based on equality, when all capital and every instrument of
+labour, including the soil, belong to the people by right of collective
+property . . . Once this is acknowledged we hardly oppose the creation of co-
+operative associations; we find them necessary in many respects . . . they
+accustom the workers to organise, pursue, and manage their interests
+themselves, without interference either by bourgeois capital or by bourgeois
+control . . . [they must be] founded on the principle of solidarity and
+collectivity rather than on bourgeois exclusivity, then society will pass from
+its present situation to one of equality and justice without too many great
+upheavals."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p. 153]
+
+
+
+ Until then, co-operatives will exist within capitalism but not replace it by
+market forces -- only a **social** movement and collective action can fully
+secure their full development. This means that while anarchists support,
+create and encourage co-operatives within capitalism, we understand _"the
+impossibility of putting into practice the co-operative system under the
+existing conditions of the predominance of bourgeois capital in the process of
+production and distribution of wealth."_ Because of this, most anarchists
+stress the need for more combative organisations such as industrial and
+community unions and other bodies _"formed,"_ to use Bakunin's words, _"for
+the organisation of toilers against the privileged world"_ in order to help
+bring about a free society. [**The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 385]
+
+
+
+ Finally, we must note an irony with Nozick's argument, namely the notion that
+capitalism (his _"free society"_) allows a _"voluntary"_ path to economic
+liberty. The irony is two-fold. First, the creation of capitalism was the
+result of state action (see [section F.8](secF8.html)). While working class
+people are expected to play by the rules decreed by capitalism, capitalists
+have never felt the urge to do so. It is this state coercion which helped
+create the path-dependency which stops _"the market"_ selecting more efficient
+and productive ways of production. Secondly, Nozick's own theory of (property)
+rights denies that stolen wealth can be legitimately transferred. In other
+words, expecting workers to meekly accept previous coercion by seeking
+investors to fund their attempts at economic liberty, as Nozick did, is
+implicitly accepting that theft is property. While such intellectual
+incoherence is to be expected from defenders of capitalism, it does mean that
+propertarians really have no ground to oppose working class people following
+the advice of libertarians and expropriating their workplaces. In other words,
+transforming the environment and breaking the path-dependency which stops
+economic liberty from flowering to its full potential.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely the market would
+force capitalists to introduce it?
+
+
+
+ Some supporters of capitalism argue that if self-management really were more
+efficient than hierarchy, then capitalists would be forced to introduce it by
+the market. As propertarian Robert Nozick argued, if workers' control meant
+that _"the productivity of the workers in a factory **rises** . . . then the
+individual owners pursuing profits will reorganise the productive process. If
+the productivity of workers **remains the same** . . . then in the process of
+competing for labourers firms will alter their internal work organisation."_
+This meant that _"individual owners pursuing profits . . . will reorganise the
+productive process."_ [**Anarchy, State, and Utopia**, p. 248] As this has not
+happened then self-management cannot be more efficient.
+
+
+
+ While such a notion seems plausible in theory, in practice it is flawed as
+_"there is a vast quantity of empirical evidence demonstrating that
+participatory workplaces tend to be places of higher morale and greater
+productivity than authoritarian workplaces."_ [David Schweickart , **Against
+Capitalism**, p. 228] So Nozick's thought experiment is contradicted by
+reality. Capitalism places innumerable barriers to the spread of worker
empowering structures within production, in spite (perhaps, as we will see,
-**because**) of their more efficient nature. This can be seen from the fact
-that while the increased efficiency associated with workers' participation and
-self-management has attracted the attention of many capitalist firms, the few
-experiments conducted have failed to spread. This is due, essentially, to the
-nature of capitalist production and the social relationships it produces.
+**because**) of their (well-documented) higher efficiency and productivity.
+This can be seen from the fact that while the increased efficiency associated
+with workers' participation and self-management has attracted the attention of
+many capitalist firms, the few experiments conducted have failed to spread
+even though they were extremely successful. This is due to the nature of
+capitalist production and the social relationships it produces.
+
+
-As we noted in [section D.10](secD10.html), capitalist firms (particularly in
+ As we noted in [section D.10](secD10.html), capitalist firms (particularly in
the west) made a point of introducing technologies and management structures
-that aimed to deskill and disempower their workers. In this way, it was hoped
-to make the worker increasingly subject to "market discipline" (i.e. easier to
+that aimed to deskill and disempower workers. In this way, it was hoped to
+make the worker increasingly subject to "market discipline" (i.e. easier to
train, so increasing the pool of workers available to replace any specific
worker and so reducing workers power by increasing management's power to fire
them). Of course, what actually happens is that after a short period of time
@@ -1807,28 +2529,31 @@ for a short time the technological change worked, over the longer period the
balance of forces changed, so forcing management to continually try to empower
themselves at the expense of the workforce.
-It is unsurprising that such attempts to reduce workers to order-takers fail.
+
+
+ It is unsurprising that such attempts to reduce workers to order-takers fail.
Workers' experiences and help are required to ensure production actually
happens at all. When workers carry out their orders strictly and faithfully
-(i.e. when they "work to rule") production threatens to stop. So most
-capitalists are aware of the need to get workers to "co-operate" within the
-workplace to some degree. A few capitalist companies have gone further. Seeing
-the advantages of fully exploiting (and we do mean exploiting) the experience,
-skills, abilities and thoughts of their employers which the traditional
-authoritarian capitalist workplace denies them, some have introduced various
-schemes to "enrich" and "enlarge" work, increase "co-operation" between
-workers and their bosses. In other words, some capitalist firms have tried to
+(i.e. when they "work to rule") production stops. So most capitalists are
+aware of the need to get workers to "co-operate" within the workplace to some
+degree. A few capitalist companies have gone further. Seeing the advantages of
+fully exploiting (and we do mean exploiting) the experience, skills, abilities
+and thoughts of their employers which the traditional authoritarian capitalist
+workplace denies them, some have introduced various schemes to "enrich" and
+"enlarge" work, increase "co-operation" between workers and their bosses, to
encourage workers to "participate" in their own exploitation by introducing
-(in the words of Sam Dolgoff) _"a modicum of influence, a strictly limited
-area of decision-making power, a voice - at best secondary - in the control of
-conditions of the workplace."_ [**The Anarchist Collectives**, p. 81] The
-management and owners still have the power and still reap the majority of
-benefits from the productive activity of the workforce.
+_"a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of decision-making power, a
+voice -- at best secondary -- in the control of conditions of the workplace."_
+[Sam Dolgoff, **The Anarchist Collectives**, p. 81] The management and owners
+still have the power and still reap unpaid labour from the productive activity
+of the workforce.
+
+
-David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with
+ David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with
experiments in workers' self-management within capitalist firms:
-> _ "Participant in such programs can indeed be a liberating and exhilarating
+> _"Participation in such programs can indeed be a liberating and exhilarating
experience, awakening people to their own untapped potential and also to the
real possibilities of collective worker control of production. As one manager
described the former pilots [workers in a General Electric program]: 'These
@@ -1841,87 +2566,78 @@ to decide what will be produced, when, and where. Participation in production
does not include participation in decisions on investment, which remains the
prerogative of ownership. Thus participation is, in reality, just a variation
of business as usual -- taking orders -- but one which encourages obedience in
-the name of co-operation.
+the name of co-operation._
->
-
-> "Second, participation programs can contribute to the creation of an elite,
+> _"Second, participation programs can contribute to the creation of an elite,
and reduced, work force, with special privileges and more 'co-operative'
attitudes toward management -- thus at once undermining the adversary stance
-of unions and reducing membership . . .
-
->
+of unions and reducing membership . . ._
-> "Thirds, such programs enable management to learn from workers \-- who are
+> _"Third, such programs enable management to learn from workers \-- who are
now encouraged by their co-operative spirit to share what they know -- and,
then, in Taylorist tradition, to use this knowledge against the workers. As
one former pilot reflected, 'They learned from the guys on the floor, got
their knowledge about how to optimise the technology and then, once they had
it, they eliminated the Pilot Program, put that knowledge into the machines,
and got people without any knowledge to run them -- on the Company's terms and
-without adequate compensation. They kept all the gains for themselves.'" . . .
+without adequate compensation. They kept all the gains for themselves.' . . ._
->
-
-> "Fourth, such programs could provide management with a way to circumvent
-union rules and grievance procedures or eliminate unions altogether. . ."_
+> _"Fourth, such programs could provide management with a way to circumvent
+union rules and grievance procedures or eliminate unions altogether."_
[**Forces of Production**, pp. 318-9]
-Therefore, capitalist-introduced and supported "workers' control" is very like
-the situation when a worker receives stock in the company they work for. If it
-goes some way toward redressing the gap between the value of that person's
-labour, and the wage they receive for it, that in itself cannot be a totally
-bad thing (although, of course, this does not address the issue of workplace
-hierarchy and the social relations within the workplace itself). The real
-downside of this is the "carrot on a stick" enticement to work harder -- if
-you work extra hard for the company, your stock will be worth more. Obviously,
-though, the bosses get rich off you, so the more you work, the richer they
-get, the more you are getting ripped off. It is a choice that anarchists feel
-many workers cannot afford to make -- they need or at least want the money -
-but we believe that the stock does not work for many workers, who end up
-working harder, for less. After all, stocks do not represent all profits
-(large amounts of which end up in the hands of top management) nor are they
-divided just among those who labour. Moreover, workers may be less inclined to
-take direct action, for fear that they will damage the value of "their"
-company's stock, and so they may find themselves putting up with longer, more
-intense work in worse conditions.
-
-However, be that as it may, the results of such capitalist experiments in
-"workers' control" are interesting and show **why** self-management will not
-spread by market forces (and they also bear direct relevance to the question
-of why **real** co-operatives are not widespread within capitalism -- see
-[last section](secJ5.html#secj511)).
-
-According to one expert _"[t]here is scarcely a study in the entire literature
-which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is enhanced or. .
-.productivity increases occur from a genuine increase in worker's decision-
-making power. Findings of such consistency, I submit, are rare in social
-research."_ [Paul B. Lumberg, cited by Hebert Gintis, _"The nature of Labour
-Exchange and the Theory of Capitalist Production"_, **Radical Political
-Economy** vol. 1, p. 252]
-
-In spite of these findings, a _"shift toward participatory relationships is
-scarcely apparent in capitalist production. . . [this is] not compatible with
-the neo-classical assertion as to the efficiency of the internal organisation
-of capitalist production."_ [Herbert Gintz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 252] Why is this
-the case?
-
-Economist William Lazonick indicates the reason when he writes that _"[m]any
-attempts at job enrichment and job enlargement in the first half of the 1970s
-resulted in the supply of more and better effort by workers. Yet many
-'successful' experiments were cut short when the workers whose work had been
-enriched and enlarged began questioning traditional management prerogatives
-inherent in the existing hierarchical structure of the enterprise."_
-[**Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor**, p. 282]
-
-This is an important result, as it indicates that the ruling sections within
+
+
+ Capitalist introduced and supported "workers' control" is very like the
+situation when a worker receives stock in the company they work for. If it
+goes a little way toward redressing the gap between the value produced by that
+person's labour and the wage they receive for it, that in itself cannot be a
+totally bad thing (although this does not address the issue of workplace
+hierarchy and its social relations). The real downside of this is the "carrot
+on a stick" enticement to work harder -- if you work extra hard for the
+company, your stock will be worth more. Obviously, though, the bosses get rich
+off you, so the more you work, the richer they get, the more you are getting
+ripped off. It is a choice that anarchists feel many workers cannot afford to
+make -- they need or at least want the money -- but we believe that it does
+not work as workers simply end up working harder, for less. After all, stocks
+do not represent all profits (large amounts of which end up in the hands of
+top management) nor are they divided just among those who labour. Moreover,
+workers may be less inclined to take direct action, for fear that they will
+damage the value of "their" company's stock, and so they may find themselves
+putting up with longer, more intense work in worse conditions.
+
+
+
+ Be that as it may, the results of such capitalist experiments in "workers'
+control" are interesting and show **why** self-management will not spread by
+market forces. According to one expert: _"There is scarcely a study in the
+entire literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is
+enhanced or . . .productivity increases occur from a genuine increase in
+worker's decision-making power. Findings of such consistency . . . are rare in
+social research."_ [Paul B. Lumberg, quoted by Herbert Gintis, _"The nature of
+Labour Exchange and the Theory of Capitalist Production"_, **Radical Political
+Economy**, vol. 1, Samuel Bowles and Richard Edwards (eds.), p. 252] In spite
+of these findings, a _"shift toward participatory relationships is scarcely
+apparent in capitalist production"_ and this is _"not compatible with the neo-
+classical assertion as to the efficiency of the internal organisation of
+capitalist production."_ [Gintz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 252] Economist William
+Lazonick indicates the reason when he writes that _"[m]any attempts at job
+enrichment and job enlargement in the first half of the 1970s resulted in the
+supply of more and better effort by workers. Yet many 'successful' experiments
+were cut short when the workers whose work had been enriched and enlarged
+began questioning traditional management prerogatives inherent in the existing
+hierarchical structure of the enterprise."_ [**Competitive Advantage on the
+Shop Floor**, p. 282]
+
+
+
+ This is an important result, as it indicates that the ruling sections within
capitalist firms have a vested interest in **not** introducing such schemes,
even though they are more efficient methods of production. As can easily be
-imagined, managers have a clear incentive to resist participatory schemes (and
+imagined, managers have a clear incentive to resist participatory schemes (as
David Schweickart notes, such resistance, _"often bordering on sabotage, is
-well known and widely documented"_ [**Against Capitalism**, p. 229]). As an
-example of this, David Noble discusses a scheme (called the Pilot Program) ran
-by General Electric at Lynn, Massachusetts, USA in the late 1960s:
+well known and widely documented"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 229]). As an example of
+this David Noble discusses a scheme ran by General Electric in the late 1960s:
> _ "After considerable conflict, GE introduced a quality of work life program
. . . which gave workers much more control over the machines and the
@@ -1935,31 +2651,55 @@ out of fear of losing control over the workforce. Clearly, the company was
willing to sacrifice gains in technical and economic efficiency in order to
regain and insure management control."_ [**Progress Without People**, p. 65f]
-However, it could be claimed that owners, being concerned by the bottom-line
-of profits, could **force** management to introduce participation. By this
-method, competitive market forces would ultimately prevail as individual
-owners, pursuing profits, reorganise production and participation spreads
-across the economy. Indeed, there are a few firms that **have** introduced
-such schemes, but there has been no tendency for them to spread. This
-contradicts "free market" capitalist economic theory which states that those
-firms which introduce more efficient techniques will prosper and competitive
-market forces will ensure that other firms will introduce the technique.
-This is for three reasons.
-Firstly, the fact is that within "free market" capitalism **keeping** (indeed
+ Simply put, managers and capitalists can see that workers' control
+experiments expose the awkward fact that they are not needed, that their role
+is not related to organising production but exploiting workers. They have no
+urge to introduce reforms which will ultimately make themselves redundant.
+Moreover, most enjoy the power that comes with their position and have no
+desire to see it ended. This also places a large barrier in the way of
+workers' control. Interestingly, this same mentality explains why capitalists
+often support fascist regimes: _"The anarchist Luigi Fabbri termed fascism a
+**preventative counter-revolution**; but in his essay he makes the important
+point that the employers, particularly in agriculture, were not so much moved
+by fear of a general revolution as by the erosion of their own authority and
+property rights which had already taken place locally: 'The bosses felt they
+were no longer bosses.'"_ [Adrian Lyttelton, _"Italian Fascism"_, pp. 81-114,
+**Fascism: a Reader's Guide**, p. 91]
+
+
+
+ However, it could be claimed that owners of stock, being concerned by the
+bottom-line of profits, could **force** management to introduce participation.
+By this method, competitive market forces would ultimately prevail as
+individual owners, pursuing profits, reorganise production and participation
+spreads across the economy. Indeed, there are a few firms that **have**
+introduced such schemes but there has been no tendency for them to spread.
+This contradicts "free market" capitalist economic theory which states that
+those firms which introduce more efficient techniques will prosper and
+competitive market forces will ensure that other firms will introduce the
+technique.
+
+
+
+ This has not happened for three reasons.
+
+
+
+ Firstly, the fact is that within "free market" capitalism **keeping** (indeed
strengthening) skills and power in the hands of the workers makes it harder
for a capitalist firm to maximise profits (i.e. unpaid labour). It strengthens
the power of workers, who can use that power to gain increased wages (i.e.
-reduce the amount of surplus value they produce for their bosses).
-
-Workers' control basically leads to a usurpation of capitalist prerogatives --
-including their share of revenues and their ability to extract more unpaid
-labour during the working day. While in the short run workers' control may
-lead to higher productivity (and so may be toyed with), in the long run, it
-leads to difficulties for capitalists to maximise their profits. So, _"given
-that profits depend on the integrity of the labour exchange, a strongly
-centralised structure of control not only serves the interests of the
+reduce the amount of surplus value they produce for their bosses). Workers'
+control also leads to a usurpation of capitalist prerogatives -- including
+their share of revenues and their ability to extract more unpaid labour during
+the working day. While in the short run workers' control may lead to higher
+productivity (and so may be toyed with), in the long run, it leads to
+difficulties for capitalists to maximise their profits:
+
+> _"given that profits depend on the integrity of the labour exchange, a
+strongly centralised structure of control not only serves the interests of the
employer, but dictates a minute division of labour irrespective of
considerations of productivity. For this reason, the evidence for the superior
productivity of 'workers control' represents the most dramatic of anomalies to
@@ -1968,86 +2708,82 @@ amount of work elicited from each worker and improves the co-ordination of
work activities, while increasing the solidarity and delegitimising the
hierarchical structure of ultimate authority at its root; hence it threatens
to increase the power of workers in the struggle over the share of total
-value."_ [Hebert Gintz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 264]
+value."_ [Gintz, **Op. Cit.**, p. 264]
+
+
-So, a workplace which had extensive workers participation would hardly see the
+ A workplace which had extensive workers participation would hardly see the
workers agreeing to reduce their skill levels, take a pay cut or increase
their pace of work simply to enhance the profits of capitalists. Simply put,
-profit maximisation is not equivalent to technological efficiency. By getting
-workers to work longer, more intensely or in more unpleasant conditions can
-increase profits but does not yield more output for the **same** inputs.
-Workers' control would curtail capitalist means of enhancing profits by
-changing the quality and quantity of work. It is **this** requirement which
-also aids in understanding why capitalists will not support workers' control
--- even though it is more efficient, it reduces the ability of capitalists to
-maximise profits by minimising labour costs. Moreover, demands to change the
-nature of workers' inputs into the production process in order to maximise
-profits for capitalists would provoke a struggle over the time and intensity
-of work and over the share of value added going to workers, management and
-owners and so destroy the benefits of participation.
-
-Thus power within the workplace plays a key role in explaining why workers'
+profit maximisation is not equivalent to efficiency. Getting workers to work
+longer, more intensely or in more unpleasant conditions can increase profits
+but it does not yield more output for the **same** inputs. Workers' control
+would curtail capitalist means of enhancing profits by changing the quality
+and quantity of work. It is **this** requirement which also aids in
+understanding why capitalists will not support workers' control -- even though
+it is more efficient, it reduces capitalist power in production. Moreover,
+demands to change the nature of workers' inputs into the production process in
+order to maximise profits for capitalists would provoke a struggle over the
+intensity of work, working hours, and over the share of value added going to
+workers, management and owners and so destroy the benefits of participation.
+
+
+
+ Thus power within the workplace plays a key role in explaining why workers'
control does not spread -- it reduces the ability of bosses to extract more
unpaid labour from workers.
-The second reason is related to the first. It too is based on the power
+
+
+ The second reason is related to the first. It too is based on the power
structure within the company but the power is related to control over the
surplus produced by the workers rather than the ability to control how much
-surplus is produced in the first place (i.e. power over workers).
-
-Hierarchical management is the way to ensure that profits are channelled into
-the hands of a few. By centralising power, the surplus value produced by
-workers can be distributed in a way which benefits those at the top (i.e.
-management and capitalists). Profit maximisation under capitalism means the
-maximum profits available for capitalists -- **not** the maximum difference
-between selling price and cost as such. This difference explains the strange
-paradox of workers' control experiments being successful but being cancelled
-by management. The paradox is easily explained once the hierarchical nature of
-capitalist production (i.e. of wage labour) is acknowledged. Workers' control,
-by placing (some) power in the hands of workers, undermines the authority of
-management and, ultimately, their power to control the surplus produced by
-workers and allocate it as they see fit. Thus, while workers' control does
-reduce costs, increase efficiency and productivity (i.e. maximise the
-difference between prices and costs) it (potentially) reduces profit
-maximisation by undermining the power (and so privileges) of management to
-allocate that surplus as they see fit.
-
-Increased workers' control reduces the capitalists potential to maximise
-**their** profits and so will be opposed by both management **and** owners.
-Indeed, it can be argued that hierarchical control of production exists solely
-to provide for the accumulation of capital in a few hands, **not** for
-efficiency or productivity (see Stephan A. Margin, _"What do Bosses do? The
-Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production"_, **Op. Cit.**,
-pp. 178-248). This is why profit maximisation does not entail efficiency and
-can actively work against it.
-
-As David Noble argues, power is the key to understanding capitalism, **not**
+surplus is produced in the first place (i.e. power over workers). Hierarchical
+management is the way to ensure that profits are channelled into the hands of
+a few. By centralising power, the surplus value produced by workers can be
+distributed in a way which benefits those at the top (i.e. management and
+capitalists). This explains the strange paradox of workers' control
+experiments being successful but being cancelled by management. This is easily
+explained once the hierarchical nature of capitalist production (i.e. of wage
+labour) is acknowledged. Workers' control, by placing (some) power in the
+hands of workers, undermines the authority of management and, ultimately,
+their power to control the surplus produced by workers and allocate it as they
+see fit. Thus, while workers' control does reduce costs, increase efficiency
+and productivity (i.e. maximise the difference between prices and costs) it
+(potentially) reduces the power of management and owners to allocate that
+surplus as they see fit. Indeed, it can be argued that hierarchical control of
+production exists solely to provide for the accumulation of capital in a few
+hands, **not** for efficiency or productivity (see Stephan A. Margin, _"What
+do Bosses do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist
+Production"_, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 178-248).
+
+
+
+ As David Noble argues, power is the key to understanding capitalism, **not**
the drive for profits as such:
> _ "In opting for control [over the increased efficiency of workers' control]
. . . management . . . knowingly and, it must be assumed, willingly,
-sacrificed profitable production. Hence [experiences such as] the Pilot
-Program [at GE] . . . illustrates not only the ultimate management priority of
-power over both production and profit within the firm, but also the larger
-contradiction between the preservation of private power and prerogatives, on
-the one hand, and the social goals of efficient, quality, and useful
-production, on the other . . .
+sacrificed profitable production. . . . [This] illustrates not only the
+ultimate management priority of power over both production and profit within
+the firm, but also the larger contradiction between the preservation of
+private power and prerogatives, on the one hand, and the social goals of
+efficient, quality, and useful production, on the other . . . _
->
-
-> "It is a common confusion, especially on the part of those trained in or
+> _"It is a common confusion, especially on the part of those trained in or
unduly influenced by formal economics (liberal and Marxist alike), that
capitalism is a system of profit-motivated, efficient production. This is not
true, nor has it ever been. If the drive to maximise profits, through private
-ownership and control over the process of production, it has never been the
-end of that development. The goal has always been domination (and the power
-and privileges that go with it) and the preservation of domination. There is
+ownership and control over the process of production, has served historically
+as the primary means of capitalist development, it has never been the end of
+that development. The goal has always been domination (and the power and
+privileges that go with it) and the preservation of domination. There is
little historical evidence to support the view that, in the final analysis,
capitalists play by the rules of the economic game imagined by theorists.
There is ample evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that when the goals of
profit-making and efficient production fail to coincide with the requirements
of continued dominance, capital will resort to more ancient means: legal,
-political, and, of need be, military. Always, behind all the careful
+political, and, if need be, military. Always, behind all the careful
accounting, lies the threat of force. This system of domination has been
legitimated in the past by the ideological invention that private ownership of
the means of production and the pursuit of profit via production are always
@@ -2058,51 +2794,58 @@ among thousands like it in U.S. industry -- raises troublesome questions about
the adequacy of this mythology as a description of reality."_ [**Forces of
Production**, pp. 321-2]
-Hierarchical organisation (i.e. domination) is essential to ensure that
-profits are controlled by a few and can, therefore, be allocated by them in
-such a way to ensure their power and privileges. By undermining management
-authority, workers' control undermines that power to maximise profits in a
-certain direction even though it increases "profits" (the difference between
-prices and costs) in the abstract. As workers' control starts to extend (or
-management sees its potential to spread) into wider areas such as investment
-decisions, how to allocate the surplus (i.e. profits) between wages,
-investment, dividends, management pay and so on, then they will seek to end
-the project in order to ensure their power over both the workers and the
-surplus they, the workers, produce. In this they will be supported by those
-who actually own the company who obviously would not support a regime which
-will not ensure the maximum return on their investment. This maximum return
-would be endangered by workers' control, even though it is technically more
-efficient, as control over the surplus rests with the workers and not a
+
+
+ Hierarchical organisation (domination) is essential to ensure that profits
+are controlled by a few and can, therefore, be allocated by them in such a way
+to ensure their power and privileges. By undermining such authority, workers'
+control also undermines that power to maximise profits in a certain direction
+even though it increases "profits" (the difference between prices and costs)
+in the abstract. As workers' control starts to extend (or management sees its
+potential to spread) into wider areas such as investment decisions, how to
+allocate the surplus (i.e. profits) between wages, investment, dividends,
+management pay and so on, then they will seek to end the project in order to
+ensure their power over both the workers and the surplus they, the workers,
+produce (this is, of course, related to the issue of lack of control by
+investors in co-operatives raised in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj511)).
+
+
+
+ As such, the opposition by managers to workers' control will be reflected by
+those who actually own the company who obviously would not support a regime
+which will not ensure the maximum return on their investment. This would be
+endangered by workers' control, even though it is more efficient and
+productive, as control over the surplus rests with the workers and not a
management elite with similar interests and aims as the owners -- an
egalitarian workplace would produce an egalitarian distribution of surplus, in
other words (as proven by the experience of workers' co-operatives). In the
-words of one participant of the GE workers' control project -- _"If we're all
+words of one participant of the GE workers' control project: _"If we're all
one, for manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably, just
like a co-op business."_ [quoted by Noble, **Op. Cit.**, p. 295] Such a
-possibility is one no owner would agree to.
-
-Thirdly, to survive within the "free" market means to concentrate on the short
-term. Long terms benefits, although greater, are irrelevant. A free market
-requires profits **now** and so a firm is under considerable pressure to
-maximise short-term profits by market forces (a similar situation occurs when
-firms invest in "green" technology, see [section E.5](secE5.html)).
-
-Participation requires trust, investment in people and technology and a
-willingness to share the increased value added that result from workers'
-participation with the workers who made it possible. All these factors would
-eat into short term profits in order to return richer rewards in the future.
-Encouraging participation thus tends to increase long term gains at the
-expense of short-term ones (for it ensures that workers do not consider
-participation as a con, they must experience **real** benefits in terms of
-power, conditions and wage rises). For firms within a free market environment,
-they are under pressure from share-holders and their financiers for high
-returns as soon as possible. If a company does not produce high dividends then
-it will see its stock fall as shareholders move to those companies that do.
-Thus the market **forces** companies (and banks, who in turn loan over the
-short term to companies) to act in such ways as to maximise short term
-profits.
-
-If faced with a competitor which is not making such investments (and which is
+possibility is one few owners would agree to.
+
+
+
+ Thirdly, to survive within the "free" market means to concentrate on the
+short term. Long terms benefits, although greater, are irrelevant. A free
+market requires profits **now** and so a firm is under considerable pressure
+to maximise short-term profits by market forces. Participation requires trust,
+investment in people and technology and a willingness to share the increased
+value added that result from workers' participation with the workers who made
+it possible. All these factors would eat into short term profits in order to
+return richer rewards in the future. Encouraging participation thus tends to
+increase long term gains at the expense of short-term ones (to ensure that
+workers do not consider participation as a con, they must experience **real**
+benefits in terms of power, conditions and wage rises). For firms within a
+free market environment, they are under pressure from share-holders and their
+financiers for high returns as soon as possible. If a company does not produce
+high dividends then it will see its stock fall as shareholders move to those
+companies that do. Thus the market **forces** companies to act in such ways as
+to maximise short term profits.
+
+
+
+ If faced with a competitor which is not making such investments (and which is
investing directly into deskilling technology or intensifying work loads which
lowers their costs) and so wins them market share, or a downturn in the
business cycle which shrinks their profit margins and makes it difficult for
@@ -2113,185 +2856,214 @@ and/or using the fear of unemployment to get workers to work harder and follow
orders, capitalist firms have consistently chosen (and probably preferred) the
latter option (as occurred in the 1970s).
-Thus, workers' control is unlikely to spread through capitalism because it
+
+
+ Thus, workers' control is unlikely to spread through capitalism because it
entails a level of working class consciousness and power that is incompatible
-with capitalist control. In other words, _"[i]f the hierarchical division of
-labour is necessary for the extraction of surplus value, then worker
-preferences for jobs threatening capitalist control will not be implemented."_
-[Hebert Gintis, **Op. Cit.**, p. 253] The reason why it is more efficient,
-ironically, ensures that a capitalist economy will not select it. The "free
-market" will discourage empowerment and democratic workplaces, at best
-reducing "co-operation" and "participation" to marginal issues (and management
-will still have the power of veto).
-
-In addition, moves towards democratic workplaces within capitalism is an
-example of the system in conflict with itself -- pursuing its objectives by
-methods which constantly defeat those same objectives. As Paul Carden argues,
+with capitalist control: _"If the hierarchical division of labour is necessary
+for the extraction of surplus value, then worker preferences for jobs
+threatening capitalist control will not be implemented."_ [Gintis, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 253] The reason why it is more efficient, ironically, ensures that
+a capitalist economy will not select it. The "free market" will discourage
+empowerment and democratic workplaces, at best reducing "co-operation" and
+"participation" to marginal issues (and management will still have the power
+of veto).
+
+
+
+ The failure of moves towards democratic workplaces within capitalism are an
+example of that system in conflict with itself -- pursuing its objectives by
+methods which constantly defeat those same objectives. As Paul Carden argued,
the _"capitalist system can only maintain itself by trying to reduce workers
-into mere order-takers. . . At the same time the system can only function as
-long as this reduction is never achieved. . . [for] the system would soon
-grind to a halt. . . [However] capitalism constantly has to **limit** this
+into mere order-takers . . . At the same time the system can only function as
+long as this reduction is never achieved . . . [for] the system would soon
+grind to a halt . . . [However] capitalism constantly has to **limit** this
**participation** (if it didn't the workers would soon start deciding
themselves and would show in practice now superfluous the ruling class really
-is)."_ [**Revolution and Modern Capitalism**, pp. 45-46]
-
-The experience of the 1970s supports this thesis well. Thus "workers' control"
-within a capitalist firm is a contradictory thing - too little power and it is
-meaningless, too much and workplace authority structures and short-term
-profits (i.e. capitalist share of value added) can be harmed. Attempts to make
-oppressed, exploited and alienated workers work if they were neither
+is)."_ [**Modern Capitalism and Revolution**, pp. 45-46] Thus "workers'
+control" within a capitalist firm is a contradictory thing -- too little power
+and it is meaningless, too much and workplace authority structures and
+capitalist share of, and control over, value added can be harmed. Attempts to
+make oppressed, exploited and alienated workers work if they were neither
oppressed, exploited nor alienated will always fail.
-For a firm to establish committed and participatory relations internally, it
-must have external supports - particularly with providers of finance (which is
-why co-operatives benefit from credit unions and co-operating together). The
-price mechanism proves self-defeating to create such supports and that is why
-we see "participation" more fully developed within Japanese and German firms
-(although it is still along way from fully democratic workplaces), who have
-strong, long term relationships with local banks and the state which provides
-them with the support required for such activities. As William Lazonick notes,
-Japanese industry had benefited from the state ensuring _"access to
-inexpensive long-term finance, the sine qua non of innovating investment
-strategies"_ along with a host of other supports, such as protecting Japanese
-industry within their home markets so they could _"develop and utilise their
-productive resources to the point where they could attain competitive
-advantage in international competition."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 305] The German
-state provides its industry with much of the same support.
-
-Therefore, "participation" within capitalist firms will have little or no
-tendency to spread due to the "automatic" actions of market forces. In spite
-of such schemes being more efficient, capitalism will not select them because
-they empower workers and make it hard for capitalists to maximise their short
-term profits. Hence capitalism, by itself, will have no tendency to produce
-more libertarian organisational forms within industry. Those firms that do
-introduce such schemes will be the exception rather than the rule (and the
-schemes themselves will be marginal in most respects and subject to veto from
-above). For such schemes to spread, collective action is required (such as
-state intervention to create the right environment and support network or --
-from an anarchist point of view -- union and community direct action).
-
-However such schemes, as noted above, are just forms of self-exploitation,
-getting workers to help their robbers and so **not** a development anarchists
-seek to encourage. We have discussed this here just to be clear that, firstly,
-such forms of structural reforms are **not** self-management, as managers and
+
+
+ For a firm to establish committed and participatory relations internally, it
+must have external supports -- particularly with providers of finance (which
+is why co-operatives benefit from credit unions and co-operating together).
+The price mechanism proves self-defeating to create such supports and that is
+why we see "participation" more fully developed within Japanese and German
+firms (although it is still along way from fully democratic workplaces), who
+have strong, long term relationships with local banks and the state which
+provides them with the support required for such activities. As William
+Lazonick notes, Japanese industry had benefited from the state ensuring
+_"access to inexpensive long-term finance, the sine qua non of innovating
+investment strategies"_ along with a host of other supports, such as
+protecting Japanese industry within their home markets so they could _"develop
+and utilise their productive resources to the point where they could attain
+competitive advantage in international competition."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 305]
+The German state provides its industry with much of the same support.
+
+
+
+ Therefore, "participation" within capitalist firms will have little or no
+tendency to spread due to the actions of market forces. In spite of such
+schemes almost always being more efficient, capitalism will not select them
+because they empower workers and make it hard for capitalists to generate and
+control their profits. Hence capitalism, by itself, will have no tendency to
+produce more libertarian organisational forms within industry. Those firms
+that do introduce such schemes will be the exception rather than the rule (and
+the schemes themselves will be marginal in most respects and subject to veto
+from above). For such schemes to spread, collective action is required (such
+as state intervention to create the right environment and support network or
+-- from an anarchist point of view -- union and community direct action).
+
+
+
+ Such schemes, as noted above, are just forms of self-exploitation, getting
+workers to help their robbers and so **not** a development anarchists seek to
+encourage. We have discussed this here just to be clear that, firstly, such
+forms of structural reforms are **not** self-management, as managers and
owners still have the real power, and, secondly, even if such forms are
-somewhat liberatory, market forces will not select them (i.e. collective
-action would be required).
-
-For anarchists _"self-management is not a new form of mediation between
-workers and their bosses . . . [it] refers to the very process by which the
-workers themselves **overthrow** their managers and take on their own
-management and the management of production in their own workplace."_ [Sam
-Dolgoff, **Op. Cit.**, p. 81] Hence our support for co-operatives, unions and
-other self-managed structures created and organised from below by and for
-working class people.
-
-## J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?
-
-Modern schools are alternative schools, self-managed by students, teachers and
-parents which reject the authoritarian schooling methods of the modern
-"education" system. Such schools have a feature of the anarchist movement
+somewhat liberatory and more efficient, market forces will not select them
+precisely **because** the latter is dependent on the former. Thirdly, they
+would still be organised for exploitation as workers would not be controlling
+all the goods they produced. As with an existing capitalist firm, part of
+their product would be used to pay interest, rent and profit. For anarchists _
+"self-management is not a new form of mediation between workers and their
+bosses . . . [it] refers to the very process by which the workers themselves
+**overthrow** their managers and take on their own management and the
+management of production in their own workplace."_ [Dolgoff, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+81] Hence our support for co-operatives, unions and other self-managed
+structures created and organised from below by and for working class people by
+their own collective action.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?
+
+
+
+ Modern schools are alternative schools, self-managed by students, teachers
+and parents which reject the authoritarian schooling methods of the modern
+"education" system. Such schools have been a feature of the anarchist movement
since the turn of the 20th century while interest in libertarian forms of
-education has been a feature of anarchist theory from the beginning. All the
-major anarchist thinkers, from Godwin through Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin
-to modern activists like Colin Ward, have stressed the importance of
-libertarian (or "rational") education, education that develops all aspects of
-the student (mental and physical -- and so termed "integral" education) as
-well as encouraging critical thought and mental freedom. The aim of such
-education is, to use Proudhon's words, ensure that the _"industrial worker,
-the man [sic!] of action and the intellectual would all be rolled into one"_
-[cited by Steward Edward in **The Paris Commune**, p. 274]
-
-Anyone involved in radical politics, constantly and consistently challenges
+education has existed in anarchist theory from the beginning. All the major
+anarchist thinkers, from Godwin through Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin to
+modern activists like Colin Ward, have stressed the importance of libertarian
+(or rational) education, education that develops all aspects of the student
+(mental and physical -- and so termed integral education) as well as
+encouraging critical thought and mental freedom. The aim of such education is
+ensure that the _"industrial worker, the man [sic!] of action and the
+intellectual would all be rolled into one."_ [Proudhon, quoted by Steward
+Edward, **The Paris Commune**, p. 274]
+
+
+
+ Anyone involved in radical politics, constantly and consistently challenges
the role of the state's institutions and their representatives within our
lives. The role of bosses, the police, social workers, the secret service,
-middle managers, doctors and priests are all seen as part of a hierarchy which
-exists to keep us, the working class, subdued. It is relatively rare though
-for the left-wing to call into question the role of teachers. Most left wing
-activists and a large number of libertarians believe that education is good,
-all education is good, and education is always good. As Henry Barnard, the
-first US commissioner of education, appointed in 1867, exhorted, _"education
-always leads to freedom"_.
-
-Those involved in libertarian education believe the contrary. They believe
-that national education systems exist only to produce citizens who'll be
+managers, doctors and priests are all seen as part of a hierarchy which exists
+to keep us, the working class, subdued. It is relatively rare, though, for the
+left-wing to call into question the role of teachers. Most left wing activists
+and a large number of libertarians believe that education is always good.
+
+
+
+ Those involved in libertarian education believe the contrary. They believe
+that national education systems exist only to produce citizens who will be
blindly obedient to the dictates of the state, citizens who will uphold the
authority of government even when it runs counter to personal interest and
reason, wage slaves who will obey the orders of their boss most of the time
and consider being able to change bosses as freedom. They agree with William
Godwin (one of the earliest critics of national education systems) when he
-wrote in **An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice** that _"the project of a
-national education ought to be discouraged on account of its obvious alliance
-with national government . . . Government will not fail to employ it to
-strengthen its hand and perpetuate its institutions. . .Their views as
-instigator of a system will not fail to be analogous to their views in their
-political capacity."_ [cited by Colin Ward, **Anarchy in Action**, p. 81]
-
-With the growth of industrialism in the 19th century schools triumphed, not
-through a desire to reform but as an economic necessity. Industry did not want
-free thinking individuals, it wanted workers, instruments of labour, and it
-wanted them punctual, obedient, passive and willing to accept their
+wrote that _"the project of a national education ought to be discouraged on
+account of its obvious alliance with national government . . . Government will
+not fail to employ it to strengthen its hand and perpetuate its institutions .
+. . Their views as instigator of a system will not fail to be analogous to
+their views in their political capacity."_ [quoted by Colin Ward, **Anarchy in
+Action**, p. 81]
+
+
+
+ With the growth of industrialism in the 19th century state schools triumphed,
+not through a desire to reform but as an economic necessity. Industry did not
+want free thinking individuals, it wanted workers, instruments of labour, and
+it wanted them punctual, obedient, passive and willing to accept their
disadvantaged position. According to Nigel Thrift, many employers and social
reformers became convinced that the earliest generations of workers were
almost impossible to discipline (i.e. to get accustomed to wage labour and
workplace authority). They looked to children, hoping that _"the elementary
school could be used to break the labouring classes into those habits of work
-discipline now necessary for factory production. . . Putting little children
+discipline now necessary for factory production . . . Putting little children
to work at school for very long hours at very dull subjects was seen as a
positive virtue, for it made them habituated, not to say naturalised, to
-labour and fatigue."_ [quoted by Juliet B. Schor in **The Overworked
-American**, p. 61]
+labour and fatigue."_ [quoted by Juliet B. Schor, **The Overworked American**,
+p. 61]
-Thus supporters of Modern Schools recognise that the role of education is an
+
+
+ Thus supporters of Modern Schools recognise that the role of education is an
important one in maintaining hierarchical society -- for government and other
forms of hierarchy (such as wage labour) must always depend on the opinion of
-the governed. Franciso Ferrer (the most famous supporter of Modern Schooling
-due to his execution by the Spanish state in 1909) argued that:
+the governed. Francisco Ferrer (the most famous libertarian educator) argued
+that:
> _"Rulers have always taken care to control the education of the people. They
know their power is based almost entirely on the school and they insist on
retaining their monopoly. The school is an instrument of domination in the
-hands of the ruling class."_ [cited by Clifford Harper, **Anarchy: A Graphic
+hands of the ruling class."_ [quoted by Clifford Harper, **Anarchy: A Graphic
Guide**, p. 100]
-Little wonder, then, that Emma Goldman argued that the _"modern method of
-education"_ has _"little regard for personal liberty and originality of
-thought. Uniformity and imitation is [its] motto"_ and that the school _"is
-for the child what the prison is for the convict and the barracks for the
-solder - a place where everything is being used to break the will of the
-child, and then to pound, knead, and shape it into a being utterly foreign to
-itself."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, p. 118, p. 116]
-Hence the importance of Modern Schools. It is a means of spreading libertarian
+
+ Little wonder, then, that Emma Goldman argued that _"modern methods of
+education"_ have _"little regard for personal liberty and originality of
+thought. Uniformity and imitation is [its] motto."_ The school _"is for the
+child what the prison is for the convict and the barracks for the solder -- a
+place where everything is being used to break the will of the child, and then
+to pound, knead, and shape it into a being utterly foreign to itself."_ Hence
+the importance of Modern Schools. It is a means of spreading libertarian
education within a hierarchical society and undercut one of the key supports
for that society -- the education system. Instead of hierarchical education,
Modern schools exist to _"develop the individual through knowledge and the
free play of characteristic traits, so that [the child] may become a social
-being, because he had learned to know himself [or herself], to know his [or
-her] relation to his fellow[s]. . . "_ [Emma Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 121] It
-would, in Stirner's words, be _"an education for freedom, not for
-subservience."_
+being, because he had learned to know himself, to know his relation to his
+fellow[s]."_ [**Red Emma Speaks**, pp. 141-2, p. 140 and p. 145] It would be
+an education for freedom, not for subservience:
+
+> _"Should the notion of freedom but awaken in man, free men dream only of
+freeing themselves now and for all time: but instead, all we do is churn out
+learned men who adapt in the most refined manner to every circumstance and
+fall to the level of slavish, submissive souls. For the most part, what are
+our fine gentlemen brimful of intellect and culture? Sneering slavers and
+slaves themselves."_ [Max Stirner, **No Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 12]
-The Modern School Movement (also known as the Free School Movement) over the
+
+
+ The Modern School Movement (also known as the Free School Movement) over the
past century has been an attempt to represent part of this concern about the
dangers of state and church schools and the need for libertarian education.
The idea of libertarian education is that knowledge and learning should be
-linked to real life processes and personal usefulness and should not be the
-preserve of a special institution. Thus Modern Schools are an attempt to
+linked to real life processes as well as personal usefulness and should not be
+the preserve of a special institution. Thus Modern Schools are an attempt to
establish an environment for self development in an overly structured and
rationalised world. An oasis from authoritarian control and as a means of
-passing on the knowledge to be free.
+passing on the knowledge to be free:
> _"The underlying principle of the Modern School is this: education is a
process of drawing out, not driving in; it aims at the possibility that the
-child should be left free to develop spontaneously, directing his [or her] own
-efforts and choosing the branches of knowledge which he desires to study. . .
-the teacher . . . should be a sensitive instrument responding to the needs of
-the child . . . a channel through which the child may attain so much of the
-ordered knowledge of the world as he shows himself [or herself] ready to
-receive and assimilate"_. [Emma Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 126]
-
-The Modern School bases itself on libertarian education techniques.
+child should be left free to develop spontaneously, directing his own efforts
+and choosing the branches of knowledge which he desires to study . . . the
+teacher . . . should be a sensitive instrument responding to the needs of the
+child . . . a channel through which the child may attain so much of the
+ordered knowledge of the world as he shows himself ready to receive and
+assimilate."_ [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 146]
+
+
+
+ The Modern School bases itself on libertarian education techniques.
Libertarian education, very broadly, seeks to produce children who will demand
greater personal control and choice, who think for themselves and question all
forms of authority:
@@ -2302,10 +3074,12 @@ themselves: whose intellectual independence is their supreme power, which they
will yield to none; always disposed for better things, eager for the triumph
of new ideas, anxious to crowd many lives into the life they have. It must be
the aim of the school to show the children that there will be tyranny as long
-as one person depends on another."_ [Ferrer, quoted by Clifford Harper, **Op.
-Cit.**, p. 100]
+as one person depends on another."_ [Ferrer, quoted by Harper, **Op. Cit.**,
+p. 100]
+
-Thus the Modern School insists that the child is the centre of gravity in the
+
+ Thus the Modern School insists that the child is the centre of gravity in the
education process -- and that education is just that, **not** indoctrination:
> _"I want to form a school of emancipation, concerned with banning from the
@@ -2313,190 +3087,200 @@ mind whatever divides people, the false concepts of property, country and
family so as to attain the liberty and well-being which all desire. I will
teach only simple truth. I will not ram dogma into their heads. I will not
conceal one iota of fact. I will teach not what to think but how to think."_
-[Ferrer, cited by Harper, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 99-100]
+[Ferrer, quoted by Harper, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 99-100]
+
-The Modern School has no rewards or punishments, exams or mark -- the everyday
-_"tortures"_ of conventional schooling. And because practical knowledge is
-more useful than theory, lessons were often held in factories, museums or the
-countryside. The school was also used by the parents, and Ferrer planned a
+
+ The Modern School has no rewards or punishments, exams or mark -- the
+everyday tortures of conventional schooling. And because practical knowledge
+is more useful than theory, lessons were often held in factories, museums or
+the countryside. The school was also used by parents, and Ferrer planned a
Popular University.
> _"Higher education, for the privileged few, should be for the general
public, as every human has a right to know; and science, which is produced by
observers and workers of all countries and ages, ought not be restricted to
-class."_ [Ferrer, cited by Harper, **Op. Cit.**, p. 100]
-
-Thus Modern Schools are based on encouraging self-education in a co-operative,
-egalitarian and libertarian atmosphere in which the pupil (regardless of age)
-can develop themselves and their interests to the fullest of their abilities.
-In this way Modern Schools seek to create anarchists by a process of education
-which respects the individual and gets them to develop their own abilities in
-a conducive setting.
-
-Modern Schools have been a constant aspect of the anarchist movement since the
-later 1890s. The movement was started in France by Louise Michel and Sebastien
-Faure, where Franciso Ferrer became acquainted with them. He founded his
-Modern School in Barcelona in 1901, and by 1905 there were 50 similar schools
-in Spain (many of them funded by anarchist groups and trade unions and, from
-1919 onward, by the C.N.T. -- in all cases the autonomy of the schools was
-respected). In 1909, Ferrer was falsely accused by the Spanish government of
-leading an insurrection and executed in spite of world-wide protest and
-overwhelming proof of his innocence. His execution, however, gained him and
-his educational ideas international recognition and inspired a Modern School
-progressive education movement in Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy,
-Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Brazil,
-Mexico, China, Japan and, on the greatest scale, in the USA.
-
-However, for most anarchists, Modern Schools are not enough in themselves to
-produce a libertarian society. They agree with Bakunin's argument that _"[f]or
-individuals to be moralised and become fully human . . . three things are
-necessary: a hygienic birth, all-round education, accompanied by an upbringing
-based on respect for labour, reason, equality, and freedom and a social
-environment wherein each human individual will enjoy full freedom and really
-by, **de jure** and **de facto**, the equal of every other.
-
-"Does this environment exist? No. Then it must be established. . . [otherwise]
-in the existing social environment . . . on leaving [libertarian] schools they
-[the student] would enter a society governed by totally opposite principles,
-and, because society is always stronger than individuals, it would prevail
-over them . . . [and] demoralise them."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p, 174]
-
-Because of this, Modern Schools must be part of a mass working class
+class."_ [Ferrer, quoted by Harper, **Op. Cit.**, p. 100]
+
+
+
+ Thus Modern Schools are based on encouraging self-education in a co-
+operative, egalitarian and libertarian atmosphere in which the pupil
+(regardless of age) can develop themselves and their interests to the fullest
+of their abilities. In this way Modern Schools seek to create anarchists by a
+process of education which respects the individual and gets them to develop
+their own abilities in a conducive setting.
+
+
+
+ Modern Schools have been a constant aspect of the anarchist movement since
+the late 1890s. The movement was started in France by Louise Michel and
+Sebastien Faure, where Francisco Ferrer became acquainted with them. He
+founded his Modern School in Barcelona in 1901, and by 1905 there were 50
+similar schools in Spain (many of them funded by anarchist groups and trade
+unions and, from 1919 onward, by the C.N.T. -- in all cases the autonomy of
+the schools was respected). In 1909, Ferrer was falsely accused by the Spanish
+government of leading an insurrection and executed in spite of world-wide
+protest and overwhelming proof of his innocence. His execution, however,
+gained him and his educational ideas international recognition and inspired a
+Modern School progressive education movement across the globe.
+
+
+
+ However, for most anarchists, Modern Schools are not enough in themselves to
+produce a libertarian society. They agree with Bakunin:
+
+> _"For individuals to be moralised and become fully human . . . three things
+are necessary: a hygienic birth, all-round education, accompanied by an
+upbringing based on respect for labour, reason, equality, and freedom and a
+social environment wherein each human individual will enjoy full freedom and
+really by, **de jure** and **de facto**, the equal of every other._
+
+> _"Does this environment exist? No. Then it must be established. . .
+[otherwise] in the existing social environment . . . on leaving [libertarian]
+schools they [the student] would enter a society governed by totally opposite
+principles, and, because society is always stronger than individuals, it would
+prevail over them . . . [and] demoralise them."_ [**The Basic Bakunin**, p,
+174]
+
+
+
+ Because of this, Modern Schools must be part of a mass working class
revolutionary movement which aims to build as many aspects of the new world as
possible in the old one before, ultimately, replacing it. Otherwise they are
-just useful as social experiments and their impact on society marginal. Little
-wonder, then, that Bakunin supported the International Workers Association's
-resolution that urged _"the various sections [of the International] to
-establish public courses . . . [based on] all-round instruction, in order to
-remedy as much as possible the insufficient education that workers currently
-receive."_ [quoted by Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 175]
-
-Thus, for anarchists, this process of education is **part of** the class
-struggle, not in place of it and so _"the workers [must] do everything
-possible to obtain all the education they can in the material circumstances in
-which they currently find themselves . . . [while] concentrat[ing] their
-efforts on the great question of their economic emancipation, the mother of
-all other emancipations."_ [Michael Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 175]
-
-Before finishing, we must stress that hierarchical education (like the media),
-cannot remove the effects of actual life and activity in shaping/changing
-people and their ideas, opinions and attitudes. While education is an
-essential part of maintaining the status quo and accustoming people to accept
-hierarchy, the state and wage slavery, it cannot stop individuals from
-learning from their experiences, ignoring their sense of right and wrong,
-recognising the injustices of the current system and the ideas that it is
-based upon. This means that even the best state (or private) education system
-will still produce rebels -- for the **experience** of wage slavery and state
-oppression (and, most importantly, **struggle**) is shattering to the
-**ideology** spoon-fed children during their "education" and reinforced by the
-media.
-
-For more information on Modern Schools see Paul Avrich's **The Modern School
-Movement: Anarchism and education in the United States**, Emma Goldman's essay
-_"Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School"_ in **Anarchism and Other Essays**
-and A.S Neil's **Summerhill**. For a good introduction to anarchist viewpoints
-on education see _"Kropotkin and technical education: an anarchist voice"_ by
-Michael Smith in **For Anarchism** and Michael Bakunin's _"All-Round
-Education"_ in **The Basic Bakunin**. For an excellent summary of the
-advantages and benefits of co-operative learning, see Alfie Kohn's **No
-Contest**.
-
-## J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?
-
-In his article _"Theses on Libertarian Municipalism"_ [in **The Anarchist
-Papers**, Black Rose Press, 1986], Murray Bookchin has proposed a non-
-parliamentary electoral strategy for anarchists. He has repeated this proposal
-in many of his later works, such as **From Urbanisation to Cities** and has
-made it -- at least in the USA -- one of the many alternatives anarchists are
-involved in. The main points of his argument are summarised below, followed by
-a brief commentary.
-
-According to Bookchin, _"the proletariat, as do all oppressed sectors of
+just useful as social experiments and their impact on society marginal. Thus,
+for anarchists, this process of education is **part of** the class struggle,
+not in place of it and so _"the workers [must] do everything possible to
+obtain all the education they can in the material circumstances in which they
+currently find themselves . . . [while] concentrat[ing] their efforts on the
+great question of their economic emancipation, the mother of all other
+emancipations."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 175]
+
+
+
+ Before finishing, we must stress that hierarchical education (like the
+media), cannot remove the effects of actual life and activity in
+shaping/changing people and their ideas, opinions and attitudes. While
+education is an essential part of maintaining the status quo and accustoming
+people to accept hierarchy, the state and wage slavery, it cannot stop
+individuals from learning from their experiences, ignoring their sense of
+right and wrong, recognising the injustices of the current system and the
+ideas that it is based upon. This means that even the best state (or private)
+education system will still produce rebels -- for the **experience** of wage
+slavery and state oppression (and, most importantly, **struggle**) is
+shattering to the **ideology** spoon-fed children during their "education" and
+reinforced by the media.
+
+
+
+ For more information on Modern Schools see Paul Avrich's **The Modern School
+Movement: Anarchism and education in the United States**, Emma Goldman's
+essays _"Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School"_ (in **Anarchism and Other
+Essays**) and _"The Social Importance of the Modern School"_ (in **Red Emma
+Speaks**) as well as A.S Neil's **Summerhill**. For a good introduction to
+anarchist viewpoints on education see _"Kropotkin and technical education: an
+anarchist voice"_ by Michael Smith (in **For Anarchism**, David Goodway
+(ed.),) and Michael Bakunin's _"All-Round Education"_ (in **The Basic
+Bakunin**). For an excellent summary of the advantages and benefits of co-
+operative learning, see Alfie Kohn's **No Contest**.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?
+
+
+
+ As we noted in [section J.2](secJ2.html), most anarchists reject
+participating in electoral politics. A notable exception was Murray Bookchin
+who not only proposed voting but also a non-parliamentary electoral strategy
+for anarchists. He repeated this proposal in many of his later works, such as
+**From Urbanisation to Cities**, and has made it -- at least in the USA -- one
+of the many alternatives anarchists are involved in.
+
+
+
+ According to Bookchin, _"the proletariat, as do all oppressed sectors of
society, comes to life when it sheds its industrial habits in the free and
spontaneous activity of **communising,** or taking part in the political life
-of the community."_ In other words, Bookchin thinks that democratisation of
+of the community."_ In other words, Bookchin thought that democratisation of
local communities may be as strategically important, or perhaps more
-important, to anarchists than workplace struggles.
-
-Since local politics is humanly scaled, Bookchin argues that it can be
-participatory rather than parliamentary. Or, as he puts it, _"[t]he anarchic
-ideal of decentralised, stateless, collectively managed, and directly
-democratic communities -- of confederated municipalities or 'communes' --
-speaks almost intuitively, and in the best works of Proudhon and Kropotkin,
-consciously, to the transforming role of libertarian municipalism as the
-framework of a liberatory society. . . "_ He also points out that,
-historically, the city has been the principle countervailing force to imperial
-and national states, haunting them as a potential challenge to centralised
-power and continuing to do so today, as can be seen in the conflicts between
-national government and municipalities in many countries.
-
-But, despite the libertarian potential of urban politics, "urbanisation" \--
-the growth of the modern megalopolis as a vast wasteland of suburbs, shopping
+important, to anarchists than workplace struggles. Since local politics is
+humanly scaled, Bookchin argued that it can be participatory rather than
+parliamentary. Or, as he put it, the _"anarchic ideal of decentralised,
+stateless, collectively managed, and directly democratic communities -- of
+confederated municipalities or 'communes' -- speaks almost intuitively, and in
+the best works of Proudhon and Kropotkin, consciously, to the transforming
+role of libertarian municipalism as the framework of a liberatory society."_
+_"Theses on Libertarian Municipalism"_, pp. 9-22, **The Anarchist Papers**,
+Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.),p. 10] He also pointed out that, historically,
+the city has been the principle countervailing force to imperial and national
+states, haunting them as a potential challenge to centralised power and
+continuing to do so today, as can be seen in the conflicts between national
+government and municipalities in many countries.
+
+
+
+ Despite the libertarian potential of urban politics, "urbanisation" \-- the
+growth of the modern megalopolis as a vast wasteland of suburbs, shopping
malls, industrial parks, and slums that foster political apathy and isolation
in realms of alienated production and private consumption -- is antithetical
to the continued existence of those aspects of the city that might serve as
-the framework for a libertarian municipalism. _"When urbanisation will have
+the framework for a libertarian municipalism: _"When urbanisation will have
effaced city life so completely that the city no longer has its own identity,
culture, and spaces for consociation, the bases for democracy -- in whatever
way the word in defined -- will have disappeared and the question of
-revolutionary forms will be a shadow game of abstractions."_
-
-Despite this danger, however, Bookchin thinks that a libertarian politics of
-local government is still possible, provided anarchists get their act
-together. _"The Commune still lies buried in the city council; the sections
-still lie buried in the neighbourhood; the town meeting still lies buried in
-the township; confederal forms of municipal association still lie buried in
-regional networks of towns and cities."_
-
-What would anarchists do electorally at the local level? Bookchin proposes
-that they change city and town charters to make political institutions
-participatory. _"An organic politics based on such radical participatory forms
-of civic association does not exclude the right of anarchists to alter city
-and town charters such that they validate the existence of directly democratic
-institutions. And if this kind of activity brings anarchists into city
-councils, there is no reason why such a politics should be construed as
-parliamentary, particularly if it is confined to the civic level and is
-consciously posed against the state."_
-
-In a latter essay, Bookchin argues that Libertarian Muncipalism _"depends upon
-libertarian leftists running candidates at the local level, calling for the
-division of municipalities into wards, where popular assemblies can be created
-that bring people into full and direct participation in political life . . .
-municipalities would [then] confederate into a dual power to oppose the
-nation-state and ultimately dispense with it and with the economic forces that
-underpin statism as such."_ [**Democracy and Nature** no. 9, p. 158] This
-would be part of a social wide transformation, whose _"[m]inimal steps . . .
-include initiating Left Green municipalist movements that propose
-neighbourhood and town assemblies - even if they have only moral functions at
-first - and electing town and city councillors that advance the cause of these
-assemblies and other popular institutions. These minimal steps can lead step-
-by-step to the formation of confederal bodies. . . Civic banks to fund
-municipal enterprises and land purchases; the fostering of new ecologically-
-orientated enterprises that are owned by the community. . ."_ [**From
-Urbanisation to Cities**, p. 266]
-
-Thus Bookchin sees Libertarian Muncipalism as a process by which the state can
-be undermined by using elections as the means of creating popular assemblies.
-Part of this process, he argues, would be the _"municipalisation of property"_
-which would _"bring the economy **as a whole** into the orbit of the public
-sphere, where economic policy could be formulated by the **entire**
-community."_ [**Op. Cit.** p. 235]
-
-Bookchin considers Libertarian Muncipalism as the key means of creating an
-anarchist society, and argues that those anarchists who disagree with it are
-failing to take their politics seriously. _"It is curious,"_ he notes, _"that
-many anarchists who celebrate the existence of a 'collectivised' industrial
-enterprise, here and there, with considerable enthusiasm despite its emergence
-within a thoroughly bourgeois economic framework, can view a municipal
-politics that entails 'elections' of any kind with repugnance, even if such a
-politics is structured around neighbourhood assemblies, recallable deputies,
-radically democratic forms of accountability, and deeply rooted localist
-networks."_ [_"Theses on Libertarian Municipalism"_]
-
-In evaluating Bookchin's proposal, several points come to mind.
-
-Firstly, it is clear that Libertarian Muncipalism's arguments in favour of
-community assemblies is important and cannot be ignored. Bookchin is right to
+revolutionary forms will be a shadow game of abstractions."_ Despite this
+danger Bookchin argued that a libertarian politics of local government is
+still possible, provided anarchists get our act together: _"The Commune still
+lies buried in the city council; the sections still lie buried in the
+neighbourhood; the town meeting still lies buried in the township; confederal
+forms of municipal association still lie buried in regional networks of towns
+and cities."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 16 and p. 21]
+
+
+
+ What would anarchists do electorally at the local level? Bookchin proposed
+that libertarians stand in local elections in order to change city and town
+charters to make them participatory: _"An organic politics based on such
+radical participatory forms of civic association does not exclude the right of
+anarchists to alter city and town charters such that they validate the
+existence of directly democratic institutions. And if this kind of activity
+brings anarchists into city councils, there is no reason why such a politics
+should be construed as parliamentary, particularly if it is confined to the
+civic level and is consciously posed against the state."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
+21]
+
+
+
+ In short, Libertarian Muncipalism _"depends upon libertarian leftists running
+candidates at the local level, calling for the division of municipalities into
+wards, where popular assemblies can be created that bring people into full and
+direct participation in political life . . . municipalities would [then]
+confederate into a dual power to oppose the nation-state and ultimately
+dispense with it and with the economic forces that underpin statism as such."_
+[**Democracy and Nature** no. 9, p. 158] This would be part of a social wide
+transformation, whose _"[m]inimal steps . . . include initiating Left Green
+municipalist movements that propose neighbourhood and town assemblies -- even
+if they have only moral functions at first -- and electing town and city
+councillors that advance the cause of these assemblies and other popular
+institutions. These minimal steps can lead step-by-step to the formation of
+confederal bodies . . . Civic banks to fund municipal enterprises and land
+purchases; the fostering of new ecologically-orientated enterprises that are
+owned by the community."_ Thus Bookchin saw Libertarian Muncipalism as a
+process by which the state can be undermined by using elections as the means
+of creating popular assemblies. Part of this would be the _"municipalisation
+of property"_ which would _"bring the economy **as a whole** into the orbit of
+the public sphere, where economic policy could be formulated by the **entire**
+community."_ [**From Urbanisation to Cities**, p. 266 and p. 235]
+
+
+
+ In evaluating Bookchin's proposal, several points come to mind.
+
+
+
+ Firstly, it is clear that Libertarian Muncipalism's arguments in favour of
+community assemblies is important and cannot be ignored. Bookchin was right to
note that, in the past, many anarchists placed far too much stress on
workplace struggles and workers' councils as the framework of a free society.
Many of the really important issues that affect us cannot be reduced to
@@ -2507,79 +3291,93 @@ organised purely around workplace organisations is reproducing capitalism's
insane glorification of economic activity, at least to some degree. So, in
this sense, Libertarian Muncipalism has a very valid point -- a free society
will be created and maintained within the community as well as in the
-workplace.
-
-Secondly, Bookchin and other Libertarian Muncipalists are totally correct to
-argue that anarchists should work in their local communities. As noted in
-section [J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51), many anarchists are doing just that and
-are being very successful as well. However, most anarchists reject the idea
-that using elections are a viable means of _"struggle toward creating new
-civic institutions out of old ones (or replacing the old ones altogether)."_
-[**From Urbanisation to Cities**, p. 267]
-
-The most serious problem has to do with whether politics in most cities has
-already become too centralised, bureaucratic, inhumanly scaled, and dominated
-by capitalist interests to have any possibility of being taken over by
-anarchists running on platforms of participatory democratisation. Merely to
+workplace. However, this perspective was hardly alien to such anarchist
+thinkers as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin who all placed communes at the
+centre of their vision of a free society.
+
+
+
+ Secondly, Bookchin and other Libertarian Muncipalists are correct to argue
+that anarchists should work in their local communities. Many anarchists are
+doing just that and are being very successful as well. However, most
+anarchists reject the idea of a _"confederal muncipalist movement run[ning]
+candidates for municipal councils with demands for the institution of public
+assemblies"_ as viable means of _"struggle toward creating new civic
+institutions out of old ones (or replacing the old ones altogether)."_
+[Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 229 and p. 267]
+
+
+
+ The most serious objection to this has to do with whether politics in most
+cities has already become too centralised, bureaucratic, inhumanly scaled, and
+dominated by capitalist interests to have any possibility of being taken over
+by anarchists running on platforms of participatory democratisation. Merely to
pose the question seems enough to answer it. There is no such possibility in
the vast majority of cities, and hence it would be a waste of time and energy
for anarchists to support libertarian municipalist candidates in local
elections -- time and energy that could be more profitably spent in direct
action. If the central governments are too bureaucratic and unresponsive to be
-used by Libertarian Municipalists, the same can be said of local ones too.
+used by Libertarian Municipalists, the same can be said of local ones too --
+particularly as the local state has become increasingly controlled by the
+central authorities (in the UK, for example, the Conservative government of
+the 1980s successfully centralised power away from local councils to undercut
+their ability to resist the imposition of its neo-liberal policies).
+
-The counter-argument to this is that even if there is no chance of such
+
+ The counter-argument to this is that even if there is no chance of such
candidates being elected, their standing for elections would serve a valuable
educational function. The answer to this is: perhaps, but would it be more
-valuable than direct action? And would its educational value, if any, outweigh
-the disadvantages of electioneering mentioned in sections
-[J.2.2](secJ2.html#secj22) and [J.2.4](secJ2.html#secj24), such as the fact
-that voting ratifies the current system? Given the ability of major media to
-marginalise alternative candidates, we doubt that such campaigns would have
-enough educational value to outweigh these disadvantages. Moreover, being an
-anarchist does not make one immune to the corrupting effects of electioneering
-(as highlighted in section [J.2.6](secJ2.html#secj26)). History is littered
-with radical, politically aware movements using elections and ending up
-becoming part of the system they aimed to transform. Most anarchists doubt
-that Libertarian Muncipalism will be any different -- after all, it is the
-circumstances the parties find themselves in which are decisive, not the
-theory they hold (the social relations they face will transform the theory,
-not vice versa, in other words).
-
-Lastly, most anarchists question the whole process on which Libertarian
+valuable than direct action? Would its educational value, if any, outweigh the
+disadvantages of electioneering discussed in [section J.2](secJ2.html)? Given
+the ability of major media to marginalise alternative candidates, we doubt
+that such campaigns would have enough educational value to outweigh these
+disadvantages. Moreover, being an anarchist does not make one immune to the
+corrupting effects of electioneering. History is littered with radical,
+politically aware movements using elections and ending up becoming part of the
+system they aimed to transform. Most anarchists doubt that Libertarian
+Muncipalism will be any different -- after all, it is the circumstances the
+parties find themselves in which are decisive, not the theory they hold. Why
+would libertarians be immune to this but not Marxists or Greens?
+
+
+
+ Lastly, most anarchists question the whole process on which Libertarian
Muncipalism bases itself on. The idea of communes is a key one of anarchism
and so strategies to create them in the here and now are important. However,
to think that using alienated, representative institutions to abolish these
-institutions is mad. As the Italian activists (who organised a neighbourhood
-assembly by non-electoral means) argue, _"[t]o accept power and to say that
-the others were acting in bad faith and that we would be better, would
-**force** non-anarchists towards direct democracy. We reject this logic and
-believe that organisations must come from the grassroots."_ [_"Community
-Organising in Southern Italy"_, pp. 16-19, **Black Flag** no. 210, p. 18]
-
-Thus Libertarian Municipalism reverses the process by which community
+institutions is wrong. As Italian activists who organised a neighbourhood
+assembly by non-electoral means argue _"[t]o accept power and to say that the
+others were acting in bad faith and that we would be better, would **force**
+non-anarchists towards direct democracy. We reject this logic and believe that
+organisations must come from the grassroots."_ [_"Community Organising in
+Southern Italy"_, pp. 16-19, **Black Flag** no. 210, p. 18]
+
+
+
+ Thus Libertarian Municipalism reverses the process by which community
assemblies will be created. Instead of anarchists using elections to build
such bodies, they must work in their communities directly to create them (see
-section J.5.1 - ["What is Community Unionism?"](secJ5.html#secj51) for more
-details). Using the catalyst of specific issues of local interest, anarchists
-could propose the creation of a community assembly to discuss the issues in
-question and organise action to solve them. Instead of a _"confederal
-muncipalist movement run[ning] candidates for municipal councils with demands
-for the institution of public assemblies"_ [Murray Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p.
-229] anarchists should encourage people to create these institutions
-themselves and empower themselves by collective self-activity. As Kropotkin
-argued, _"Laws can only **follow** the accomplished facts; and even if they do
-honestly follow them - which is usually **not** the case - a law remains a
-dead letter so long as there are not on the spot the living forces required
-for making the **tendencies** expressed in the law an accomplished **fact**."_
-[**Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets**, p. 171] Most anarchists, therefore,
-think it is far more important to create the _"living forces"_ within our
-communities directly than waste energy in electioneering and the passing of
-laws creating or "legalising" community assemblies. In other words, community
-assemblies can only be created from the bottom up, by non-electoral means, a
-process which Libertarian Muncipalism confuses with electioneering.
-
-So, while Libertarian Muncipalism **does** raise many important issues and
+[section J.5.1](secJ5.html#secj51) for more details). Using the catalyst of
+specific issues of local interest, anarchists could propose the creation of a
+community assembly to discuss the issues in question and organise action to
+solve them. Rather than stand in local elections, anarchists should encourage
+people to create these institutions themselves and empower themselves by
+collective self-activity. As Kropotkin argued, _"Laws can only **follow** the
+accomplished facts; and even if they do honestly follow them -- which is
+usually **not** the case -- a law remains a dead letter so long as there are
+not on the spot the living forces required for making the **tendencies**
+expressed in the law an accomplished **fact**."_ [**Anarchism**, p. 171] Most
+anarchists, therefore, think it is far more important to create the _"living
+forces"_ within our communities directly than waste energy in electioneering
+and the passing of laws creating or "legalising" community assemblies. In
+other words, community assemblies can only be created from the bottom up, by
+non-electoral means, a process which Libertarian Muncipalism confuses with
+electioneering.
+
+
+
+ So, while Libertarian Muncipalism **does** raise many important issues and
correctly stresses the importance of community activity and self-management,
its emphasis on electoral activity undercuts its liberatory promise. For most
anarchists, community assemblies can only be created from below, by direct
@@ -2587,37 +3385,46 @@ action, and (because of its electoral strategy) a Libertarian Municipalist
movement will end up being transformed into a copy of the system it aims to
abolish.
-## J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?
-Currently we are seeing a concerted attempt to rollback the state within
-society. This has been begun by the right-wing in the name of "freedom,"
-"individual dignity and responsibility" and "efficiency." The position of
-anarchists to this process is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of
-reducing the size of the state and increasing individual responsibility and
-freedom, but, on the other, we are well aware that this process is part of an
-attack on the working class and tends to increase the power of the capitalists
-over us as the state's (direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear
-to be on the horns of a dilemma -- or, at least, apparently.
-So what attitude **do** anarchists take to the welfare state and the current
-attacks on it? (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj516) for a short discussion
-of business based welfare)
+ ## J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?
+
+
+
+ The period of neo-liberalism since the 1980s has seen a rollback of the state
+within society by the right-wing in the name of "freedom," "individual
+responsibility" and "efficiency." The position of anarchists to this process
+is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of reducing the size of the
+state and increasing individual responsibility and freedom but, on the other,
+we are well aware that this rollback is part of an attack on the working class
+and tends to increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state's
+(direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a
+dilemma -- or, at least, apparently.
-First we must note that this attack of "welfare" is somewhat selective. While
+
+
+ So what attitude **do** anarchists take to the welfare state and attacks on
+it?
+
+
+
+ First we must note that this attack on "welfare" is somewhat selective. While
using the rhetoric of "self-reliance" and "individualism," the practitioners
of these "tough love" programmes have made sure that the major corporations
continue to get state hand-outs and aid while attacking social welfare. In
other words, the current attack on the welfare state is an attempt to impose
market discipline on the working class while increasing state protection for
-the ruling class. Therefore, most anarchists have no problem in social welfare
-programmes as these can be considered as only fair considering the aid the
-capitalist class has always received from the state (both direct subsidies and
-protection and indirect support via laws that protect property and so on).
+the ruling class. Therefore, most anarchists have no problem defending social
+welfare programmes as these can be considered as only fair considering the aid
+the capitalist class has always received from the state (both direct subsidies
+and protection and indirect support via laws that protect property and so on).
And, for all their talk of increasing individual choice, the right-wing remain
silent about the lack of choice and individual freedom during working hours
within capitalism.
-Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state are
+
+
+ Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state are
inaccurate. For example, Noam Chomsky notes that the _"correlation between
welfare payments and family life is real, though it is the reverse of what is
claimed [by the right]. As support for the poor has declined, unwed birth-
@@ -2626,111 +3433,147 @@ increased. 'Over the last three decades, the rate of poverty among children
almost perfectly correlates with the birth-rates among teenage mothers a
decade later,' Mike Males points out: 'That is, child poverty seems to lead to
teenage childbearing, not the other way around.'"_ [_"Rollback III"_, **Z
-Magazine**, April, 1995] The same can be said for many of the claims about the
-evil effects of welfare which the rich and large corporations wish to save
-others (but not themselves) from. Such altruism is truly heart warming.
-
-Thirdly, we must note that while most anarchists **are** in favour of
-collective self-help and welfare, we are opposed to the welfare state. Part of
-the alternatives anarchists try and create are self-managed and communal
-community welfare projects (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj516)). Moreover,
-in the past, anarchists and syndicalists were at the forefront in opposing
-state welfare schemes (introduced, we may note, **not** by socialists but by
+Magazine**, April, 1995] The same charge of inaccurate scare-mongering can be
+laid at the claims about the evil effects of welfare which the rich and large
+corporations wish to save others (but not themselves) from. Such altruism is
+truly heart warming. For those in the United States or familiar with it, the
+same can be said of the hysterical attacks on "socialised medicine" and
+health-care reform funded by insurance companies and parroted by right-wing
+ideologues and politicians.
+
+
+
+ Thirdly, anarchists are just as opposed to capitalism as they are the state.
+This means that privatising state functions is no more libertarian than
+nationalising them. In fact, less so as such a process **reduces** the limited
+public say state control implies in favour of more private tyranny and wage-
+labour. As such, attempts to erode the welfare state without other, pro-
+working class, social reforms violates the anti-capitalist part of anarchism.
+Similarly, the introduction of a state supported welfare system rather than a
+for-profit capitalist run system (as in America) would hardly be considered
+any more a violation of libertarian principles as the reverse happening. In
+terms of reducing human suffering, though, most anarchists would oppose the
+latter and be in favour of the former while aiming to create a third (self-
+managed) alternative.
+
+
+
+ Fourthly, we must note that while most anarchists **are** in favour of
+collective self-help and welfare, we are opposed to the state. Part of the
+alternatives anarchists try and create are self-managed and community welfare
+projects (see [next section](secJ5.html#secj516)). Moreover, in the past,
+anarchists and syndicalists were at the forefront in opposing state welfare
+schemes. This was because they were introduced **not** by socialists but by
liberals and other supporters of capitalism to undercut support for radical
-alternatives and aid long term economic development by creating the educated
-and healthy population required to use advanced technology and fight wars).
-Thus we find that:
+alternatives and to aid long term economic development by creating the
+educated and healthy population required to use advanced technology and fight
+wars. Thus we find that:
-> _"Liberal social welfare legislation. . . were seen by many [British
+> _"Liberal social welfare legislation . . . were seen by many [British
syndicalists] not as genuine welfare reforms, but as mechanisms of social
control. Syndicalists took a leading part in resisting such legislation on the
grounds that it would increase capitalist discipline over labour, thereby
undermining working class independence and self-reliance."_ [Bob Holton,
**British Syndicalism: 1900-1914**, p. 137]
-Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they note
-the _"patriarchal structure of the welfare state"_ they are also aware that it
-has _"also brought challenges to patriarchal power and helped provide a basis
-for women's autonomous citizenship."_ [Carole Pateman, _"The Patriarchal
-Welfare State"_, in **The Disorder of Women**, p. 195] She does on to note
-that _"for women to look at the welfare state is merely to exchange dependence
-on individual men for dependence on the state. The power and capriciousness of
-husbands is replaced by the arbitrariness, bureaucracy and power of the state,
-the very state that has upheld patriarchal power. . . [this] will not in
-itself do anything to challenge patriarchal power relations."_ [**Ibid.**, p.
-200]
-
-Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than having
-to take **any** job or put up with **any** conditions, this relative
+
+
+ Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they note,
+to quote Carole Pateman, the _"patriarchal structure of the welfare state"_
+they are also aware that it has _"also brought challenges to patriarchal power
+and helped provide a basis for women's autonomous citizenship."_ She goes on
+to note that _"for women to look at the welfare state is merely to exchange
+dependence on individual men for dependence on the state. The power and
+capriciousness of husbands is replaced by the arbitrariness, bureaucracy and
+power of the state, the very state that has upheld patriarchal power."_ This
+_"will not in itself do anything to challenge patriarchal power relations."_
+[**The Disorder of Women**, p. 195 and p. 200]
+
+
+
+ Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than
+having to take **any** job or put up with **any** conditions, this relative
independence from the market and individual capitalists has came at the price
of dependence on the state -- the very institution that protects and supports
capitalism in the first place. And has we have became painfully aware in
recent years, it is the ruling class who has most influence in the state --
and so, when it comes to deciding what state budgets to cut, social welfare
-ones are first in line. Given that state welfare programmes are controlled by
-the state, **not** working class people, such an outcome is hardly surprising.
-Not only this, we also find that state control reproduces the same
-hierarchical structures that the capitalist firm creates.
+ones are first in line. Given that such programmes are controlled by the
+state, **not** working class people, such an outcome is hardly surprising. Not
+only this, we also find that state control reproduces the same hierarchical
+structures that the capitalist firm creates.
-Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes
+
+
+ Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes
and desire their replacement by self-managed alternatives. For example, taking
municipal housing, Colin Ward writes:
> _"The municipal tenant is trapped in a syndrome of dependence and
resentment, which is an accurate reflection of his housing situation. People
care about what is theirs, what they can modify, alter, adapt to changing
-needs and improve themselves. They must have a direct responsibility for it.
-
->
-
-> ". . .The tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those obviously
+needs and improve themselves. They must have a direct responsibility for it .
+. . The tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those obviously
sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs is
still stuck in the groves of nineteenth-century paternalism."_ [**Anarchy in
-Action**, p.73]
+Action**, p. 73]
-Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the _"universal
+
+
+ Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the _"universal
education system turns out to be yet another way in which the poor subsidise
the rich."_ Which is the least of its problems, for _"it is in the **nature**
of public authorities to run coercive and hierarchical institutions whose
ultimate function is to perpetuate social inequality and to brainwash the
young into the acceptance of their particular slot in the organised system."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 83, p. 81]
-
-The role of state education as a means of systematically indoctrinating the
-working class is reflected in William Lazonick's essay _"The Subjection of
-Labour to Capital: The rise of the Capitalist System"_:
-
-> _"The Education Act of 1870. . . [gave the] state. . . the facilities. . .
-to make education compulsory for all children from the age of five to the age
-of ten. It had also erected a powerful system of ideological control over the
-next generation of workers. . . [It] was to function as a prime ideological
-mechanism in the attempt by the capitalist class through the medium of the
-state, to continually **reproduce** a labour force which would passively
-accept [the] subjection [of labour to the domination of capital]. At the same
-time it had set up a public institution which could potentially be used by the
-working class for just the contrary purpose."_ [**Radical Political Economy**
-Vol. 2, p. 363]
-
-Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 83 and p. 81] The role of state education as a means of
+systematically indoctrinating the working class is reflected in William
+Lazonick words:
+
+> _"The Education Act of 1870 . . . [gave the] state . . . the facilities . .
+. to make education compulsory for all children from the age of five to the
+age of ten. It had also erected a powerful system of ideological control over
+the next generation of workers . . . [It] was to function as a prime
+ideological mechanism in the attempt by the capitalist class through the
+medium of the state, to continually **reproduce** a labour force which would
+passively accept [the] subjection [of labour to the domination of capital]. At
+the same time it had set up a public institution which could potentially be
+used by the working class for just the contrary purpose."_ [_"The Subjection
+of Labour to Capital: The rise of the Capitalist System"_, **Radical Political
+Economy** Vol. 2, p. 363]
+
+
+
+ Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare
provisions within capitalism. On the one hand, they are introduced to help
control the working class (and to improve long term economic development). On
the other hand, these provisions can be used by working class people as
weapons against capitalism and give themselves more options than "work or
-starve" (the fact that the recent attack on welfare in the UK -- called,
-ironically enough, **welfare to work** \-- involves losing benefits if you
-refuse a job is not a surprising development). Thus we find that welfare acts
-as a kind of floor under wages. In the US, the two have followed a common
+starve" (the fact that the attacks on welfare in the UK during the 1990s \--
+called, ironically enough, **welfare to work** \-- involves losing benefits if
+you refuse a job is not a surprising development). Thus we find that welfare
+acts as a kind of floor under wages. In the US, the two have followed a common
trajectory (rising together and falling together). And it is **this**, the
potential benefits welfare can have for working people, that is the **real**
-cause for the current capitalist attacks upon it.
+cause for the current capitalist attacks upon it. As Noam Chomsky summarises:
+
+> _"State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic
+societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision. Rather
+the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some aspects of that
+vision. Governments have a fatal flaw: unlike the private tyrannies, the
+institutions of state power and authority offer to the public an opportunity
+to play some role, however limited, in managing their own affairs."_
+[**Chomsky on Anarchism**, p. 193]
-Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like Noam
+
+
+ Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like Noam
Chomsky arguing that (using an expression popularised by South American rural
workers unions) _"we should 'expand the floor of the cage.' We know we're in a
cage. We know we're trapped. We're going to expand the floor, meaning we will
extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the
cage. But not by attacking the cage when we're vulnerable, so they'll murder
-us. . . You have to protect the cage when it's under attack from even worse
+us . . . You have to protect the cage when it's under attack from even worse
predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor
of the cage, recognising that it's a cage. These are all preliminaries to
dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of
@@ -2738,74 +3581,103 @@ complexity, they're going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who
need help, or, for that matter, to themselves."_ [**Expanding the Floor of the
Cage**]
-Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and an instrument of
-class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility -- namely, the
-state as "pure" defender of capitalism with working people with few or no
-rights. At least the welfare state does have a contradictory nature, the
-tensions of which can be used to increase our options. And one of these
+
+
+ Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and part of an
+instrument of class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility \--
+namely, the state as "pure" defender of capitalism with working people with
+few or no rights. At least the welfare state does have a contradictory nature,
+the tensions of which can be used to increase our options. And one of these
options is its abolition **from below**!
-For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be the first
+
+
+ For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be the first
to agree that it is paternalistic, bureaucratic and hardly a wonderful living
-experience. However, in stark contrast with the "libertarian" right who desire
-to privatise such estates, anarchists think that _"tenants control"_ is the
-best solution as it gives us the benefits of individual ownership **along
-with** community (and so without the negative points of property, such as
-social atomisation). And anarchists agree with Colin Ward when he thinks that
-the demand for _"tenant control"_ must come from below, by the _"collective
-resistance"_ of the tenants themselves, perhaps as a growth from struggles
-against rent increases. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 73]
-
-And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, "free
+experience. However, in stark contrast with the right who desire to privatise
+such estates, anarchists think that _"tenants control"_ is the best solution
+as it gives us the benefits of individual ownership **along with** community
+(and so without the negative points of property, such as social atomisation).
+The demand for _"tenant control"_ must come from below, by the _"collective
+resistance"_ of the tenants themselves, perhaps as a result of struggles
+against _"continuous rent increases"_ leading to _"the demand . . . for a
+change in the status of the tenant."_ Such a _"tenant take-over of the
+municipal estate is one of those sensible ideas which is dormant because our
+approach to municipal affairs is still stuck in the grooves of nineteenth
+century paternalism."_ [Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 73]
+
+
+
+ And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, "free
market" attempts to abolish the welfare state -- neo-liberalism wants to end
welfare **from above,** by means of the state (which is the instigator of this
-"individualistic" "reform"). It does not seek the end of dependency by self-
+individualistic "reform"). It does not seek the end of dependency by self-
liberation, but the shifting of dependency from state to charity and the
-market. In contrast, anarchists desire to abolish welfare from below, by the
-direct action of those who receive it by a _"multiplicity of mutual aid
-organisations among claimants, patients, victims"_ for this _"represents the
-most potent lever for change in transforming the welfare state into a genuine
-welfare society, in turning community care into a caring community."_ [Colin
-Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 125]
-
-Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the
-idea that the case of socialism, of a free society, can be helped by using the
-state. Like the right, the left see political action in terms of the state.
-All its favourite policies have been statist - state intervention in the
-economy, nationalisation, state welfare, state education and so on. Whatever
-the problem, the left see the solution as lying in the extension of the power
-of the state. And, as such, they continually push people in relying on
-**others** to solve their problems for them (moreover, such state-based "aid"
-does not get to the core of the problem. All it does is fight the symptoms of
+market. In contrast, anarchists desire to abolish welfare from **below**. This
+the libertarian attitude to those government policies which actually do help
+people. While anarchists would _"hesitate to condemn those measures taken by
+governments which obviously benefited the people, unless we saw the immediate
+possibility of people carrying them out for themselves. This would not inhibit
+us from declaring at the same time that what initiatives governments take
+would be more successfully taken by the people themselves if they put their
+minds to the same problems . . . to build up a hospital service or a transport
+system, for instance, from local needs into a national organisation, by
+agreement and consent at all levels is surely more economical as well as
+efficient than one which is conceived at top level [by the state] . . . where
+Treasury, political and other pressures, not necessarily connected with what
+we would describe as **needs**, influence the shaping of policies."_ So _"as
+long as we have capitalism and government the job of anarchists is to fight
+both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they can to run
+their own lives."_ [_"Anarchists and Voting"_, pp. 176-87, **The Raven**, No.
+14, p. 179]
+
+
+
+ Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the
+idea that the cause of socialism, of a free society, can be helped by using
+the state. Like the right, the left see political action in terms of the
+state. All its favourite policies have been statist -- state intervention in
+the economy, nationalisation, state welfare, state education and so on.
+Whatever the problem, the left see the solution as lying in the extension of
+the power of the state. They continually push people in relying on **others**
+to solve their problems for them. Moreover, such state-based "aid" does not
+get to the core of the problem. All it does is fight the symptoms of
capitalism and statism without attacking their root causes -- the system
-itself).
+itself.
+
-Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class
-people, of trusting and empowering them to sort out their own problems.
+
+ Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class
+people, from trusting and empowering them to sort out their own problems.
Indeed, the left seem to forget that the state exists to defend the collective
-interests of capitalists and other sections of the ruling class and so could
-hardly be considered a neutral body. And, worst of all, they have presented
-the right with the opportunity of stating that freedom from the state means
-the same thing as the freedom of the market (and as we have explained in
-detail in sections [B](secBcon.html), [C](secCcon.html) and [D](secDcon.html),
-capitalism is based upon domination -- wage labour -- and needs many
-repressive measures in order to exist and survive). Anarchists are of the
-opinion that changing the boss for the state (or vice versa) is only a step
-sideways, **not** forward! After all, it is **not** working people who control
-how the welfare state is run, it is politicians, "experts" and managers who do
-so. Little wonder we have seen elements of the welfare state used as a weapon
-in the class war **against** those in struggle (for example, in Britain during
-the 1980s the Conservative Government made it illegal to claim benefits while
-on strike, so reducing the funds available to workers in struggle and helping
-bosses force strikers back to work faster).
-
-Therefore, anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who suffer
-injustice to organise themselves and in that way they can change what **they**
-think is actually wrong, as opposed to what politicians and "experts" claim is
-wrong. If sometimes part of this struggle involves protecting aspects of the
-welfare state (_"expanding the floor of the cage"_) so be it -- but we will
-never stop there and will use such struggles as a step in abolishing the
-welfare state from below by creating self-managed, working class,
+interests of the ruling class and so could hardly be considered a neutral
+body. And, worst of all, they have presented the right with the opportunity of
+stating that freedom from the state means the same thing as the freedom of the
+market (so ignoring the awkward fact that capitalism is based upon domination
+-- wage labour -- and needs many repressive measures in order to exist and
+survive). Anarchists are of the opinion that changing the boss for the state
+(or vice versa) is only a step sideways, **not** forward! After all, it is
+**not** working people who control how the welfare state is run, it is
+politicians, "experts", bureaucrats and managers who do so (_"Welfare is
+administered by a top-heavy governmental machine which ensures that when
+economies in public expenditure are imposed by its political masters, they are
+made in reducing the service to the public, not by reducing the cost of
+administration."_ [Ward, **Op. Cit.** p. 10]). Little wonder we have seen
+elements of the welfare state used as a weapon in the class war **against**
+those in struggle (for example, in Britain during the miners strike in 1980s
+the Conservative Government made it illegal to claim benefits while on strike,
+so reducing the funds available to workers in struggle and helping bosses
+force strikers back to work faster).
+
+
+
+ Anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who suffer injustice to
+organise themselves and in that way they can change what **they** think is
+actually wrong, as opposed to what politicians and "experts" claim is wrong.
+If sometimes part of this struggle involves protecting aspects of the welfare
+state (_"expanding the floor of the cage"_) so be it -- but we will never stop
+there and will use such struggles as a stepping stone in abolishing the
+welfare state **from below** by creating self-managed, working class,
alternatives. As part of this process anarchists also seek to **transform**
those aspects of the welfare state they may be trying to "protect". They do
not defend an institution which **is** paternalistic, bureaucratic and
@@ -2814,109 +3686,145 @@ run hospital or school from closing, anarchists would try to raise the issue
of self-management and local community control into the struggle in the hope
of going beyond the status quo.
-Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own affairs
-collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever "safety-nets" we
-create for ourselves do what we want and not what capital wants. In the end,
-what we create and run by our own activity will be more responsive to our
-needs, and the needs of the class struggle, than reformist aspects of the
-capitalist state. This much, we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see
-elements of the "radical" and "revolutionary" left argue against this working
-class self-help (and so ignore the **long** tradition of such activity in
-working class movements) and instead select for the agent of their protection
-a state run by and for capitalists!
-
-There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of _"fraternal and
+
+
+ In this, we follow the suggestion made by Proudhon that rather than _"fatten
+certain contractors,"_ libertarians should be aiming to create _"a new kind of
+property"_ by _"granting the privilege of running"_ public utilities,
+industries and services, _"under fixed conditions, to responsible companies,
+not of capitalists, but of workmen."_ Municipalities would take the initiative
+in setting up public works but actual control would rest with workers' co-
+operatives for _"it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into
+democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a
+relapse into feudalism."_ [**General Idea of the Revolution**, p. 151 and p.
+276-7] Thus, for example, rather than nationalise or privatise railways, they
+should be handed over workers' co-operatives to run. The same with welfare
+services and such like: _"the abolition of the State is the last term of a
+series, which consists of an incessant diminution, by political and
+administrative simplification the number of public functionaries and to put
+into the care of responsible workers societies the works and services confided
+to the state."_ [Proudhon, **Carnets**, vol. 3, p. 293]
+
+
+
+ Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own
+affairs collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever "safety-
+nets" we have do what we want and not what capital wants. In the end, what we
+create and run by ourselves will be more responsive to our needs, and the
+needs of the class struggle, than reformist aspects of the capitalist state.
+This much, we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see elements of the
+"radical" and "revolutionary" left argue against this working class self-help
+(and so ignore the **long** tradition of such activity in working class
+movements) and instead select for the agent of their protection a state run by
+and for capitalists!
+
+
+
+ There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of _"fraternal and
autonomous associations springing from below, the other that of authoritarian
-institutions directed from above."_ [Colin Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 123] While
+institutions directed from above."_ [Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 123] While
sometimes anarchists are forced to defend the latter against the greater evil
-of "free market" corporate capitalism, we never forget the importance of
-creating and strengthening the former. A point we will discuss more in section
-[ J.5.16](secJ5.html#secj516) when we highlight the historical examples of
-self-managed communal welfare and self-help organisations.
-
-## J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-help?
-
-Yes, in all societies we see working people joining together to practice
-mutual aid and solidarity. These take many forms, such as trade and industrial
-unions, credit unions and friendly societies, co-operatives and so on, but the
-natural response of working class people to the injustices of capitalism was
-to practice collective "self-help" in order to improve their lives and protect
-their friends, communities and fellow workers.
-
-Unfortunately, this _"great tradition of working class self-help and mutual
-aid was written off, not just as irrelevant, but as an actual impediment, by
-the political and professional architects of the welfare state. . . The
-contribution that the recipients had to make to all this theoretical bounty
-was ignored as a mere embarrassment - apart, of course, for paying for it. . .
-The socialist ideal was rewritten as a world in which everyone was entitled to
-everything, but where nobody except the providers had any actual say about
-anything. We have been learning for years, in the anti-welfare backlash, what
-a vulnerable utopia that was."_ [Colin Ward, **Social Policy: an anarchist
-response**, p. 3]
-
-Ward terms this self-help (and self-managed) working class activity the
-_"welfare road we failed to take."_
-
-Indeed, anarchists would argue that self-help is the natural side effect of
-freedom. There is no possibility of radical social change unless people are
-free to decide for themselves what their problems are, where their interests
-lie and are free to organise for themselves what they want to do about them.
-Self-help is a natural expression of people taking control of their own lives
-and acting for themselves. Anyone who urges state action on behalf of people
-is no socialist and any one arguing against self-help as "bourgeois" is no
-anti-capitalist. It is somewhat ironic that it is the right who have
-monopolised the rhetoric of "self-help" and turned it into yet another
-ideological weapon against working class direct action and self-liberation
-(although, saying that, the right generally likes individualised self-help --
-given a strike or squatting or any other form of **collective** self-help
-movement they will be the first to denounce it):
+of "free market" capitalism, we never forget the importance of creating and
+strengthening the former. As Chomsky suggests, libertarians have to _"defend
+some state institutions from the attack against them [by private power], while
+trying at the same time to pry them open to meaningful public participation --
+and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the
+appropriate circumstances can be achieved."_ [**Chomsky on Anarchism**, p.
+194] A point we will discuss more in [the next section](secJ5.html#secj516)
+when we highlight the historical examples of self-managed communal welfare and
+self-help organisations.
+
+
+
+ ## J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-help?
+
+
+
+ Yes, in all societies we see working class people joining together to
+practice mutual aid and solidarity. This takes many forms, such as trade and
+industrial unions, credit unions and friendly societies, co-operatives and so
+on, but the natural response of working class people to the injustices of
+capitalism was to practice collective "self-help" in order to improve their
+lives and protect their friends, communities and fellow workers.
+
+
+
+ There are, as Colin Ward stresses, _"in fact several quite separate
+traditions of social welfare: the product of totally different attitudes to
+social needs . . . One of these traditions is that of a service given
+grudgingly and punitively by authority, another is the expression of social
+responsibility, or of mutual aid and self-help. One is embodied in
+**institutions**, the other in **associations**."_ [**Anarchy in Action**, p.
+112] Anarchists, needless to say, favour the latter. Unfortunately, this
+_"great tradition of working class self-help and mutual aid was written off,
+not just as irrelevant, but as an actual impediment, by the political and
+professional architects of the welfare state . . . The contribution that the
+recipients had to make to all this theoretical bounty was ignored as a mere
+embarrassment -- apart, of course, for paying for it . . . The socialist ideal
+was rewritten as a world in which everyone was entitled to everything, but
+where nobody except the providers had any actual say about anything. We have
+been learning for years, in the anti-welfare backlash, what a vulnerable
+utopia that was."_ This self-managed working class self-help was the _"welfare
+road we failed to take."_ [Ward, **Social Policy: an anarchist response**, p.
+11-2 and p. 9]
+
+
+
+ Anarchists would argue that self-help is the natural side effect of freedom.
+There is no possibility of radical social change unless people are free to
+decide for themselves what their problems are, where their interests lie and
+are free to organise for themselves what they want to do about them. Self-help
+is a natural expression of people taking control of their own lives and acting
+for themselves. Anyone who urges state action on behalf of people is no
+socialist and any one arguing against self-help as "bourgeois" is no anti-
+capitalist. It is somewhat ironic that it is the right who have monopolised
+the rhetoric of "self-help" and turned it into yet another ideological weapon
+against working class direct action and self-liberation (although, saying
+that, the right generally likes individualised self-help -- given a strike,
+squatting or any other form of **collective** self-help movement they will be
+the first to denounce it):
> _"The political Left has, over the years, committed an enormous
-psychological error in allowing this king of language ["self-help", "mutual
+psychological error in allowing this kind of language ["self-help", "mutual
aid", "standing on your own two feet" and so on] to be appropriated by the
political Right. If you look at the exhibitions of trade union banners from
the last century, you will see slogans like Self Help embroidered all over
them. It was those clever Fabians and academic Marxists who ridiculed out of
existence the values by which ordinary citizens govern their own lives in
favour of bureaucratic paternalising, leaving those values around to be picked
-up by their political opponents."_ [Colin Ward, **Talking Houses**, p. 58]
-
-We cannot be expected to provide an extensive list of working class collective
-self-help and social welfare activity here, all we can do is present an
-overview. For a discussion of working class self-help and co-operation through
-the centuries we can suggest no better source than Kropotkin's **Mutual Aid**.
-Here we will (using other sources than **Mutual Aid**) indicate a few examples
-of collective welfare in action.
-
-In the case of Britain, we find that the _"newly created working class built
-up from nothing a vast network of social and economic initiatives based on
-self-help and mutual aid. The list is endless: friendly societies, building
-societies, sick clubs, coffin clubs, clothing clubs, up to enormous federated
-enterprises like the trade union movement and the Co-operative movement."_
-[Colin Ward, **Social Policy: an anarchist response**, p. 2]
-
-The historian E.P. Thompson confirms this picture of a wide network of working
-class self-help organisations:
-
-_"Small tradesmen, artisans, labourers - all sought to insure themselves
-against sickness, unemployment, or funeral expenses through membership of . .
-. friendly societies."_ These were _"authentic evidence of independent
-working-class culture and institutions . . . out of which . . . trade unions
-grew, and in which trade union officers were trained."_ Friendly societies
-_"did not 'proceed from' an idea: both the ideas and institutions arose from a
-certain common experience . . . In the simple cellular structure of the
-friendly society, with its workaday ethos of mutual aid, we see many features
-which were reproduced in more sophisticated and complex form in trade unions,
-co-operatives, Hampden clubs, Political Unions, and Chartist lodges. . . Every
-kind of witness in the first half of the nineteenth century - clergymen,
-factory inspectors, Radical publicists - remarked upon the extent of mutual
+up by their political opponents."_ [Ward, **Talking Houses**, p. 58]
+
+
+
+ We cannot be expected to provide an extensive list of working class
+collective self-help and social welfare activity here, all we can do is
+present an overview of collective welfare in action (for a discussion of
+working class self-help and co-operation through the centuries we can suggest
+no better source than Kropotkin's **Mutual Aid**). In the case of Britain, we
+find that the _"newly created working class built up from nothing a vast
+network of social and economic initiatives based on self-help and mutual aid.
+The list is endless: friendly societies, building societies, sick clubs,
+coffin clubs, clothing clubs, up to enormous federated enterprises like the
+trade union movement and the Co-operative movement."_ [Ward, **Social
+Policy**, pp. 10-1] The historian E.P. Thompson confirmed this picture of a
+wide network of working class self-help organisations. _"Small tradesmen,
+artisans, labourers"_ he summarised, _"all sought to insure themselves against
+sickness, unemployment, or funeral expenses through membership of . . .
+friendly societies."_ These were _"authentic evidence of independent working-
+class culture and institutions . . . out of which . . . trade unions grew, and
+in which trade union officers were trained."_ Friendly societies _"did not
+'proceed from' an idea: both the ideas and institutions arose from a certain
+common experience . . . In the simple cellular structure of the friendly
+society, with its workaday ethos of mutual aid, we see many features which
+were reproduced in more sophisticated and complex form in trade unions, co-
+operatives, Hampden clubs, Political Unions, and Chartist lodges . . . Every
+kind of witness in the first half of the nineteenth century -- clergymen,
+factory inspectors, Radical publicists -- remarked upon the extent of mutual
aid in the poorest districts. In times of emergency, unemployment, strikes,
sickness, childbirth, then it was the poor who 'helped every one his
-neighbour.'"_ [**The Making of the English Working Class**, p. 458, pp. 460-1,
-p. 462]
-
-Taking the United States, Sam Dolgoff presents an excellent summary of similar
-self-help activities by the American working class:
+neighbour.'"_ [**The Making of the English Working Class**, p. 458, pp. 460-1
+and p. 462] Sam Dolgoff gave an excellent summary of similar self-help
+activities by the American working class:
> _"Long before the labour movement got corrupted and the state stepped in,
the workers organised a network of co-operative institutions of all kinds:
@@ -2925,119 +3833,101 @@ cultural centres, credit associations, fire, life, and health insurance,
technical education, housing, etc."_ [**The American Labour Movement: A New
Beginning**, p. 74]
-Dolgoff, like all anarchists, urges workers to _"finance the establishment of
+
+
+ Dolgoff, like all anarchists, urged workers to _"finance the establishment of
independent co-operative societies of all types, which will respond adequately
to their needs"_ and that such a movement _"could constitute a realistic
alternative to the horrendous abuses of the 'establishment' at a fraction of
-the cost."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 74, pp. 74-75]
-
-In this way a network of self-managed, communal, welfare associations and co-
-operatives could be built -- paid for, run by and run for working class
-people. Such a network could be initially build upon, and be an aspect of, the
-struggles of claimants, patients, tenants, and other users of the current
-welfare state (see [last section](secJ5.html#secj515)).
-
-The creation of such a co-operative, community-based, welfare system will not
-occur over night. Nor will it be easy. But it **is** possible, as history
-shows. And, of course, it will have its problems, but as Colin Ward notes,
-that _"the standard argument against a localist and decentralised point of
-view, is that of universalism: an equal service to all citizens, which it is
-thought that central control achieves. The short answer to this is that it
-doesn't!"_ [Colin Ward, **Op. Cit.**, p. 6] He notes that richer areas
-generally get a better service from the welfare state than poorer ones, thus
-violating the claims of equal service. And a centralised system (be it state
-or private) will most likely allocate resources which reflect the interests
-and (lack of) knowledge of bureaucrats and experts, **not** on where they are
-best used or the needs of the users.
-
-Anarchists are sure that a **confederal** network of mutual aid organisations
+the cost."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 74 and pp. 74-75] In this way a network of self-
+managed, communal, welfare associations and co-operatives could be built --
+paid for, run by and run for working class people. Such a system _"would not .
+. . become a plaything of central government financial policy."_ [Ward, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 16] Such a network could be initially build upon, and be an aspect
+of, the struggles of both workers in and claimants, patients, tenants, and
+other users of the current welfare state. So a _"multiplicity of mutual aid
+organisations among claimants, patients, victims, represents the most potent
+lever for change in transforming the welfare state into a genuine welfare
+society, in turning community care into a caring community."_ [Ward, **Anarchy
+in Action**, p. 125]
+
+
+
+ The creation of such a co-operative, community-based, welfare system will not
+occur over night, nor will it be easy. But it **is** possible, as history
+shows. It will, of course, have its problems, but as Colin Ward notes, _"the
+standard argument against a localist and decentralised point of view, is that
+of universalism: an equal service to all citizens, which it is thought that
+central control achieves. The short answer to this is that it doesn't!"_
+[Colin Ward, **Social Policy**, p. 16] He notes that richer areas generally
+get a better service from the welfare state than poorer ones, thus violating
+the claims of equal service. A centralised system (be it state or private)
+will most likely allocate resources which reflect the interests and (lack of)
+knowledge of bureaucrats and experts, **not** on where they are best used or
+the needs of the users.
+
+
+
+ Anarchists are sure that a **confederal** network of mutual aid organisations
and co-operatives, based upon local input and control, can overcome problems
of localism far better than a centralised one \-- which, due to its lack of
local input and participation will more likely **encourage** parochialism and
indifference than a wider vision and solidarity. If you have no real say in
-what affects you, why should you be concerned with what affects others?
-Centralisation leads to disempowerment, which in turn leads to indifference,
-**not** solidarity. Rudolf Rocker reminds us of the evil effects of centralism
-when he writes:
-
-> _"For the state centralisation is the appropriate form of organisation,
-since it aims at the greatest possible uniformity in social life for the
-maintenance of political and social equilibrium. But for a movement whose very
-existence depends on prompt action at any favourable moment and on the
-independent thought and action of its supporters, centralism could but be a
-curse by weakening its power of decision and systematically repressing all
-immediate action. If, for example, as was the case in Germany, every local
-strike had first to be approved by the Central, which was often hundreds of
-miles away and was not usually in a position to pass a correct judgement on
-the local conditions, one cannot wonder that the inertia of the apparatus of
-organisation renders a quick attack quite impossible, and there thus arises a
-state of affairs where the energetic and intellectually alert groups no longer
-serve as patterns for the less active, but are condemned by these to
-inactivity, inevitably bringing the whole movement to stagnation. Organisation
-is, after all, only a means to an end. When it becomes an end in itself, it
-kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members and sets up that
-domination by mediocrity which is the characteristic of all bureaucracies."_
-[**Anarcho-Syndicalism**, p. 54]
-
-And, as an example, he notes that while the highly centralised German labour
-movement _"did not raise a finger to avert the catastrophe"_ of Hitler's
-seizing power and _"which in a few months beat their organisation completely
-to pieces"_ the exact opposite happened in Spain (_"where Anarcho-Syndicalism
-had maintained its hold upon organised labour from the days of the First
-International"_). There the anarcho-syndicalist C.N.T. _"frustrated the
-criminal plans of Franco"_ and _"by their heroic example spurred the Spanish
-workers and peasants to the battle."_ Without the heroic resistance of the
-Anarcho-Syndicalist labour unions the Fascist reaction would have dominated
-the whole country in a matter of weeks. [**Op. Cit.**, p. 53]
-
-This is unsurprising, for what else is global action other than the product of
+what affects you, why should you be concerned with what affects others? This
+is unsurprising, for what else is global action other than the product of
thousands of local actions? Solidarity within our class is the flower that
grows from the soil of our local self-activity, direct action and self-
organisation. Unless we act and organise locally, any wider organisation and
action will be hollow. Thus **local** organisation and empowerment is
essential to create and maintain wider organisations and mutual aid.
-To take another example of the benefits of a self-managed welfare system, we
-find that it _"was a continual complaint of the authorities [in the late
-eighteenth and early nineteenth century] that friendly societies allowed
-members to withdraw funds when on strike."_ [E.P. Thompson, **Op. Cit.**, p.
-461f] The same complaints were voiced in Britain about the welfare state
-allowing strikers to claim benefit will on strike. The Conservative Government
-of the 1980s changed that by passing a law barring those in industrial dispute
-to claim benefits -- and so removing a potential support for those in
-struggle. Such a restriction would have been far harder (if not impossible) to
-impose on a network of self-managed mutual aid co-operatives. And such
-institutions would have not become the plaything of central government
-financial policy as the welfare state and the taxes working class people have
-to pay have become.
-
-All this means that anarchists reject totally the phoney choice between
-private and state capitalism we are usually offered. We reject both
-privatisation **and** nationalisation, both right and left wings (of
-capitalism). Neither state nor private health care are user-controlled \-- one
-is subject to the requirements of politics and the other places profits before
-people. As we have discussed the welfare state in the [last
-section](secJ5.html#secj515), it is worthwhile to quickly discuss privatised
-welfare and why most anarchists reject this option even more than state
-welfare.
-
-Firstly, all forms of private healthcare/welfare has to pay dividends to
+
+
+ To take another example of the benefits of a self-managed welfare system, we
+find that it _"was a continual complaint of the authorities"_ in the late
+eighteenth and early nineteenth century _"that friendly societies allowed
+members to withdraw funds when on strike."_ [Thompson, **Op. Cit.**, p. 461f]
+The same complaints were voiced in Britain about the welfare state allowing
+strikers to claim benefit will on strike. The Conservative Government of the
+1980s changed that by passing a law barring those in industrial dispute to
+claim benefits -- and so removing a potential support for those in struggle.
+Such a restriction would have been far harder (if not impossible) to impose on
+a network of self-managed mutual aid co-operatives. Such institutions would
+have not become the plaything of central government financial policy as the
+welfare state and the taxes working class people have to pay have become.
+
+
+
+ All this means that anarchists reject the phoney choice between private and
+state capitalism we are usually offered. We reject both privatisation **and**
+nationalisation, both right and left wings (of capitalism). Neither state nor
+private health care are user-controlled \-- one is subject to the requirements
+of politics and the other places profits before people. As we have discussed
+the welfare state in the [last section](secJ5.html#secj515), it is worthwhile
+to quickly discuss privatised welfare and why anarchists reject this option
+even more than state welfare.
+
+
+
+ Firstly, all forms of private healthcare/welfare have to pay dividends to
capitalists, fund advertising, reduce costs to maximise profits by
standardising the "caring" process - i.e. McDonaldisation - and so on, all of
which inflates prices and produces substandard service across the industry as
-a whole. According to Alfie Kohn, the _"[m]ore hospitals and clinics are being
-run by for-profit corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for
+a whole. According to Alfie Kohn, _"[m]ore hospitals and clinics are being run
+by for-profit corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for
'customers,' seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a
skilled caregiver. As in any other economic sector, the race for profits
translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest way to do it here is
to cut back on services to unprofitable patients, that is, those who are more
-sick than rich . . ."_ _"The result: hospital costs are actually **higher** in
-areas where there is more competition for patients."_ [Alfie Kohn, **No
-Contest**, p. 240] In the UK, attempts to introduce "market forces" into the
-National Health Service also lead to increased costs as well as inflating the
-services bureaucracy.
+sick than rich . . . The result: hospital costs are actually **higher** in
+areas where there is more competition for patients."_ [**No Contest**, p. 240]
+In the UK, attempts to introduce "market forces" into the National Health
+Service has also lead to increased costs as well as inflating the size and
+cost of its bureaucracy.
+
-Looking at Chile, hyped by those who desire to privatise Social Security, we
+
+ Looking at Chile, hyped by those who desire to privatise Social Security, we
find similar disappointing results (well, disappointing for the working class
at least, as we will see). Seemingly, Chile's private system has achieved
impressive average returns on investment. However, once commissions are
@@ -3049,54 +3939,67 @@ commissions it fell to 2.1 percent. According to Doug Henwood, the _"competing
mutual funds have vast sales forces, and the portfolio managers all have their
vast fees. All in all, administrative costs . . . are almost 30% of revenues,
compared to well under 1% for the U.S. Social Security system."_ [**Wall
-Street**, p. 305] Although market competition was supposed to lower
-commissions in Chile, the private pension fund market is dominated by a
-handful of companies. These, according to economists Peter Diamond and
-Salvador Valdes-Prieto, form a _"monopolistic competitive market"_ rather than
-a truly competitive one. A similar process seems to be taking place in
-Argentina, where commissions have remained around 3.5 percent of taxable
-salary. As argued in section [C.4](secC4.html), such oligopolistic tendencies
-are inherent in capitalism and so this development is not unexpected.
-
-Even if commission costs were lowered (perhaps by regulation), the impressive
-returns on capital seen between 1982 and 1995 (when the real annual return on
+Street**, p. 305] In addition, the private pension fund market is dominated by
+a handful of companies.
+
+
+
+ Even if commission costs were lowered (by regulation), the impressive returns
+on capital seen between 1982 and 1995 (when the real annual return on
investment averaged 12.7 percent) are likely not to be sustained. These
average returns coincided with boom years in Chile, complemented by
government's high borrowing costs. Because of the debt crisis of the 1980s,
Latin governments were paying double-digit real interest rates on their bonds
-- the main investment vehicle of social security funds. In effect, government
was subsidising the "private" system by paying astronomical rates on
-government bonds.
-
-Another failing of the system is that only a little over half of Chilean
-workers make regular social security contributions. While many believe that a
-private system would reduce evasion because workers have a greater incentive
-to contribute to their own personal retirement accounts, 43.4 percent of those
-affiliated with the new system in June of 1995 did not contribute regularly
-(see Stephen J. Kay, _"The Chile Con: Privatizing Social Security in South
-America,"_ **The American Prospect** no. 33, July-August 1997, pp. 48-52 for
-details).
-
-All in all, privatisation seems to be beneficial only to middle-men and
+government bonds. Another failing of the system is that only a little over
+half of Chilean workers make regular social security contributions. While many
+believe that a private system would reduce evasion because workers have a
+greater incentive to contribute to their own personal retirement accounts,
+43.4 percent of those affiliated with the new system in June of 1995 did not
+contribute regularly. [Stephen J. Kay, _"The Chile Con: Privatizing Social
+Security in South America,"_ **The American Prospect** no. 33, pp. 48-52] All
+in all, privatisation seems to be beneficial only to middle-men and
capitalists, if Chile is anything to go by. As Henwood argues, while the
_"infusion of money"_ resulting from privatising social security _"has done
wonders for the Chilean stock market"_ _"projections are that as many as half
-of future retirees will draw a poverty-level pension."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
-304-5]
-
-So, anarchists reject private welfare as a con (and an even bigger one than
-state welfare). Instead we try to create **real** alternatives to hierarchy,
-be it state or capitalist, in the here and now which reflect our ideas of a
-free and just society. For, when it boils down to it, freedom cannot be given,
-only taken and this process of **self**-liberation is reflected in the
-alternatives we build to help win the class war.
-
-The struggle **against** capitalism and statism requires that we build **for**
-the future (_"the urge to destroy is a creative urge"_ \- Bakunin) and,
-moreover, we should remember that _"he who has no confidence in the creative
-capacity of the masses and in their capability to revolt doesn't belong in the
-revolutionary movement. He should go to a monastery and get on his knees and
-start praying. Because he is no revolutionist. He is a son of a bitch."_ [Sam
-Dolgoff, quoted by Ulrike Heider, **Anarchism: left, right, and green**, p.
-12]
+of future retirees will draw a poverty-level pension."_ [Henwood, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 304-5]
+
+
+
+ Suffice to say, all you really need to know about privatisation of pensions
+and healthcare in Chile is that the military dictatorship which imposed it
+excluded the military from its dubious benefits. Such altruism is truly
+touching.
+
+
+
+ So, anarchists reject private welfare as a con (and an even bigger one than
+state welfare). As Colin Ward suggests, it _"is the question of how we get
+back on the mutual aid road **instead of** commercial health insurance and
+private pension schemes."_ [**Social Policy**, p. 17] As anarchists are both
+anti-state and anti-capitalist, swapping private power for the state power is,
+at best, a step sideways. Usually, it is worse for capitalist companies are
+accountable only to their owners and the profit criteria. This means, as
+Chomsky suggests, _"protecting the state sector today is a step towards
+abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can
+participate and organise, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited
+ways. If that's removed, we'd go back to a . . . private dictatorship, but
+that's hardly a step towards liberation."_ [ **Chomsky on Anarchism**, p. 213]
+Instead anarchists try to create **real** alternatives to hierarchy, be it
+state or capitalist, in the here and now which reflect our ideas of a free and
+just society. For, when it boils down to it, freedom cannot be given, only
+taken and this process of **self**-liberation is reflected in the alternatives
+we build to help win the class war.
+
+
+
+ The struggle **against** capitalism and statism requires that we build
+**for** the future and, moreover, we should remember that _"he who has no
+confidence in the creative capacity of the masses and in their capability to
+revolt doesn't belong in the revolutionary movement. He should go to a
+monastery and get on his knees and start praying. Because he is no
+revolutionist. He is a son of a bitch."_ [Sam Dolgoff, quoted by Ulrike
+Heider, **Anarchism: left, right, and green**, p. 12]
diff --git a/markdown/secJ6.md b/markdown/secJ6.md
index 561783853a8a0b44fad720d6b7586c51c7a1cb1f..f82a1ec1bfb654d7e2205d3e10825aba8f346c55 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ6.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ6.md
@@ -1,16 +1,14 @@
-J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
-
-# J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
+# J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
Anarchists have long been aware of the importance of child rearing and
-education. As such, we are aware that child rearing should aim to develop _"a
-well-rounded individuality"_ and not _"a patient work slave, professional
-automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist."_ [Emma Goldman, **Red
-Emma Speaks**, p. 108] In this section of the FAQ we will discuss anarchist
-approaches to child rearing bearing in mind _"that it is through the channel
-of the child that the development of the mature man must go, and that the
-present ideas of. . . educating or training. . . are such as to stifle the
-natural growth of the child."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 107]
+education. We are aware that child rearing should aim to develop _"a well-
+rounded individuality"_ and not _"a patient work slave, professional
+automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist."_ In this section of the
+FAQ we will discuss anarchist approaches to child rearing bearing in mind
+_"that it is through the channel of the child that the development of the
+mature man [or woman] must go, and that the present ideas of . . . educating
+or training . . . are such as to stifle the natural growth of the child."_
+[Emma Goldman, **Red Emma Speaks**, p. 131 and p. 130]
If one accepts the thesis that the authoritarian family is the breeding ground
for both individual psychological problems and political reaction, it follows
@@ -19,65 +17,60 @@ psychologically cripple them but instead enable them to accept freedom and
responsibility while developing natural self-regulation. We will refer to
children raised in such a way as **_"free children."_**
-Work in this field is still in its infancy (no pun intended). Wilhelm Reich is
-again the main pioneer in this field (an excellent, short introduction to his
+Work in this field is still in its infancy (no pun intended). Wilhelm Reich
+was the main pioneer in this field (an excellent, short introduction to his
ideas can be found in Maurice Brinton's **The Irrational in Politics**). In
**Children of the Future**, Reich made numerous suggestions, based on his
research and clinical experience, for parents, psychologists, and educators
-striving to develop libertarian methods of child rearing. (He did not use the
-term "libertarian," but that is what his methods are.)
-
-Hence, in this and the following sections we will summarise Reich's main ideas
-as well as those of other libertarian psychologists and educators who have
-been influenced by him, such as A.S. Neill and Alexander Lowen. Section
-[J.6.1](secJ6.html#secj61) will examine the theoretical principles involved in
-raising free children, while subsequent sections will illustrate their
-practical application with concrete examples. Finally, in section
-[J.6.8](secJ6.html#secj68), we will examine the anarchist approach to the
-problems of adolescence.
+striving to develop libertarian methods of child rearing (although he did not
+use the term "libertarian").
+
+In this and the following sections we will summarise Reich's main ideas as
+well as those of other libertarian psychologists and educators who have been
+influenced by him, such as A.S. Neill and Alexander Lowen. We will examine the
+theoretical principles involved in raising free children and will illustrate
+their practical application with concrete examples. Finally, we will examine
+the anarchist approach to the problems of adolescence.
Such an approach to child rearing is based upon the insight that children _"do
not constitute anyone's property: they are neither the property of the parents
nor even of society. They belong only to their own future freedom."_ [Michael
Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 327] As such, what
-happens to a child when it is growing up **shapes** the person they become and
-the society they live in. The key question for people interested in freedom is
-whether _"the child [is] to be considered as an individuality, or as an object
-to be moulded according to the whims and fancies of those about it?"_ [Emma
-Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 107] Libertarian child rearing is the means by which
-the individuality of the child is respected and developed.
-
-This is in stark contrast to standard capitalist (and individualist anarchist
-we should note) claim that children are the **property** of their parents. If
-we accept that children **are** the property of their parents then we are
-implicitly stating that a child's formative years are spent in slavery, hardly
-a relationship which will promote the individuality and freedom of the child
-or the wider society. Little wonder that most anarchists reject such
-assertions. Instead they argue that the _"rights of the parents shall be
-confined to loving their children and exercising over them . . . authority
-[that] does not run counter to their morality, their mental development, or
-their future freedom."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 327] Being someone's
+happens to a child when they are growing up **shapes** the person they become
+and the society they live in. The key question for people interested in
+freedom is whether _"the child [is] to be considered as an individuality, or
+as an object to be moulded according to the whims and fancies of those about
+it?"_ [Emma Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 130] Libertarian child rearing is the
+means by which the individuality of the child is respected and developed.
+
+This is in stark contrast to standard capitalist claim that children are the
+**property** of their parents. If we accept that children **are** the property
+of their parents then we are implicitly stating that a child's formative years
+are spent in slavery, hardly a relationship which will promote the
+individuality and freedom of the child or the wider society. Little wonder
+that most anarchists reject such assertions. Instead we argue that the
+_"rights of the parents shall be confined to loving their children and
+exercising over them . . . authority [that] does not run counter to their
+morality, their mental development, or their future freedom."_ Being someone's
property (i.e. slave) runs counter to all these and _"it follows that society,
the whole future of which depends upon adequate education and upbringing of
-children. . . , has not only the right but also the duty to watch over
-them..."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 327]
-
-Hence child rearing is **part** of society, a communal process by which
+children . . . has not only the right but also the duty to watch over them."_
+Hence child rearing should be **part** of society, a communal process by which
children learn what it means to be an individual by being respected as one by
-others. In Bakunin's words, _"real freedom - that is, the full awareness and
-the realisation thereof in every individual, pre-eminently based upon a
-feeling of one's dignity and upon the genuine respect for someone else's
-freedom and dignity, i.e. upon justice - such freedom can develop in children
-only through the rational development of their minds, character and will."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 327]
-
-We wish to point out at the beginning that a great deal of work remains to be
-done in this field. Therefore our comments should be regarded merely as
-tentative bases for further reflection and research by those involved with
-raising and educating children. There is, and cannot be, any "rule book" for
-raising free children, because to follow an inflexible rule book is to ignore
-the fact that each child and its environment is unique and therefore demands
-unique responses from its parents. Hence the "principles" of libertarian child
+others: _"real freedom -- that is, the full awareness and the realisation
+thereof in every individual, pre-eminently based upon a feeling of one's
+dignity and upon the genuine respect for someone else's freedom and dignity,
+i.e. upon justice -- such freedom can develop in children only through the
+rational development of their minds, character and will."_ [Bakunin, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 327]
+
+We wish to re-iterate again that a great deal of work remains to be done in
+this field. Therefore our comments should be regarded merely as tentative
+bases for further reflection and research by those involved with raising and
+educating children. There is, and cannot be, any "rule book" for raising free
+children, because to follow an inflexible rule book is to ignore the fact that
+each child and their environment is unique and therefore demands unique
+responses from their parents. Hence the principles of libertarian child
rearing to which we will refer should not be thought of as rules, but rather,
as experimental hypotheses to be tested by parents within their own situation
by applying their intelligence and deriving their own individual conclusions.
@@ -86,37 +79,34 @@ Bringing up children must be like education, and based on similar principles,
namely _"upon the free growth and development of the innate forces and
tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for the free individual
and eventually also for a free community, which shall make interference and
-coercion of human growth impossible."_ [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 115] Indeed,
+coercion of human growth impossible."_ [Goldman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 139] Indeed,
child rearing and education **cannot** be separated as life itself is an
-education and so must share the same principles and viewed as a process of
+education and so must share the same principles and be viewed as a process of
_"development and exploration, rather than as one of repressing a child's
instincts and inculcating obedience and discipline."_ [Martha A. Ackelsberg,
-**Free Women of Spain**, p. 132]
+**Free Women of Spain**, p. 166]
Moreover, the role of parental example is very important to raising free
-children. Children often learn by mimicking their parents - children do what
+children. Children often learn by mimicking their parents -- children do what
their parents do, not as they say. If their mother and father lie to each
other, scream, fight and so on, then the child will probably do so as well.
Children's behaviour does not come out thin air, they are a product of the
-environment they are brought up in (partly by, initially at least, copying the
-parent). Children can only be encouraged by example, not by threats and
-commands. How parents act can be an obstacle to the development of a free
-child. Parents must, therefore, be aware that they must do more than just
-**say** the right things, but also act as anarchists in order to produce free
-children.
+environment they are brought up in. Children can only be encouraged by
+example, not by threats and commands. So how parents act can be an obstacle to
+the development of a free child. Parents must do more than just **say** the
+right things, but also act as anarchists in order to produce free children.
The sad fact is that most modern people have lost the ability to raise free
children, and regaining this ability will be a long process of trial and error
-and parent education in which it is to be hoped that each succeeding
-generation will learn from the failures and successes of their predecessors,
-and so improve. In the best-case scenario, over the course of a few
-generations the number of progressive parents will continue to grow and raise
-ever freer children, who in turn will become even more progressive parents
-themselves, thus gradually changing mass psychology in a libertarian
+as well as **parent** education in which it is to be hoped that each
+succeeding generation will learn from the failures and successes of their
+predecessors and so improve. In the best-case scenario, over the course of a
+few generations the number of progressive parents will continue to grow and
+raise ever freer children, who in turn will become even more progressive
+parents themselves, thus gradually changing mass psychology in a libertarian
direction. Such changes **can** come about very fast, as can be seen from
-various communes all over the world and especially in the Israel-Palestine
-kibbutz where society is organised according to libertarian principles, and
-children are mainly growing in their collective homes. As Reich puts it:
+various communes all over the world where society is organised according to
+libertarian principles. As Reich put it:
> _"We have learned that instead of a jump into the realm of the Children of
the Future, we can hope for no more than a steady advance, in which the
@@ -128,93 +118,30 @@ methods of consciousness raising, as well as encouraging resistance to the
existing social order anarchists hope to prepare the psychological foundation
for a social paradigm shift, from authoritarian to libertarian institutions
and values. And indeed, a gradual cultural evolution toward increasing freedom
-does seem to exist. For example, as A.S. Neill writes in **Summerhill**,
-_"There is a slow trend to freedom, sexual and otherwise. In my boyhood, a
-woman went bathing wearing stockings and a long dress. Today, women show legs
-and bodies. Children are getting more freedom with every generation. Today,
-only a few lunatics put cayenne pepper on a baby's thumb to stop sucking.
-Today, only a few countries beat their children in school."_ [p. 115]
-
-Most anarchists believe that, just as charity begins at home, so does the
-anarchist revolution. As some anarchists raise their own children in
+does seem to exist. For example, as A.S. Neill suggested there is _"a slow
+trend to freedom, sexual and otherwise. In my boyhood, a woman went bathing
+wearing stockings and a long dress. Today, women show legs and bodies.
+Children are getting more freedom with every generation. Today, only a few
+lunatics put cayenne pepper on a baby's thumb to stop sucking. Today, only a
+few countries beat their children in school."_ [**Summerhill**, p. 115]
+
+Most anarchists believe that we must practice what we preach and so the
+anarchist revolution begins at home. As anarchists raise their own children in
capitalist society and/or are involved in the raising and education of the
-children of other parents, they can practice in part libertarian principles
-even before the revolution. Hence we think it is important to discuss
-libertarian child rearing in some detail.
-
-## J.6.1 What are the main principles of raising free children and the main
-obstacles to implementing those principles?
-
-Let's consider the obstacles first. As Reich points out, the biggest one is
-the training and character of most parents, physicians, and educators. Based
-on his clinical experience, Reich maintained that virtually all adults in our
-society have some degree of psychological problems, which is manifested
-somatically as a rigid muscular _"armour"_: chronic muscular tensions and
-spasms in various regions of the body. One of the main functions of this
-armour is to inhibit the pleasurable sensations of life-energy that naturally
-_"stream"_ or flow through an unarmoured body. Reich postulated that there is
-one basic bioenergy (_"orgone"_) in the body, identical with what Freud called
-_"libido,"_ which, besides animating the tissues and organs is also the energy
-of sex and the emotions (we should note that most anarchists do not subscribe
-to Reich's idea of "orgone" - the existence of which, we may note, has not
-been proved. However, the idea of character armour, by which individuals
-within a hierarchical society create psychological walls/defences around
-themselves is one most anarchists accept. Such walls will obviously have an
-effect both on the mental and physical state of the individual, and their
-capacity for living a free life and experiencing pleasure). This means that
-the pleasurable "streamings" of this bioenergy, which can be felt when the
-muscular armour is relaxed, have an erotic or "libidinous" quality. Thus an
-unarmoured organism (such as a new-born infant) automatically experiences
-pleasure with every breath, a pleasure derived from perception of the natural
-bioenergetic processes within its body. Such a mode of being in the world
-makes life intrinsically worth living and renders superfluous all questions
-about its "meaning" or "purpose" -- questions that occur only to armoured
-people, who have lost contact with their bioenergetic core of bodily
-sensations (or it is distorted, and so is changed from a source of pleasures
-to a source of suffering) and thus restricts their capacity to fully enjoy
-life.
-
-It is important for those involved in child rearing and education to
-understand how armouring develops in the new-born child. Reich points out that
-under the influence of a compulsive, pleasure-denying morality, children are
-taught to inhibit the spontaneous flow of life-energy in the body. Similarly,
-they are taught to disregard most bodily sensations. Due to Oedipal conflicts
-in the patriarchal family (see below), parents usually take the most severely
-repressive disciplinary measures against sexual expressions of life-energy in
-children. Thus, all erotic feelings, including the erotically-tinged
-"streaming" sensations, come to be regarded as "bad," "animalistic," etc., and
-so their perception begins to arouse anxiety, which leads, among other bad
-results, to chronic muscular tensions as a way of cutting off or defending
-against such perceptions and their attendant anxiety. Shallow breathing, for
-example, reduces the amount of life-energy available to flow into excitation
-and emotion; tightening the muscles of the pelvic floor and abdomen reduces
-sexual feelings, and so on. As these tensions become chronic and unconscious,
-piling up in layer after layer of muscular armour, the person is eventually
-left with a feeling of inner emptiness or "deadness" and -- not surprisingly
--- a lack of joy in life.
-
-For those who fail to build a stable physical and psychological armour around
-themselves to suppress these feelings and sensation, they just twist them and
-are flooded again and again with intense unpleasant feelings and sensations.
-
-Muscular armouring has its most profound effect on back pains and various
-respiration problems. Reich found that the "normal" man or woman in our
-society **cannot** spontaneously take full, deep, natural breaths, which
-involves both the chest and abdomen. Instead, most people (except when making
-a conscious effort) restrict their breathing through unconscious tensing of
-various muscles. Since the natural response to any restriction in the ability
-to breathe is anxiety, people growing up in repressive cultures such as ours
-are plagued by a tendency toward chronic anxiety. As a defence against this
-anxiety, they develop further layers of muscular armouring, which further
-restricts their ability to breathe, and so on, in a vicious circle. In other
-words, it is **literally** true that, as Max Stirner said, one cannot _"take
-breath"_ in our authoritarian society with its life-denying atmosphere based
-on punishments, threats, and fear.
-
-Of course sex is not the only expression of life-energy that parents try to
-stifle in children. There are also, for example, the child's natural vocal
-expressions (shouting, screaming, bellowing, crying, etc.) and natural body
-motility. As Reich notes,
+children of other parents, we can practice in part libertarian principles even
+before the revolution. As such, we think it is important to discuss
+libertarian child rearing.
+
+## J.6.1 What are the main obstacles to raising free children?
+
+The biggest obstacle is the training and character of most parents,
+physicians, and educators. Individuals within a hierarchical society create
+psychological walls/defences around themselves and these will obviously have
+an effect both on the mental and physical state of the individual and so their
+capacity for living a free life and experiencing pleasure. Such parents then
+try (often unconsciously) to stifle the life-energy in children. There are,
+for example, the child's natural vocal expressions (shouting, screaming,
+bellowing, crying, etc.) and natural body motility. As Reich noted:
> _"Small children go through a phase of development characterised by vigorous
activity of the voice musculature. The joy the infant derives from loud noises
@@ -229,37 +156,28 @@ are presumably caused in this manner. In the adult we see the effects of such
mistreatment in the form of spasms of the throat. The automatic constrictions
of the glottis and the deep throat musculature, with subsequent inhibition of
the aggressive impulses of the head and neck, seems to be particularly
-characteristic."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 128]
-
-(And we must add, that the suppression of the urge to move all children have
-is most destructive to the 15% or so of "Hyper-active" children, whose urge to
-move is hard to suppress.)
+characteristic."_ [**Children of the Future**, p. 128]
-_"Clinical experience has taught us,"_ Reich concludes, _"that small children
+_"Clinical experience has taught us,"_ Reich concluded, _"that small children
must be allowed to 'shout themselves out' when the shouting is inspired by
pleasure. This might be disagreeable to some parents, but questions of
education must be decided **exclusively in the interests of the child,** not
-in those of the adults."_ [**Ibid.**]
-
-Besides deadening the pleasurable streamings of life energy in the body,
-muscular armouring also functions to inhibit the anxiety generated by the
-presence of anti-social, cruel, and perverse impulses within the psyche
-(impulses referred to by Reich as _"secondary"_ drives) -- for example,
-destructiveness, sadism, greed, power hunger, brutality, rape fantasies, etc.
-Ironically, these secondary drives result from the **suppression of the
-primary drives** (e.g. for sex, physical activity, vocal expression, etc.) and
-the sensations of pleasure associated with them. The secondary drives develop
-because, when muscular armouring sets in and a person loses touch with his or
-her bioenergetic core and other emotional urges, the only emotional
-expressions that can get through the thick, hard wall of armour are distorted,
-harsh, and/or mechanical. Thus, for example, a heavily armoured person who
-tries to express love may find that the emotion is shredded by the wall of
-armour and comes out in distorted form as an impulse to hurt the person loved
-(sadism) -- an impulse that causes anxiety and then has to be repressed. In
-other words, compulsive morality (i.e. acting according to externally imposed
-rules) becomes necessary to control the secondary drives **which compulsion
-itself creates.** By such processes, authoritarian child-rearing becomes self-
-justifying. Thus:
+in those of the adults."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 128]
+
+Besides deadening life energy in the body, such stifling also inhibits the
+anxiety generated by the presence of anti-social, cruel, and perverse impulses
+within the psyche -- for example, destructiveness, sadism, greed, power
+hunger, brutality, etc. (impulses referred to by Reich as _"secondary"_
+drives). In other words, this reduces our ability to empathise with others and
+so the internal ethical guidelines we all develop are blunted, making us more
+likely tp express such secondary, anti-social, drives. So, ironically, these
+secondary drives result from the **suppression of the primary drives** and the
+sensations of pleasure associated with them. These secondary drives develop
+because the only emotional expressions that can get through a person's
+defences are distorted, harsh, and/or mechanical. In other words, compulsive
+morality (i.e. acting according to externally imposed rules) becomes necessary
+to control the secondary drives **which compulsion itself creates.** By such
+processes, authoritarian child-rearing becomes self-justifying:
> _"Psychoanalysts have failed to distinguish between primary natural and
secondary perverse, cruel drives, and they are continuously killing nature in
@@ -267,7 +185,8 @@ the new-born while they try to extinguish the 'brutish little animal.' They
are completely ignorant of the fact that it is **exactly this killing of the
natural principle which creates the secondary perverse and cruel nature,**
human nature so called, and that these artificial cultural creations in turn
-make compulsive moralism and brutal laws necessary"_ [**Ibid.**, p. 17-18].
+make compulsive moralism and brutal laws necessary."_ [Reich, **Op. Cit.**, p.
+17-18]
Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of secondary
drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and guilt. The real
@@ -277,179 +196,88 @@ coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions, withdrawal of love,
etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous expression of natural life-
impulses. The systematic development of the emphatic tendencies of the young
infant is the best way to "socialise" and restrict activities that are harmful
-to the others. As A.S. Neill points out, _"self-regulation implies a belief in
+to the others. As A.S. Neill pointed out _"self-regulation implies a belief in
the goodness of human nature; a belief that there is not, and never was,
-original sin."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 103]
+original sin."_ [**Summerhill**, p. 103]
According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not forced
to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to keep themselves
clean and develop social qualities like courtesy, common sense, an interest in
-learning, respect for the rights of others, and so forth (see [next
-section](secJ6.html#secj62)). However, once the child has been armoured
-through authoritarian methods intended to **force** it to develop such
-qualities, it becomes what Reich calls _"biopathic"_ \-- out of touch with its
-living core and therefore no longer able to develop self-regulation. In this
-stage it becomes harder and harder for the pro-social emotions to shape the
-developing mode of life of the new member of society. At that point, when the
-secondary drives develop, parental authoritarianism becomes a **necessity.**
-As Reich puts it:
-
-> _"This close interrelation between biopathic behaviour and authoritarian
-countermeasures seems to be automatic. Self-regulation appears to have no
-place in and no influence upon emotions which do not come from the living core
-directly but only as if through a thick hard wall. Moreover, one has the
-impression that secondary drives cannot stand self-regulatory conditions of
-existence. They force sharp discipline on the part of the educator or parent.
-It is as if a child with an essentially secondary-drive structure feels that
-it cannot function or exist without disciplinary guidance. This is paralleled
-by the interlacing of self-regulation in the healthy child with self-
-regulation in the environment. Here the child cannot function unless it has
-freedom of decision and movement. It cannot tolerate discipline any more than
-the armoured child can tolerate freedom."_
-
-This inability to tolerate freedom, which the vast majority of people develop
-**automatically** from the way they are raised, is what makes the whole
-subject of armouring and its prevention of crucial importance to anarchists.
-Reich concludes that if parents do not suppress nature in the first place,
-then no anti-social drives will be created and no authoritarianism will be
-required to suppress them: _"**What you so desperately and vainly try to
-achieve by way of compulsion and admonition is there in the new-born infant
-ready to live and function. Let it grow as nature requires, and change our
-institutions accordingly**"_ [**Ibid.**, p. 47, emphasis in original].
-
-As Alexander Lowen points out in **Fear of Life**, parents are particularly
-anxious to suppress the sexual expressions of life energy in their children
-because of unresolved Oedipal conflicts within themselves.
-
-Hence, in order to raise psychologically healthy children, parents need to
-acquire self-knowledge, particularly of how Oedipal conflicts, sibling
-rivalry, and other internal conflicts develop in family relationships, and to
-free themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms of armouring. The
-difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge and sufficiently de-
-conditioning themselves is obviously another obstacle to raising self-
-regulated children.
-
-However, the greatest obstacle is the fact that armouring and other twisting
-mechanisms set in so very early in life, i.e. soon after birth. Reich
-emphasises that **with the first armour blockings, the infant's self-
-regulatory powers begin to wane.** _"They become steadily weaker as the
-armouring spreads over the whole organism, and they **must** be replaced by
-compulsive, moral principles if the child is to exist and survive in its given
-environment."_ [**Ibid.**, pp. 44-45] Hence it is important for parents to
-obtain a thorough knowledge of what armouring and other rigid suppressions are
-and how they function, so that from the beginning they can prevent (or at
-least decrease) them from forming in their children. Some practical examples
-of how this can be done will be discussed in the [next
-section](secJ6.html#secj62).
-
-Finally, Reich cautions that it is crucial to avoid any mixing of concepts.
-_"One cannot mix a bit of self-regulation with a bit of moral demand. Either
-we trust nature as basically decent and self-regulatory or we do not, and then
-there is only one way, that of training by compulsion. It is essential to
-grasp the fact that the two ways of upbringing do not go together."_
-[**Ibid.**, p. 46]
-
-## J.6.2. What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods applied
-to the care of new-born infants?
+learning, respect for the rights of others, and so forth. However, once the
+child has been armoured through authoritarian methods intended to **force** it
+to develop such qualities, it becomes out of touch with its living core and
+therefore no longer able to develop self-regulation. In this stage it becomes
+harder and harder for the pro-social emotions to shape the developing mode of
+life of the new member of society. At that point, when the secondary drives
+develop, parental authoritarianism becomes a **necessity.**
+
+This oppression produces an inability to tolerate freedom. The vast majority
+of people develop this **automatically** from the way they are raised and is
+what makes the whole subject of bringing up children of crucial importance to
+anarchists. Reich concluded that if parents do not suppress nature in the
+first place, then no anti-social drives will be created and no
+authoritarianism will be required to suppress them: _"**What you so
+desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion and admonition is
+there in the new-born infant ready to live and function. Let it grow as nature
+requires, and change our institutions accordingly**."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 47]
+So in order to raise psychologically healthy children, parents need to acquire
+self-knowledge, particularly of how internal conflicts develop in family
+relationships, and to free themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms
+of behaviour. The difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge and
+sufficiently de-conditioning themselves is obviously another obstacle to
+raising self-regulated children.
+
+However, the greatest obstacle is the fact that twisting mechanisms set in so
+very early in life, i.e. soon after birth. Hence it is important for parents
+to obtain a thorough knowledge of what rigid suppressions are and how they
+function, so that from the beginning they can prevent (or at least decrease)
+them from forming in their children. Finally, Reich cautioned that it is
+crucial to avoid any mixing of concepts: _"One cannot mix a bit of self-
+regulation with a bit of moral demand. Either we trust nature as basically
+decent and self-regulatory or we do not, and then there is only one way, that
+of training by compulsion. It is essential to grasp the fact that the two ways
+of upbringing do not go together."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 46]
+
+## J.6.2. What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods?
According to Reich, the problems of parenting a free child actually begin
before conception, with the need for a prospective mother to free herself as
-much as possible from chronic muscular tensions, especially in the pelvic
-area, which may inhibit the optimal development of a foetus. As Reich points
-out, the mother's body provides the environment for the child from the moment
-the embryo is formed until the moment of birth, and strong muscular armouring
-in her pelvis as a result of sexual repression or other emotional problems is
-very detrimental. Such a mother will have a bioenergetically "dead" and
-possibly spastic uterus, which can traumatise an infant even before it is born
-by reducing the circulation of blood and body fluids and making the energy
-metabolism inefficient, thus damaging the child's vitality.
-
-Moreover, it has been found in many studies that not only the physical health
-of the mother can influence the foetus. Various psychological stresses
-influence the chemical and hormonal environment, affecting the foetus. Even
-short ones, when acute, can have significant effects on it.
-
-Immediately after birth, it is important for the mother to establish contact
+much as possible from chronic muscular tensions. It has been found in many
+studies that not only the physical health of the mother can influence the
+foetus. Various psychological stresses influence the chemical and hormonal
+environment, affecting the foetus.
+
+Immediately after birth it is important for the mother to establish contact
with her child. This means, basically, constant loving attention to the baby,
expressed by plenty of holding, cuddling, playing, etc., and especially by
breast feeding. By such _"orgonotic"_ contact (to use Reich's term), the
mother is able to establish the initial emotional bonding with the new born,
and a non-verbal understanding of the child's needs. This is only possible,
-however, if she is in touch with her own internal processes - emotional and
-cognitive - and bioenergetic core, i.e. is not too neurotically armoured (in
-Reich's terminology). Thus:
-
-> _"The orgonotic sense of contact, a function of the . . . energy field of
-both the mother and the child, is unknown to most specialists; however, the
-old country doctor knew it well. . . . **Orgonotic contact is the most
-essential experiential and emotional element in the interrelationship between
-mother and child,** particularly prenatally and during the first days and
-weeks of life. The future fate of the child depends on it. It seems to be the
-core of the new-born infant's emotional development."_ [**Ibid.** p. 99]
-
-It is less crucial but still important for the father to establish orgonotic
-contact as well, although since fathers lack the primary means of establishing
-it -- namely the ability to breast feed -- their contact can never be as close
-as the mother's (see below).
-
-A new-born child has only one way of expressing its needs: through crying.
-Crying has many nuances and can convey much more than the level of distress of
-the child. If a mother is unable to establish contact at the most basic
-emotional (_"bioenergetic,"_ according to Reich) level, she will be unable to
-understand intuitively what needs the child is expressing through its crying.
-Any unmet needs will in turn be felt by the child as a deprivation, to which
-it will respond with a wide array of negative emotions and deleterious
-physiological processes and emotional tension. If continued for long, such
-tensions can become chronic and thus the beginning of _"armouring"_ and
-adaptation to a "cruel" reality.
-
-The most important factor in the establishment of bonding is the tender
-physical contact between mother and infant is undoubtedly breast feeding.
-Thus:
-
-> _"The most salient place of contact in the infant's body is the
-bioenergetically highly charged mouth and throat. This body organ reaches out
-immediately for gratification. **If the nipple of the mother reacts to the
-infant's sucking movements in a biophysically normal manner with sensations of
-pleasure, it will become strongly erect and the orgonotic excitation of the
-nipple will become one with that of the infant's mouth, just as in the
-orastically gratifying sexual act, in which the male and female genitals
-luminate and fuse orgonotically**. There is nothing 'abnormal' or 'disgusting'
-in this. Every healthy mother experiences the sucking as pleasure and yields
-to it. . . . However, about 80 percent of all women suffer from vaginal
-anaesthesia and frigidity. Their nipples are correspondingly anorgonotic, i.e.
-'dead.' The mother may develop anxiety or loathing in response to what would
-naturally be a sensation of pleasure aroused in the breast by the infant's
-sucking. This is why so many mothers do not want to nurse their babies."_ [pp.
-115-116]
-
-Reich and other libertarian psychologists therefore maintain that the practice
-of bottle feeding is harmful, particularly if it completely replaces breast
-feeding from the day of birth, because it eliminates one of the most important
-forms of establishing bioenergetic contact between mother and child. This lack
-of contact can then contribute in later life to _"oral"_ forms of neurotic
-character structure or traits. (For more on these, see Alexander Lowen,
-**Physical Dynamics of Character Structure**, Chapter 9, _"The Oral
-Character"_]. Lowen believes that the practice of breast feeding should be
-continued for about three years, as it usually is among "primitive" peoples,
-and that weaning before this time is experienced as a major trauma. _"[I]f the
-breast is available to a child for about three years, which I believe to be
-the time required to fulfil a child's oral needs, weaning causes very little
-trauma, since the loss of this pleasure is offset by the many other pleasures
-the child can then have."_ [**Depression and the Body**, p. 133]
-
-Another harmful practice in infant care is the compulsive-neurotic method of
-feeding children on schedule, invented by Pirquet in Vienna, which _"was
-devastatingly wrong and harmful to countless children."_ Frustration of oral
-needs through this practice (which is fortunately less in vogue now than it
-was fifty years ago), is guaranteed to produce neurotic armouring in infants.
-
-As Reich puts it, _"As long as parents, doctors, and educators approach
-infants with false, unbending behaviour, inflexible opinions, condescension,
-and officiousness, instead of with orgonotic contact, infants will continue to
-be quiet, withdrawn, apathetic, 'autistic,' 'peculiar,' and, later, 'little
-wild animals,' whom the cultivated feel they have to 'tame.'"_ [**Op. Cit.**
-p. 124]
+however, if she is in touch with her own emotional and cognitive internal
+processes: _"**Orgonotic contact is the most essential experiential and
+emotional element in the interrelationship between mother and child,**
+particularly prenatally and during the first days and weeks of life. The
+future fate of the child depends on it. It seems to be the core of the new-
+born infant's emotional development."_ [**Children of the Future**, p. 99] It
+is important for the father to establish orgonotic contact as well.
+
+Reich amaintained that the practice of bottle feeding is harmful, particularly
+if it completely replaces breast feeding from the day of birth, because it
+eliminates one of the most important forms of establishing physical and
+emotional contact between mother and child. This lack of contact can then
+contribute in later life to _"oral"_ forms of neurotic character structure or
+traits (see Chapter 9 of Alexander Lowen's **Physical Dynamics of Character
+Structure**). Another harmful practice in infant care is the compulsive-
+neurotic method of feeding children on schedule, invented by Pirquet in
+Vienna, which was devastatingly wrong and harmful to countless children.
+Frustration of oral needs through this practice (which is fortunately less in
+vogue now than it was fifty years ago), is guaranteed to produce neurotic
+armouring in infants. As Reich put it: _"As long as parents, doctors, and
+educators approach infants with false, unbending behaviour, inflexible
+opinions, condescension, and officiousness, instead of with orgonotic contact,
+infants will continue to be quiet, withdrawn, apathetic, 'autistic,'
+'peculiar,' and, later, 'little wild animals,' whom the cultivated feel they
+have to 'tame.'"_ [**Op. Cit.** p. 124]
Another harmful practice is allowing the baby to "cry itself out." Thus:
_"Parking a baby in a baby carriage in the garden, perhaps for hours at a
@@ -458,102 +286,69 @@ and loneliness a baby can experience on waking up suddenly to find himself
alone in a strange place. Those who have heard a baby's screams on such
occasions have some idea of the cruelty of this stupid custom."_ [Neill,
**Summerhill**, p. 336] Indeed, in **The Physical Dynamics of Character
-Structure**, Lowen has traced specific neuroses, particularly depression, to
-this practice. Hospitals also have been guilty of psychologically damaging
-sick infants by isolating them from their mothers, a practice that has
-undoubtedly produced untold numbers of neurotics and psychopaths.
-
-Also, as Reich notes, _"the sadistic habit of circumcision will soon be
-recognised as the senseless, fanatical cruelty it truly is."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-p. 68] He remarks that he has observed infants who took over two weeks to
-"recover" from the trauma of circumcision, a "recovery" that left permanent
-psychological scars in the form of chronic muscular tensions in the pelvic
-floor. These tensions form the first layer of pelvic armouring, to which
-sexual repression and other inhibitions (especially those acquired during
-toilet training) later add.
-
-The diaphragm, however, is perhaps the most important area to protect from
-early armouring. After observing infants for several years in a research
-setting, Reich concluded that armouring in babies usually appears first as a
-blocking of free respiration, expressed as harsh, rough, uneven, or laboured
-breathing, which may lead to colds, coughs, bronchitis, etc.
-
-_"The early blocking of respiration seemed to gain importance rapidly as more
-children were observed. Somehow the diaphragmatic region appeared to respond
-first and most severely to emotional, bioenergetic discomfort."_ [**Ibid.**,
-p. 110] Hence the infant's breathing is a key indicator of its emotional
-health, and any disturbance is a signal that something is wrong. Or, as Neill
-puts it, _"The sign of a well-reared child is his free, uninhibited breathing.
-It shows that he is not afraid of life."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 131]
-
-Neill sums up the libertarian attitude toward the care of infants as follows:
-_"**Self-regulation means the right of a baby to live freely without outside
-authority in things psychic and somatic**. It means that the baby feeds when
-it is hungry; that it becomes clean in habits only when it wants to; that it
-is never stormed at nor spanked; that it is always loved and protected."_
-[**Op. Cit.** p. 105]
-
-Obviously self-regulation doesn't mean leaving the baby alone when it heads
-toward a cliff or starts playing with an electrical socket. Anarchists do not
-advocate a lack of common sense. We recognise that adults must override an
-infant's will when it is a question of protecting its physical safety. As
-Neill writes, _"Only a fool in charge of young children would allow unbarred
-bedroom windows or an unprotected fire in the nursery. Yet, too often, young
-enthusiasts for self-regulation come to my school as visitors, and exclaim at
-our lack of freedom in locking poison in a lab closet, or our prohibition
-about playing on the fire escape. The whole freedom movement is marred and
-despised because so many advocates of freedom have not got their feet on the
-ground."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 106]
+Structure**, Alexander Lowen has traced specific neuroses, particularly
+depression, to this practice. Hospitals also have been guilty of
+psychologically damaging sick infants by isolating them from their mothers, a
+practice that has undoubtedly produced untold numbers of neurotics and
+psychopaths.
+
+Neill summed up the libertarian attitude toward the care of infants as
+follows: _"**Self-regulation means the right of a baby to live freely without
+outside authority in things psychic and somatic**. It means that the baby
+feeds when it is hungry; that it becomes clean in habits only when it wants
+to; that it is never stormed at nor spanked; that it is always loved and
+protected."_ Obviously self-regulation does not mean leaving the baby alone
+when it heads toward a cliff or starts playing with an electrical socket.
+Libertarians do not advocate a lack of common sense. We recognise that adults
+must override an infant's will when it is a question of protecting their
+physical safety: _"Only a fool in charge of young children would allow
+unbarred bedroom windows or an unprotected fire in the nursery. Yet, too
+often, young enthusiasts for self-regulation come to my school as visitors,
+and exclaim at our lack of freedom in locking poison in a lab closet, or our
+prohibition about playing on the fire escape. The whole freedom movement is
+marred and despised because so many advocates of freedom have not got their
+feet on the ground."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 105 and p. 106]
Nevertheless, the libertarian position does not imply that a child should be
**punished** for getting into a dangerous situation. Nor is the best thing to
do in such a case to shout in alarm (unless that is the only way to warn the
child before it is too late), but simply to remove the danger without any
-fuss. As Neill says, _"Unless a child is mentally defective, he will soon
-discover what interests him. Left free from excited cries and angry voices, he
-will be unbelievably sensible in his dealing with material of all kinds."_
-[**Ibid.**, p. 108] Provided, of course, that he or she has been allowed self-
-regulation from the beginning, and thus has not developed any irrational,
+fuss: _"Unless a child is mentally defective, he will soon discover what
+interests him. Left free from excited cries and angry voices, he will be
+unbelievably sensible in his dealing with material of all kinds."_ [Neil,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 108] Provided, of course, that he or she has been allowed
+self-regulation from the beginning, and thus has not developed any irrational,
secondary drives.
-## J.6.3 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods applied
-to the care of young children?
-
The way to raise a free child becomes clear when one considers how an
-**un**free child is raised. Thus imagine the typical infant, John Smith, whose
-upbringing A.S. Neill describes:
+**un**free child is raised. Thus imagine the typical infant whose upbringing
+A.S. Neill described:
> _"His natural functions were left alone during the diaper period. But when
he began to crawl and perform on the floor, words like **naughty** and
**dirty** began to float about the house, and a grim beginning was made in
-teaching him to be clean.
+teaching him to be clean._
->
-
-> "Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
+> _ "Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
genitals; and he soon came to associate the genital prohibition with the
acquired disgust about faeces. Thus, years later, when he became a travelling
salesman, his story repertoire consisted of a balanced number of sex and
-toilet jokes.
-
->
+toilet jokes._
-> "Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours. Mother
+> _ "Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours. Mother
and father were most anxious to be correct -- to do the proper thing -- so
that when relatives or next-door neighbours came, John had to show himself as
a well-trained child. He had to say **Thank you** when Auntie gave him a piece
of chocolate; and he had to be most careful about his table manners; and
-especially, he had to refrain from speaking when adults were speaking."_
-[**Summerhill**, p. 97]
-
-When he was little older, things got worse for John. _"All his curiosity about
-the origins of life were met with clumsy lies, lies so effective that his
-curiosity about life and birth disappeared. The lies about life became
-combined with fears when at the age of five his mother found him having
-genital play with his sister of four and the girl next door. The severe
-spanking that followed (Father added to it when he came home from work)
-forever conveyed to John the lesson that sex is filthy and sinful, something
-one must not even think of."_ [**Ibid.**]
+especially, he had to refrain from speaking when adults were speaking . . . _
+
+> _"All his curiosity about the origins of life were met with clumsy lies,
+lies so effective that his curiosity about life and birth disappeared. The
+lies about life became combined with fears when at the age of five his mother
+found him having genital play with his sister of four and the girl next door.
+The severe spanking that followed (Father added to it when he came home from
+work) forever conveyed to John the lesson that sex is filthy and sinful,
+something one must not even think of."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 96-7]
Of course, parents' ways of imparting negative messages about sex are not
necessarily this severe, especially in our allegedly enlightened age. However,
@@ -564,38 +359,21 @@ expressions, tone of voice, embarrassed silence, avoidance of certain topics,
etc. Mere "toleration" of sexual curiosity and play is far different in its
psychological effects from positive affirmation.
-Based on the findings of clinical psychiatry, Reich postulated a _"first
-puberty"_ in children, from the ages of about 3 to 6, when the child's
-attention shifts from the satisfaction of oral needs to an interest in its
-sexuality -- a stage characterised by genital play of all kinds. The parents'
-task at this stage is not only to allow children to engage in such play, but
-to encourage it. _"In the child, before the age of four or five, genitality
-has not yet fully developed. The task here plainly consists of removing the
-obstacles in the way of natural development toward full genitality. To fulfil
-this task, we must agree that a first puberty in children exists; that genital
-games are the peak of its development; that lack of genital activity is a sign
-of sickness and not of health, as previously assumed; and that healthy
-children play genital games of all kinds, which should be encouraged and not
-hindered."_ [**Children of the Future**, p. 66]
-
Along the same lines, to prevent the formation of sex-negative attitudes means
-that nakedness should never be discouraged. _"The baby should see its parents
+that nakedness should never be discouraged: _"The baby should see its parents
naked from the beginning. However, the child should be told when he is ready
to understand that some people don't like to see children naked and that, in
-the presence of such people, he should wear clothes."_ [Neill, **Summerhill**,
-p. 229]
-
-Neill maintains that not only should parents never spank or punish a child for
-genital play, but that spanking and other forms of punishment should never be
-used in **any** circumstances, because they instil fear, turning children into
-cowards and often leading to phobias. _"Fear must be entirely eliminated --
-fear of adults, fear of punishment, fear of disapproval, fear of God. Only
-hate can flourish in an atmosphere of fear."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 124]
-
-Punishment also turns children into sadists. _"The cruelty of many children
-springs from the cruelty that has been practised on them by adults. You cannot
-be beaten without wishing to beat someone else. . . Every beating makes a
-child sadistic in desire or practice."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 269, 271] This is
+the presence of such people, he should wear clothes."_ Neill maintains that
+not only should parents never spank or punish a child for genital play, but
+that spanking and other forms of punishment should never be used in **any**
+circumstances, because they instil fear, turning children into cowards and
+often leading to phobias. _"Fear must be entirely eliminated -- fear of
+adults, fear of punishment, fear of disapproval, fear of God. Only hate can
+flourish in an atmosphere of fear."_ Punishment also turns children into
+sadists: _"The cruelty of many children springs from the cruelty that has been
+practised on them by adults. You cannot be beaten without wishing to beat
+someone else."_ (_"Every beating makes a child sadistic in desire or
+practice."_ [Neil **Op. Cit.**, p. 229, p. 124, p. 269 and p. 271] This is
obviously an important consideration to anarchists, as sadistic drives provide
the psychological ground for militarism, war, police brutality, and so on.
Such drives are undoubtedly also part of the desire to exercise hierarchical
@@ -609,7 +387,7 @@ themselves. Such cruelty is, of course, always rationalised with excuse like
"I don't want my boy to be soft" or "I want him to prepare him for a harsh
world" or "I spank my children because my parents spanked me, and it did me a
hell of a lot of good." But despite such rationalisations, the fact remains
-that punishment is always an act of hate. To this hate, the child responds in
+that punishment is always an act of hate. To this hate the child responds in
kind by hating the parents, followed by fantasy, guilt, and repression. For
example, the child may fantasise the father's death, which immediately causes
guilt, and so is repressed. Often the hatred induced by punishment emerges in
@@ -625,18 +403,18 @@ What is worse, however, is that punishment actually **creates** "problem
children." This is so because the parent arouses more and more hatred (and
diminishing trust in other human beings) in the child with each spanking,
which is expressed in still worse behaviour, calling for more spankings, and
-so on, in a vicious circle. In contrast, _"The self-regulated child does not
-need any punishment,"_ Neill argues, _"and he does not go through this hate
+so on, in a vicious circle. In contrast, the _"self-regulated child does not
+need any punishment,"_ Neill argued, _"and he does not go through this hate
cycle. He is never punished and he does not need to behave badly. He has no
use for lying and for breaking things. His body has never been called filthy
or wicked. He has not needed to rebel against authority or to fear his
parents. Tantrums he will usually have, but they will be short-lived and not
-tend toward neurosis."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 166]
+tend toward neurosis."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 166]
We could cite many further examples of how libertarian principles of child-
rearing can be applied in practice, but we must limit ourselves to these few.
The basic principles can be summed up as follows: Get rid of authority,
-moralism, and the desire to "improve" and "civilise" children. Allow them to
+moralising, and the desire to "improve" and "civilise" children. Allow them to
be themselves, without pushing them around, bribing, threatening, admonishing,
lecturing, or otherwise forcing them to do anything. Refrain from action
unless the child, by expressing their "freedom" restricts the freedom of
@@ -647,47 +425,41 @@ This is, of course, a radical philosophy, which few parents are willing to
follow. It is quite amazing how people who call themselves libertarians in
political and economic matters draw the line when it comes to their behaviour
within the family -- as if such behaviour had no wider social consequences!
-Hence, the opponents of children's freedom are legion, as are their objections
-to libertarian child rearing. In the next few sections we will examine some of
-the most common of these objections.
-## J.6.4 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be good?
+## J.6.3 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be good?
-Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or otherworldly,
+Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or other-worldly,
is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice. True morality (i.e. respect
for others and one-self) comes from inner conviction based on experience, it
cannot be imposed from without by fear. Nor can it be inspired by hope of
-reward, such as praise or the promise of heaven, which is simply bribery. As
-noted in the [previous section](secJ6.html#secj63), if children are given as
-much freedom as possible from the day of birth and not forced to conform to
-parental expectations, they will spontaneously learn the basic principles of
-social behaviour, such as cleanliness, courtesy, and so forth. But they must
-be allowed to develop them **at their own speed,** at the natural stage of
-their growth, not when parents think they should develop them. And what is
-"natural" timing must be discovered by observation, not by defining it a
-priori based on one's own expectations.
-
-Can a child really be taught to keep itself clean without being punished for
-getting dirty? According to many psychologists, it is not only possible but
-**vitally important** for the child's mental health to do so, since punishment
-will give the child a fixed and repressed interest in his bodily functions. As
-Reich and Lowen have shown, for example, various forms of compulsive and
+reward, such as praise or the promise of heaven, which is simply bribery. If
+children are given as much freedom as possible from the day of birth, if
+parents respect them as individuals and give a positive example as well as not
+being forced to conform to parental expectations, they will spontaneously
+learn the basic principles of social behaviour, such as cleanliness, courtesy,
+and so forth. But they must be allowed to develop them **at their own speed,**
+at the natural stage of their growth, not when parents think they should
+develop them. What is "natural" timing must be discovered by observation, not
+by defining it a priori based on one's own expectations.
+
+Can a child really be taught to keep themselves clean without being punished
+for getting dirty? According to many psychologists, it is not only possible
+but **vitally important** for the child's mental health to do so, since
+punishment will give the child a fixed and repressed interest in their bodily
+functions. As Reich and Lowen have shown various forms of compulsive and
obsessive neuroses can be traced back to the punishments used in toilet
-training. Dogs, cats, horses, and cows have no complexes about excrement.
-Complexes in human children come from the manner of their instruction.
-
-As Neill observes, _"When the mother says **naughty** or **dirty** or even
-**tut tut**, the element of right and wrong arises. The question becomes a
-**moral** one -- when it should remain a **physical** one."_ He suggests that
-the **wrong** way to deal with a child who likes to play with faeces is to
-tell him he is being dirty. _"The right way is to allow him to live out his
-interest in excrement by providing him with mud or clay. In this way, he will
-sublimate his interest without repression. He will live through his interest;
-and in doing so, kill it."_ [**Summerhill**, p. 174]
+training. As Neill observed: _"When the mother says **naughty** or **dirty**
+or even **tut tut**, the element of right and wrong arises. The question
+becomes a **moral** one -- when it should remain a **physical** one."_ He
+suggested that the **wrong** way to deal with a child who likes to play with
+faeces is to tell him he is being dirty. The right way _"is to allow him to
+live out his interest in excrement by providing him with mud or clay. In this
+way, he will sublimate his interest without repression. He will live through
+his interest; and in doing so, kill it."_ [**Summerhill**, p. 174]
Similarly, sceptics will probably question how children can be induced to eat
a healthy diet without threats of punishment. The answer can be discovered by
-a simple experiment: set out on the table all kinds of foods, from candy and
+a simple experiment: set out on the table all kinds of foods, from sweets and
ice cream to whole wheat bread, lettuce, sprouts, and so on, and allow the
child complete freedom to choose what is desired or to eat nothing at all if
he or she is not hungry. Parents will find that the average child will begin
@@ -700,13 +472,13 @@ Unfortunately, the concept of "training" still holds the field in this and
most other areas.
The disciplinarian argument that that children must be **forced** to respect
-property is also defective, because it always requires some sacrifice of a
+possessions is also defective, because it always requires some sacrifice of a
child's play life (and childhood should be devoted to play, not to "preparing
for adulthood," because playing is what children spontaneously do). The
libertarian view is that a child should arrive at a sense of value out of his
or her own free choice. This means not scolding or punishing them for breaking
or damaging things. As they grow out of the stage of preadolescent
-indifference to property, they learn to respect it naturally.
+indifference to possessions, they learn to respect it naturally.
"But shouldn't a child at least be punished for stealing?" it will be asked.
Once again, the answer lies in the idea of trusting nature. The concept of
@@ -721,9 +493,6 @@ however, will be a child who grows into a healthy adolescent who respects the
possessions of others, not out of a cowardly fear of punishment but from his
or her own self-nature.
-## J.6.5 But how can children learn _ethics_ if they are not given
-punishments, prohibitions, and religious instruction?
-
Most parents believe that, besides taking care of their child's physical
needs, the teaching of ethical/moral values is their main responsibility and
that without such teaching the child will grow up to be a "little wild animal"
@@ -731,61 +500,51 @@ who acts on every whim, with no consideration for others. This idea arises
mainly from the fact that most people in our society believe, at least
passively, that human beings are naturally bad and that unless they are
"trained" to be good they will be lazy, mean, violent, or even murderous.
-This, of course, is essentially the idea of "original sin." Because of its
+This, of course, is essentially the idea of "original sin" and because of its
widespread acceptance, nearly all adults believe that it is their job to
-"improve" children.
-
-According to libertarian psychologists, however, there is no original sin. In
-fact, it would be more accurate to say that there is "original virtue." As we
-have seen, Reich found that externally imposed, compulsive morality actually
-**causes** immoral behaviour by creating cruel and perverse _"secondary
-drives."_ Neill puts it this way: _"I find that when I smash the moral
-instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a good boy."_ [**Summerhill**,
-p. 250]
-
-Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is, as
-mentioned previously, the main recruiting tool of organised religions, as
-people who believe they are born "sinners" feel a strong sense of guilt and
-need for redemption. Therefore Neill advises parents to "eliminate any need
-for redemption, by telling the child that he is born good -- not born bad."
-This will help keep them from falling under the influence of life-denying
-religions, which are inimical to the growth of a healthy character structure.
-
-As Reich points out, _"The Church, because of its influence on the sexuality
-of youth, is an institution that exerts an extremely damaging effect on
-health."_ [**Children of the Future**, p. 217] Citing ethnological studies, he
-notes the following:
+"improve" children. Yet according to libertarian psychologists there is no
+original sin. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that there is
+"original virtue." Wilhelm Reich found that externally imposed, compulsive
+morality actually **causes** immoral behaviour by creating cruel and perverse
+_"secondary drives."_ Neill put it this way: _"I find that when I smash the
+moral instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a good boy."_ [, p. 250]
+
+Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is the main
+recruiting tool of organised religions, as people who believe they are born
+"sinners" feel a strong sense of guilt and need for redemption. Parents to
+should eliminate any need for redemption, by telling the child that he is born
+good, not born bad. This will help keep them from falling under the influence
+of life-denying religions, which are inimical to the growth of a healthy
+character structure. Citing ethnological studies, Reich argued the following:
> _"Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual
lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality
between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in their
society. Their sexual activity flows in normal, well-ordered channels which
-would fill any cleric with indignation and fear, because the pale, ascetic
-youth and the gossiping, child-beating woman do not exist in these primitive
-societies. They love the human body and take pleasure in their sexuality. They
-do not understand why young men and women should not enjoy their sexuality.
-But when their lives are invaded by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by
-the Church, which bring them 'culture' along with exploitation, alcohol, and
-syphilis, they begin to suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin
-to lead 'moral' lives, i.e. to suppress their sexuality, and from then on they
-decline more and more into a state of sexual distress, which is the result of
-sexual suppression. At the same time, they become sexually dangerous; murders
-of spouses, sexual diseases, and crimes of all sorts start to appear."_
-[**Ibid.**, p. 193]
+would fill any cleric with indignation and fear . . . They love the human body
+and take pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why young men and
+women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives are invaded by
+the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which bring them 'culture'
+along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis, they begin to suffer the same
+wretchedness as ourselves. They begin to lead 'moral' lives, i.e. to suppress
+their sexuality, and from then on they decline more and more into a state of
+sexual distress, which is the result of sexual suppression. At the same time,
+they become sexually dangerous; murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and
+crimes of all sorts start to appear."_ [**Children of the Future**, p. 193]
Such crimes in our society would be greatly reduced if libertarian child
rearing practices were widely followed. These are obviously important
considerations for anarchists, who are frequently asked to explain how crime
can be prevented in an anarchist society. The answer is that if people are not
-suppressed during childhood there will be far less crime, because the
-secondary-drive structure that leads to anti-social behaviour of all kinds
-will not be created in the first place. In other words, the solution to the
-so-called crime problem is not more police, more laws, or a return to the
-disciplinarianism of "traditional family values," as conservatives claim, but
-depends mainly on **getting rid** of such values.
+suppressed during childhood there will be far less anti-social behaviour,
+because the secondary-drive structure that leads to it will not be created in
+the first place. In other words, the solution to the so-called crime problem
+is not more police, more laws, or a return to the disciplinarianism of
+"traditional family values," as conservatives claim, but depends mainly on
+**getting rid** of such values.
There are other problems as well with the moralism taught by organised
-religions. One danger is making the child a hater. _"If a child is taught that
+religions. One danger is making the child a hater: _"If a child is taught that
certain things are sinful, his love of life must be changed to hate. When
children are free, they never think of another child as being a sinner."_
[Neill, **Op. Cit.**, p. 245] From the idea that certain people are sinners,
@@ -796,28 +555,27 @@ persecution of minorities as an outlet for repressed anger and sadistic drives
early childhood. Once again, the relevance for anarchism is obvious.
A further danger of religious instruction is the development of a fear of
-life. _"Religion to a child most always means only fear. God is a mighty man
+life: _"Religion to a child most always means only fear. God is a mighty man
with holes in his eyelids: He can see you wherever you are. To a child, this
often means that God can see what is being done under the bedclothes. And to
introduce fear into a child's life is the worst of all crimes. Forever the
-child says nay to life; forever he is an inferior; forever a coward."_
-[**Ibid.**, p. 246] People who have been threatened with fear of an afterlife
-in hell can never be entirely free of neurotic anxiety about security in
-**this** life. In turn, such people become easy targets of ruling-class
-propaganda that plays upon their material insecurity, e.g. the rationalisation
-of imperialistic wars as necessary to "preserve jobs" (cited, for example, by
-US Secretary of State James Baker as one rationale for the Gulf War).
+child says nay to life; forever he is an inferior; forever a coward."_ [Neill,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 246] People who have been threatened with fear of an
+afterlife in hell can never be entirely free of neurotic anxiety about
+security in **this** life. In turn, such people become easy targets of ruling-
+class propaganda that plays upon their material and emotional insecurity, e.g.
+the rationalisation of imperialist wars, the Military-Industrial Complex,
+increased state powers, and so on as necessary to "preserve jobs", for
+security against external threats and so forth.
-## J.6.6 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?
+## J.6.3 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?
Another common objection to self-regulation is that children can only be
-taught to be **unselfish** through punishment and admonition. Again, however,
-such a view comes from a distrust of nature and is part of the common attitude
-that nature is mere "raw material" to be shaped by human beings according to
-their own wishes. The libertarian attitude is that unselfishness develops at
-the proper time -- which is **not** during childhood. Children are primarily
-egoists, generally until the beginning of puberty, and until then they usually
-don't have the ability to identify with others. Thus:
+taught to be **"unselfish"** through punishment and admonition. Again,
+however, such a view comes from a distrust of nature and is part of the common
+attitude that nature is mere "raw material" to be shaped by human beings
+according to their own wishes. The libertarian attitude is that empathy for
+others develops at the proper time:
> _"To ask a child to be unselfish is wrong. Every child is an egoist and the
world belongs to him. When he has an apple, his one wish is to eat that apple.
@@ -826,40 +584,39 @@ brother is to make him hate the little brother. Altruism comes later -- comes
naturally -- **if the child is not taught to be unselfish.** It probably never
comes at all if the child has been forced to be unselfish. By suppressing the
child's selfishness, the mother is fixing that selfishness forever."_ [Neill,
-**Op. Cit.**, pp. 250-251]
-
-Unfulfilled wishes (like all "unfinished business") live on in the
-unconscious. Hence children who are pressured too hard - "taught" - to be
-unselfish will, while conforming outwardly with parental demands,
-unconsciously repress part of their real, selfish wishes, and these repressed
-infantile desires will make the person selfish (and possibly neurotic)
-throughout life. Moreover, telling children that what they want to do is
-"wrong" or "bad" is equivalent to teaching them to hate themselves, and it is
-a well-known principle of psychology that people who do not love themselves
-cannot love others. Thus moral instruction, although it aims to develop
-altruism and love for others, is actually self-defeating, having just the
-opposite result.
-
-Moreover, such attempts to produce "unselfish" children (and so adults)
-actually works **against** developing the individuality of the child and their
-abilities to develop their own abilities (in particular their ability of
-critical thought). As Erich Fromm puts it, _"[n]ot to be selfish implies not
-to do what one wishes, to give up one's own wishes for the sake of those in
-authority. . . Aside from its obvious implication, it means 'don't love
-yourself,' 'don't be yourself', but submit yourself to something more
-important than yourself, to an outside power or its internalisation, 'duty.'
-'Don't be selfish' becomes one of the most powerful ideological tools in
-suppressing spontaneity and the free development of personality. Under the
-pressure of this slogan one is asked for every sacrifice and for complete
-submission: only those acts are 'unselfish' which do not serve the individual
-but somebody or something outside himself."_ [**Man for Himself**, p. 127]
+**Summerhill**, pp. 250-251]
+
+Unfulfilled wishes live on in the unconscious so children who are pressured
+too hard -- "taught" -- to be unselfish will, while conforming outwardly with
+parental demands, unconsciously repress part of their real, selfish wishes,
+and these repressed infantile desires will make the person selfish (and
+possibly neurotic) throughout life. Moreover, telling children that what they
+want to do is "wrong" or "bad" is equivalent to teaching them to hate
+themselves, and it is a well-known principle of psychology that people who do
+not love themselves cannot love others. Thus moral instruction, although it
+aims to develop altruism and love for others, is actually self-defeating,
+having just the opposite result. Moreover, such attempts to produce
+"unselfish" children (and so adults) actually works **against** developing the
+individuality of the child and they developing their own abilities (in
+particular their ability of critical thought). As Erich Fromm put it:
+
+> _"Not to be selfish implies not to do what one wishes, to give up one's own
+wishes for the sake of those in authority . . . Aside from its obvious
+implication, it means 'don't love yourself,' 'don't be yourself', but submit
+yourself to something more important than yourself, to an outside power or its
+internalisation, 'duty.' 'Don't be selfish' becomes one of the most powerful
+ideological tools in suppressing spontaneity and the free development of
+personality. Under the pressure of this slogan one is asked for every
+sacrifice and for complete submission: only those acts are 'unselfish' which
+do not serve the individual but somebody or something outside himself."_
+[**Man for Himself**, p. 127]
While such "unselfishness" is ideal for creating "model citizens" and willing
wage slaves, it is not conducive for creating anarchists or even developing
individuality. Little wonder Bakunin celebrated the urge to rebel and saw it
as the key to human progress! Fromm goes on to note that selfishness and self-
love, _"far from being identical, are actually opposites"_ and that _"selfish
-persons are incapable of loving others. . . [or] loving themselves..."_ [**Op.
+persons are incapable of loving others . . . [or] loving themselves."_ [**Op.
Cit.**, p. 131] Individuals who do not love themselves, and so others, will be
more willing to submit themselves to hierarchy than those who do love
themselves and are concerned for their own, and others, welfare. Thus the
@@ -876,55 +633,54 @@ our culture strongly conditions us to seek power over others, what could be
more convenient than having a small, weak person at hand who cannot resist
one's will to power? Instead of issuing directives, libertarians believe in
letting social behaviour develop naturally, which it will do after other
-people's opinions becomes important **to the child.** As Neill points out,
-_"Everyone seeks the good opinion of his neighbours. Unless other forces push
-him into unsocial behaviour, a child will naturally want to do that which will
-cause him to be well-regarded, but this desire to please others develops at a
-certain stage in his growth. The attempt by parents and teachers to
-artificially accelerate this stage does the child irreparable damage."_
-[Neill, **Op. Cit.**, p. 256]
+people's opinions becomes important **to the child.** As Neill pointed out:
+
+> _"Everyone seeks the good opinion of his neighbours. Unless other forces
+push him into unsocial behaviour, a child will naturally want to do that which
+will cause him to be well-regarded, but this desire to please others develops
+at a certain stage in his growth. The attempt by parents and teachers to
+artificially accelerate this stage does the child irreparable damage."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 256]
Therefore, parents should allow children to be "selfish" and "ungiving", free
-to follow their own childish interests throughout their childhood. And when
-their individual interests clash with social interests (e.g. the opinion of
-the neighbours), the individual interests should take precedence. Every
+to follow their own childish interests throughout their childhood. Every
interpersonal conflict of interest should be grounds for a lesson in dignity
on one side and consideration on the other. Only by this process can a child
develop their individuality. By so doing they will come to recognise the
individuality of others and this is the first step in developing ethical
concepts (which rest upon mutual respect for others and their individuality).
-## J.6.7 Isn't what you call "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for
-spoiling the child?
+## J.6.4 Isn't "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for spoiling the
+child?
No. This objection confuses the distinction between freedom and license. To
-raise a child in freedom does not mean letting him or her walk all over you;
-it does not mean never saying "no." It is true that free children are not
-subjected to punishment, irrational authority, or moralistic admonitions, but
-they are not "free" to violate the rights of others. As Neill puts it, _"in
+raise a child in freedom does not mean letting him or her walk all over you or
+others; it does not mean never saying "no." It is true that free children are
+not subjected to punishment, irrational authority, or moralistic admonitions,
+but they are not "free" to violate the rights of others. As Neill put it: _"in
the disciplined home, the children have **no** rights. In the spoiled home,
they have **all** the rights. The proper home is one in which children and
-adults have equal rights."_ Or again, _"To let a child have his own way, or do
+adults have equal rights."_ Or again: _"To let a child have his own way, or do
what he wants to **at another's expense,** is bad for the child. It creates a
spoiled child, and the spoiled child is a bad citizen."_ [**Summerhill**, p.
-107, 167]
+107 and 167]
There will inevitably be conflicts of will between parents and children, and
-the healthy way to resolve them is to come to some sort of a compromise
-agreement. The unhealthy ways are either to resort to authoritarian discipline
-or to spoil the child by allowing it to have all the social rights.
-Libertarian psychologists argue that no harm is done to children by insisting
-on one's individual rights, but that the harm comes from moralism, i.e. when
-one introduces the concepts of right and wrong or words like "naughty," "bad,"
-or "dirty," which produce guilt.
+the healthy way to resolve them is discussion and coming to an agreement. The
+unhealthy ways are either to resort to authoritarian discipline or to spoil
+the child by allowing them to have all the social rights. Libertarian
+psychologists argue that no harm is done to children by insisting on one's
+individual rights, but that the harm comes from moralism, i.e. when one
+introduces the concepts of right and wrong or words like "naughty," "bad," or
+"dirty," which produce guilt.
Therefore it should not be thought that free children are free to "do as they
-please." Freedom means doing what one likes so long as it doesn't infringe on
+please." Freedom means doing what one likes so long as it does not infringe on
the freedom of others. Thus there is a big difference between compelling a
child to stop throwing stones at others and compelling him or her to learn
geometry. Throwing stones infringes on others' rights, but learning geometry
involves only the child. The same goes for forcing children to eat with a fork
-instead of their fingers; to say "please" and "thank you;" to tidy up their
+instead of their fingers; to say "please" and "thank you"; to tidy up their
rooms, and so on. Bad manners and untidiness may be annoying to adults, but
they are not a violation of adults' rights. One could, of course, define an
adult "right" to be free of annoyance from **anything** one's child does, but
@@ -937,11 +693,11 @@ whether he wants to go outdoors or take his prescribed medicine, nor a run-
down and overtired child whether she wants to go to bed. But the imposition of
such forms of necessary authority is compatible with the idea that children
should be given as much responsibility as they can handle at their particular
-age. For only in this way can they develop self-assurance. And again, it is
+age. Only in this way can they develop self-assurance. And, again, it is
important for parents to examine their own motives when deciding how much
responsibility to give their child. Parents who insist on choosing their
-children's' clothes for them, for example, are generally worried that little
-Tommy might select clothes that would reflect badly on his parents' social
+children's clothes for them, for example, are generally worried that the child
+might select clothes that would reflect badly on their parents' social
standing.
As for those who equate "discipline" in the home with "obedience," the latter
@@ -951,20 +707,20 @@ loud voice saying "You'll do it because I say so, or else!" But, although this
irrational, power-seeking kind of authority is absent in the libertarian home,
there still remains what can be called a kind of "authority," namely adult
protection, care, and responsibility, as well as the insistence on one's own
-rights. As Neill observes, _"Such authority sometimes demands obedience but at
+rights. As Neill observed: _"Such authority sometimes demands obedience but at
other times gives obedience. Thus I can say to my daughter, 'You can't bring
that mud and water into our parlour.' That's no more than her saying to me,
'Get out of my room, Daddy. I don't want you here now,' a wish that I, of
-course, obey without a word"_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 156]. Therefore there will
-still be "discipline" in the libertarian home, but it will be of the kind that
-protects the individual rights of each family member.
+course, obey without a word."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 156]. So there will still be
+"discipline" in the libertarian home, but it will be of the kind that protects
+the individual rights of each family member.
Raising children in freedom also does not imply giving them a lot of toys,
-money, and so on. Reichians have argued that children should not be given
-everything they ask for and that it is better to give them too little than too
-much. Under constant bombardment by commercial advertising campaigns, parents
-today generally tend to give their children far too much, with the result that
-the children stop appreciating gifts and rarely value any of their
+money, and so on. Reich's followers have argued that children should not be
+given everything they ask for and that it is better to give them too little
+than too much. Under constant bombardment by commercial advertising campaigns,
+parents today generally tend to give their children far too much, with the
+result that the children stop appreciating gifts and rarely value any of their
possessions. This same applies to money, which, if given in excess, can be
detrimental to children's' creativity and play life. If children are not given
too many toys, they will derive creative joy out of making their own toys out
@@ -975,13 +731,13 @@ presents are often trying to compensate for giving too little love.
There is less danger in rewarding children than there is in punishing them,
but rewards can still undermine a child's morale. This is because, firstly,
rewards are superfluous and in fact often **decrease** motivation and
-creativity, as several psychological studies have shown (see section
-[I.4.10](secI4.html#seci410)). Creative people work for the pleasure of
+creativity, as several psychological studies have shown (see [section
+I.4.11](secI4.html#seci411)). Creative people work for the pleasure of
creating; monetary interests are not central (or necessary) to the creative
process. Secondly, rewards send the wrong message, namely, that doing the deed
for which the reward is offered is not worth doing for its own sake and the
-pleasure associated with productive, creative activity. And thirdly, rewards
-tend to reinforce the worst aspects of the competitive system, leading to the
+pleasure associated with productive, creative activity. Thirdly, rewards tend
+to reinforce the worst aspects of the competitive system, leading to the
attitude that money is the only thing which can motivate people to do the work
that needs doing in society.
@@ -994,13 +750,13 @@ generally be burdened with one or more anti-social secondary drives such as
sadism, destructive urges, greed, sexual perversions, etc., as well as
repressed rage and fear. The presence of such impulses just below the surface
of consciousness causes anxiety, which is automatically defended against by
-layers of rigid muscular armouring, which leaves the person stiff, frustrated,
-bitter, and burdened with feelings of inner emptiness. In such a condition,
-people easily fall victim to the capitalist gospel of super-consumption, which
-promises that money will enable them to fill the inner void by purchasing
-commodities -- a promise that, of course, is hollow.
+psychological walls which leave the person stiff, frustrated, bitter and
+burdened with feelings of inner emptiness. In such a condition people easily
+fall victim to the capitalist gospel of super-consumption, which promises that
+money will enable them to fill the inner void by purchasing commodities -- a
+promise that, of course, is hollow.
-The neurotically armoured person also tends to look for scapegoats on whom to
+The neurotically enclosed person also tends to look for scapegoats on whom to
blame his or her frustration and anxiety and against whom repressed rage can
be vented. Reactionary politicians know very well how to direct such impulses
against minorities or "hostile nations" with propaganda designed to serve the
@@ -1009,50 +765,51 @@ authority combined with sadistic impulses which is acquired from a
disciplinarian upbringing typically produces a submissive/authoritarian
personality -- a man or woman who blindly follows the orders of "superiors"
while at the same time desiring to exercise authority on "subordinates,"
-whether in the family, the state bureaucracy, or the corporation. In this way,
-the "traditional" (e.g., authoritarian, disciplinarian, patriarchal) family is
-the necessary foundation for authoritarian civilisation, reproducing it and
-its attendant social evils from generation to generation. Irving Staub's
+whether in the family, the state bureaucracy, or the company. Ervin Staub's
**Roots of Evil** includes interviews of imprisoned SS men, who, in the course
of extensive interviews (meant to determine how ostensibly "normal" people
could perform acts of untold ruthlessness and violence) revealed that they
overwhelmingly came from authoritarian, disciplinarian homes.
-## J.6.8 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual liberation?
+In this way, the "traditional" (e.g., authoritarian, disciplinarian,
+patriarchal) family is the necessary foundation for authoritarian
+civilisation, reproducing it and its attendant social evils from generation to
+generation.
+
+## J.6.5 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual liberation?
One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by parents
and society in general. The teenage years are the time when sexual energy is
at its height. Why, then, the absurd demand that teenagers "wait until
marriage," or at least until leaving home, before becoming sexually active?
-Why are there laws on the books in "advanced" countries like the United States
-that allow a 19-year-old "boy" who makes love with his 17-year-old girlfriend,
-with her full consent, to be **arrested** by the girl's parents (!) for
-"statutory rape?"
+Why are there laws in "advanced" countries like the United States that allow a
+19-year-old "boy" who makes love with his 17-year-old girlfriend, with her
+full consent, to be **arrested** by the girl's parents (!) for "statutory
+rape"?
To answer such questions, let us recall that the ruling class is not
-interested in encouraging mass tendencies toward democracy and independence
-and pleasure not derived from commodities but instead supports whatever
+interested in encouraging mass tendencies toward liberty, independence and
+pleasure not derived from commodities but instead supports whatever
contributes to mass submissiveness, docility, dependence, helplessness, and
respect for authority -- traits that perpetuate the hierarchies on which
ruling-class power and privileges depend.
-We have noted earlier that, because sex is the most intense form of pleasure
-(one of the most prominent contributors for intimacy and bonding people) and
-involves the bioenergy of the body and emotions, repression of sexuality is
-the most powerful means of psychologically crippling people and giving them a
-submissive/authoritarian character structure (as well as alienating people
-from each other). As Reich observes, such a character is composed of a mixture
-of _"sexual impotence, helplessness, a need for attachments, a nostalgia for a
-leader, fear of authority, timidity, and mysticism."_ As he also points out,
-_"people structured in this manner are **incapable of democracy.** All
-attempts to build up or maintain genuine democratically directed organisations
-come to grief when they encounter these character structures. They form the
-psychological soil of the masses in which dictatorial strivings and
-bureaucratic tendencies of democratically elected leaders can develop. . . .
-[Sexual suppression] produces the authority-fearing, life-fearing vassal, and
-thus constantly creates new possibilities whereby a handful of men in power
-can rule the masses."_ [**The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Regulating
-Character Structure**, p. 82, emphasis added]
+As sex is one of the most intense forms of pleasure and one of the most
+prominent contributors for intimacy and bonding with people emotionally,
+repression of sexuality is the most powerful means of psychologically
+crippling people and giving them a submissive/authoritarian character
+structure (as well as alienating people from each other). As Reich observed,
+such a character is composed of a mixture of _"sexual impotence, helplessness,
+a need for attachments, a nostalgia for a leader, fear of authority, timidity,
+and mysticism"_ and _"people structured in this manner are incapable of
+democracy. All attempts to build up or maintain genuine democratically
+directed organisations come to grief when they encounter these character
+structures. They form the psychological soil of the masses in which
+dictatorial strivings and bureaucratic tendencies of democratically elected
+leaders can develop."_ Sexual suppression _"produces the authority-fearing,
+life-fearing vassal, and thus constantly creates new possibilities whereby a
+handful of men in power can rule the masses."_ [**The Sexual Revolution**, p.
+82]
No doubt most members of the ruling elite are not fully conscious that their
own power and privileges depend on the mass perpetuation of sex-negative
@@ -1063,13 +820,13 @@ instinctively shudders at the thought of the "social chaos" it would unleash
nourish. This is why "family values," and "religion" (i.e. discipline and
compulsive sexual morality) are the mainstays of the conservative/reactionary
agenda. Thus it is crucially important for anarchists to address every aspect
-of sexual suppression in society. And this means affirming the right of
+of sexual suppression in society. This means affirming the right of
adolescents to an unrestricted sex life.
There are numerous arguments for teenage sexual liberation. For example, many
teen suicides could be prevented by removing the restrictions on adolescent
sexuality. This becomes clear from ethnological studies of sexually
-unrepressive "primitive" peoples. Thus:
+unrepressive tribal peoples:
> _"All reports, whether by missionaries or scholars, with or without the
proper indignation about the 'moral depravity' of 'savages,' state that the
@@ -1085,23 +842,22 @@ enjoy sexual intercourse from the beginning of puberty to marriage. None of
these reports contains any indication of sexual misery or suicide by
adolescents suffering from unrequited love (although the latter does of course
occur). The contradiction between sexual maturity and the absence of genital
-sexual gratification is non-existent."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 85]
+sexual gratification is non-existent."_ [Reich, **Op. Cit.**, p. 85]
Teenage sexual repression is also closely connected with crime. If there are
-hundreds of teenagers in a neighbourhood who have no place to pursue intimate
-sexual relationships, they will do it in dark corners, in cars or vans, etc.,
-always on the alert and anxious lest someone discover them. Under such
-conditions, full gratification is impossible, leading to a build-up of
-tension, frustration and stagnation of bioenergy (sexual stasis). Thus they
-feel unsatisfied, disturb each other, become jealous and angry, get into
-fights, turn to drugs as a substitute for a satisfying sex life, vandalise
-property to let off "steam" (repressed rage), or even murder someone. As Reich
-notes, _"juvenile delinquency is the visible expression of the subterranean
-sexual crisis in the lives of children and adolescents. And it may be
-predicted that no society will ever succeed in solving this problem, the
-problem of juvenile psychopathology, unless that society can muster the
+teenagers in a neighbourhood who have no place to pursue intimate sexual
+relationships, they will do it in dark corners, in cars or vans, etc., always
+on the alert and anxious lest someone discover them. Under such conditions,
+full gratification is impossible, leading to a build-up of tension and
+frustration. Thus they feel unsatisfied, disturb each other, become jealous
+and angry, get into fights, turn to drugs as a substitute for a satisfying sex
+life, vandalise property to let off "steam" (repressed rage), or even murder
+someone. As Reich noted, _"juvenile delinquency is the visible expression of
+the subterranean sexual crisis in the lives of children and adolescents. And
+it may be predicted that no society will ever succeed in solving this problem,
+the problem of juvenile psychopathology, unless that society can muster the
courage and acquire the knowledge to regulate the sexual life of its children
-and adolescents in a sex-affirmative manner."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 271]
+and adolescents in a sex-affirmative manner."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 271]
For these reasons, it is clear that a solution to the "gang problem" also
depends on adolescent sexual liberation. We are not suggesting, of course,
@@ -1109,134 +865,157 @@ that gangs themselves suppress sexual activity. Indeed, one of their main
attractions to teens is undoubtedly the hope of more opportunities for sex as
a gang member. However, gangs' typical obsessiveness with the promiscuous,
pornographic, sadistic, and other "dark" aspects of sex shows that by the time
-children reach the gang age they have already developed unhealthy secondary
-drives due to the generally sex-negative and repressive environment in which
-they have grown up. The expression of such drives is **not** what anarchists
-mean by "sexual freedom." Rather, anarchist proposals for teenage liberation
-are based on the premise that unrestricted sexuality in early childhood is the
-necessary condition for a **healthy** sexual freedom in adolescence.
+children reach gang age they have already developed unhealthy secondary drives
+due to the generally sex-negative and repressive environment in which they
+have grown up. The expression of such drives is **not** what anarchists mean
+by "sexual freedom." Rather, anarchist proposals for teenage liberation are
+based on the premise that a libertarian childhood is the necessary condition
+for a **healthy** sexual freedom in adolescence.
Applying these insights to our own society, it is clear that teenagers should
-not only have ample access to a private room where they can be undisturbed
-with their sexual partners, but that parents should actively **encourage**
-such behaviour for the sake of their child's health and happiness (while, of
-course, encouraging the knowledge and use of contraceptives and safe sex in
-general as well as respect for the other person involved in the relationship).
-This last point (of respecting others) is essential. As Maurice Brinton points
-out, attempts at sexual liberation will encounter two kinds of responses from
-established society - direct opposition and attempts at recuperation. The
-second response takes the form of _"first alienating and reifying sexuality,
-and then of frenetically exploiting this empty shell for commercial ends. As
-modern youth breaks out of the dual stranglehold of the authoritarian
-patriarchal family it encounters a projected image of free sexuality which is
-in fact a manipulatory distortion of it."_ This can be seen from the use of
-sex in advertising to the successful development of sex into a major consumer
-industry.
-
-However, such a development is the opposite of the healthy sexuality desired
-by anarchists. This is because _"sex is presented as something to be consumed.
-But the sexual instinct differs from certain other instincts... [as it can be
-satisfied only by] another human being, capable of thinking, acting,
-suffering. The alienation of sexuality under the conditions of modern
-capitalism is very much part of the general alienating process, in which
-people are converted into objects (in this case, objects of sexual
-consumption) and relationships are drained of human content. Undiscriminating,
-compulsive sexual activity, is not sexual freedom - although it may sometimes
-be a preparation for it (which repressive morality can never be). The illusion
-that alienated sex is sexual freedom constitutes yet another obstacle on the
-road to total emancipation. Sexual freedom implies a realisation and
-understanding of the autonomy of others."_ [**The Irrational in Politics**, p.
-60, p. 61]
+have ample access to a private room where they can be undisturbed with their
+sexual partners. Parents should also encourage the knowledge and use of
+contraceptives and safe sex in general as well as respect for the other person
+involved in the relationship. This does not mean encouraging promiscuity or
+sex for the sake of it. Rather, it means encouraging teenagers to know their
+own minds and desires, refusing to be pressured by anyone into anything. As
+can be seen from experience of this anarchist activist during the 1930s:
+
+> _"One time, a companero from the Juventudes [libertarian youth organisation]
+came over to me and said, 'You, who say you're so liberated. You're not so
+liberated.' (I'm telling you this so youll see the mentality of these men.)
+'Because if I ask you to give me a kiss, you wouldn't._
+
+> _"I just stood there staring at him, and thinking to myself, 'How do I get
+out of this one?" And then I said to him, 'Listen, when I want to go to bed
+with a guy, I'm the one that has to choose him. I don't go to bed with just
+anyone. You don't interest me as a man. I don't feel anything for you... Why
+should you want me to 'liberate myself,' as you put it, by going to bed with
+you? That's no liberation for me. That's just making love simply for the sake
+of making love.' 'No,' I said to him, 'love is something that has to be like
+eating: if you're hungry, you eat, and if you want to go to bed with a guy,
+then... Besides, I'm going to tell you something else . . . Your mouth doesn't
+appeal to me... And I don't like to make love with a guy without kissing
+him.'_
+
+> _"He was left speechless! But I did it with a dual purpose in mind...
+because I wanted to show him that that's not the way to educate companeros...
+That's what the struggle of women was like in Spain \-- even with men from our
+own group -- and I'm not even talking about what it was like with other
+guys."_ [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, **Free Women of Spain**, pp. 116-7]
+
+So respecting yourself and others, it must be stressed, is essential. As
+Maurice Brinton pointed out, attempts at sexual liberation will encounter two
+kinds of responses from established society -- direct opposition and attempts
+at recuperation. The second response takes the form of _"first alienating and
+reifying sexuality, and then of frenetically exploiting this empty shell for
+commercial ends. As modern youth breaks out of the dual stranglehold of
+repressive traditional morality and of the authoritarian patriarchal family it
+encounters a projected image of free sexuality which is in fact a manipulatory
+distortion of it."_ This can be seen from the use of sex in advertising to the
+successful development of sex into a major consumer industry. However, such a
+development is the opposite of the healthy sexuality desired by anarchists.
+This is because _"sex is presented as something to be consumed. But the sexual
+instinct differs from certain other instincts"_ as it can be satisfied only by
+_"another human being, capable of thinking, acting, suffering. The alienation
+of sexuality under the conditions of modern capitalism is very much part of
+the general alienating process, in which people are converted into objects (in
+this case, objects of sexual consumption) and relationships are drained of
+human content. Undiscriminating, compulsive sexual activity, is not sexual
+freedom -- although it may sometimes be a preparation for it (which repressive
+morality can never be). The illusion that alienated sex is sexual freedom
+constitutes yet another obstacle on the road to total emancipation. Sexual
+freedom implies a realisation and understanding of the autonomy of others."_
+[_"The Irrational in Politics"_, pp. 257-92, **For Workers' Power**, p. 277]
Therefore, anarchists see teenage sexual liberation as a means of developing
free individuals **as well as** reducing the evil effects of sexual repression
(which, we must note, also helps dehumanise individuals by encouraging the
-objectification of others, and in a patriarchal society, particularly of
+objectification of others, and in a patriarchal society particularly of
women).
-## J.6.9 But isn't this concern with teenage sexual liberation just a
-distraction from issues that should be of more concern to anarchists, like
-restructuring the economy?
+## J.6.6 But isn't this concern with sexual liberation just a distraction from
+revolution?
It would be insulting to teenagers to suggest that sexual freedom is, or
should be, their **only** concern. Many teens have a well-developed social
conscience and are keenly interested in problems of economic exploitation,
-poverty, social breakdown, environmental degradation, and the like.
-
-However, it is essential for anarchists to guard against the attitude
-typically found in Marxist-Leninist parties that spontaneous discussions about
-the sexual problems of youth are a "diversion from the class struggle." Such
-an attitude is economistic (not to mention covertly ascetic), because it is
-based on the premise that the economy must be the focus of all revolutionary
-efforts toward social change. No doubt restructuring the economy is important,
-but without mass sexual liberation no working class revolution be complete. In
-a so called free society, there will not be enough people around with the
-character structures necessary to create a **lasting** worker-controlled
-economy -- i.e. people who are capable of accepting freedom with
-responsibility. Instead, the attempt to force the creation of such an economy
-without preparing the necessary psychological soil for its growth will lead to
-a quick reversion to some new form of hierarchy and exploitation.
-
-Moreover, for most teenagers, breaking free from the sexual suppression that
+poverty, social breakdown, environmental degradation, and the like. The same
+can be said of people of any age!
+
+It is essential for anarchists to guard against the attitude typically found
+in Marxist-Leninist parties that spontaneous discussions about sexual problems
+are a "diversion from the class struggle." Such an attitude is economistic
+(not to mention covertly ascetic), because it is based on the premise that
+economic class must be the focus of all revolutionary efforts toward social
+change. No doubt transforming the economy is important, but without mass
+sexual liberation no working class revolution be complete as there will not be
+enough people around with the character structures necessary to create a
+**lasting** self-managed society and economy (i.e., people who are capable of
+accepting freedom with responsibility). Instead, the attempt to force the
+creation of such a system without preparing the necessary psychological soil
+for its growth will lead to a reversion to some new form of hierarchy and
+exploitation. Equally, society would be "free" in name only if repressive
+social morals existed and people were not able to express themselves as they
+so desire.
+
+Moreover, for many people breaking free from the sexual suppression that
threatens to cripple them psychologically is a major issue in their lives. For
-this reason, not many of them are likely to be attracted to the anarchist
-"freedom" movement if its exponents limit themselves to dry discussions of
-surplus value, alienated labour, and so forth. Instead, addressing sexual
-questions and problems must be integrated into a multi-faceted attack on the
-total system of domination. Teens should feel confident that anarchists are on
-the side of sexual pleasure and are not revolutionary ascetics demanding self-
+this reason, few of them are likely to be attracted to the anarchist "freedom"
+movement if its exponents limit themselves to dry discussions of surplus
+value, alienated labour, and so forth. Instead, addressing sexual questions
+and problems must be integrated into a multi-faceted attack on the total
+system of domination. People should feel confident that anarchists are on the
+side of sexual pleasure and are not revolutionary ascetics demanding self-
denial for the "sake of the revolution." Rather, it should be stressed that
the capacity for full sexual enjoyment is the an essential part of the
revolution. Indeed, _"incessant questioning and challenge to authority on the
subject of sex and of the compulsive family can only complement the
questioning and challenge to authority in other areas (for instance on the
-subject of who is to dominate the work process - or the purpose of work
+subject of who is to dominate the work process -- or the purpose of work
itself). Both challenges stress the autonomy of individuals and their
-domination of over important aspects of their lives. Both expose the alienated
+domination over important aspects of their lives. Both expose the alienated
concepts which pass for rationality and which govern so much of our thinking
and behaviour. The task of the conscious revolutionary is to make both
challenges explicit, to point out their deeply subversive content, and to
-explain their inter-relation."_ [Maurice Brinton, **Op. Cit.**, p. 62]
-
-We noted previously that in pre-patriarchal society, which rests on the social
-order of primitive communism, children have complete sexual freedom and that
-the idea of childhood asceticism develops as matricentric clan societies turn
-toward patriarchy in the economy and social structure (see section
-[B.1.5](secB1.html#secb15)). This sea-change in social attitudes toward
-childhood sexuality allows the authority-oriented character structure to
-develop instead of the formerly non-authoritarian ones. Ethnological research
-has shown that in pre-patriarchal societies, the general nature of work life
-in the collective corresponds with the free sexuality of children and
-adolescents -- that is, there are no rules coercing children and adolescents
-into specific forms of sexual life, and this creates the psychological basis
-for voluntary integration into the collective and voluntary discipline in
-work. This historical fact supports the premise that widespread sex-positive
+explain their inter-relation."_ [Maurice Brinton, _"The Irrational in
+Politics"_, pp. 257-92, **For Workers' Power**, p. 278]
+
+We noted previously that in pre-patriarchal society, which rests on a
+communistic/communal social order, children have complete sexual freedom and
+that the idea of childhood asceticism develops as such societies turn toward
+patriarchy in the economic and social structure (see [section
+B.1.5](secB1.html#secb15)). This sea-change in social attitudes toward
+sexuality allows the authority-oriented character structure to develop instead
+of the formerly non-authoritarian ones. Ethnological research has shown that
+in pre-patriarchal societies the general nature of work life in the community
+corresponds with the free development of children and adolescents -- that is,
+there are no rules coercing children and adolescents into specific forms of
+sexual life, and this creates the psychological basis for voluntary
+integration into the community and voluntary discipline in all forms of
+collective activity. This supports the premise that widespread sex-positive
attitudes are a necessary condition of a viable libertarian socialism.
-Psychology also clearly shows that every impediment to infantile and
-adolescent sexuality by parents, teachers, or administrative authorities must
-be stopped. As anarchists, our preferred way of doing so is by direct action.
-Thus we should encourage teens to feel that they have every chance of building
-their own lives. This will certainly not be an obstacle to or a distraction
+Psychology also clearly shows that every impediment to free expression of
+children by parents, teachers, or administrative authorities must be stopped.
+As anarchists, our preferred way of doing so is by direct action. Thus we
+should encourage all to feel that they have every chance of building their own
+personal lives. This will certainly not be an obstacle to or a distraction
from their involvement in the anarchist movement. On the contrary, if they can
-gradually solve the problem of (e.g.) private rooms themselves, they will work
-on other social projects with greatly increased pleasure and concentration.
-For, contrary to Freud, Reichian psychologists argue that beyond a certain
-point, excess sexual energy cannot be sublimated in work or any other
-purposeful activity but actually disturbs work by making the person restless
-and prone to fantasies, thus hindering concentration.
+gradually solve the problems facing their private lives, they will work on
+other social projects with greatly increased pleasure and concentration.
Besides engaging in direct action, anarchists can also support legal
-protection of infantile and adolescent sexuality (repeal of the insane
-statutory rape laws would be one example), just as they support legislation
+protection free expression and sexuality (repeal of the insane statutory rape
+laws and equal rights for gays, for example), just as they support legislation
that protects workers' right to strike, family leave, and so forth. However,
-as Reich observes, _"under no circumstances will the new order of sexual life
-be established by the decree of a central authority."_ [**Ibid.**, p. 279]
-That was a Leninist illusion. Rather, it will be established from the bottom
-up, by the gradual process of ever more widespread dissemination of knowledge
-about the adverse personal and social effects of sexual suppression, which
-will lead to mass acceptance of libertarian child-rearing and educational
-methods.
+as Reich observed, _"under no circumstances will the new order of sexual life
+be established by the decree of a central authority."_ [**The Sexual
+Revolution**, p. 279] That was a Leninist illusion. Rather, it will be
+established from the bottom up, by the gradual process of ever more widespread
+dissemination of knowledge about the adverse personal and social effects of
+sexual repression, and the benefits of libertarian child-rearing and
+educational methods.
A society in which people are capable of sexual happiness will be one where
they prefer to _"make love, not war,"_ and so will provide the best guarantee
@@ -1247,12 +1026,12 @@ reactionary threats, because the majority will be on the side of freedom and
capable of using it responsibly, rather than unconsciously longing for an
authoritarian father-figure to tell them what to do.
-Therefore, concern and action upon teenage sexual liberation (or child rearing
-in general or libertarian education) is a **key** part of social struggle and
-change. In no way can it be considered a "distraction" from "important"
+Therefore, concern and action upon sexual liberation, libertarian child
+rearing and libertarian education are **key** parts of social struggle and
+change. In no way can they be considered as "distractions" from "important"
political and economic issues as some "serious" revolutionaries like to claim.
-As Martha A. Ackelsberg notes (in relation to the practical work done by the
-**_Mujeres Libres_** group during the Spanish Revolution):
+As Martha A. Ackelsberg notes in relation to the practical work done by the
+**_Mujeres Libres_** group during the Spanish Revolution:
> _"Respecting children and educating them well was vitally important to the
process of revolutionary change. Ignorance made people particularly vulnerable
@@ -1263,3 +1042,18 @@ workplace]. Different schools and families would be necessary to prepare
people to live in a society without domination."_ [**Free Women of Spain**, p.
133]
+The personal **is** political and there is little point in producing a free
+economy if the people in it are not free to lead a full and pleasurable life!
+As such, the issue of sexual freedom is as important as economic and social
+freedom for anarchists. This can be seen when Emma Goldman recounted meeting
+Kropotkin who praised a paper she was involved with but proclaimed _"it would
+do more if it would not waste so much space discussing sex."_ She disagreed
+and a heated argument ensured about _"the place of the sex problem in
+anarchist propaganda."_ Finally, she remarked _"All right, dear comrade, when
+I have reached your age, the sex question may no longer be of importance to
+me. But it is now, and it is a tremendous factor for thousands, millions even,
+of young people."_ This, Goldman recalled, made Kropotkin stop short with _"an
+amused smile lighting up his kindly face. 'Fancy, I didn't think of that,' he
+replied. 'Perhaps you are right, after all.' He beamed affectionately upon me,
+with a humorous twinkle in his eye."_ [**Living My Life**, vol. 1, p. 253]
+
diff --git a/markdown/secJ7.md b/markdown/secJ7.md
index 21662e4a4e6ffc6023b4a626ce416f943b569162..64a146ca18a1784fc37c7e5a96ac0798dbf94ab1 100644
--- a/markdown/secJ7.md
+++ b/markdown/secJ7.md
@@ -1,78 +1,95 @@
-# J.7 What do anarchists mean by _"social revolution"_?
+# J.7 What do anarchists mean by social revolution?
-In anarchist theory, **_"social revolution"_** means far more than just
+In anarchist theory, **_social revolution_** means far more than just
revolution. For anarchists, a true revolution is far more than just a change
in the political makeup, structure or form of a society. It must transform all
aspects of a society -- political, economic, social, interpersonal
-relationships, sexual and so on -- and the individuals who comprise it.
-Indeed, these two transformations go hand in hand, complementing each other
-and supporting each other \-- individuals, while transforming society,
-transform themselves in the process.
-
-As Alexander Berkman put it, _"there are revolutions and revolutions. Some
-revolutions change only the governmental form by putting a new set of rulers
-in place of the old. These are political revolutions, and as such they are
-often meet with little resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the
-entire system of wage slavery must also do away with the power of one class to
-oppress another. That is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers, of
-government, not a political revolution, but one that seeks to alter the whole
-character of society. That would be a **social** revolution."_ [**ABC of
-Anarchism**, p. 34]
-
-It means two related things. Firstly, it means transforming all aspects of
-society and not just tinkering with certain aspects of the current system.
-Where political revolution means, in essence, changing bosses, social
-revolution means changing society. Thus social revolution signifies a change
-in the social, economic and cultural and sexual in a libertarian direction, a
-transformation in the way society is organised and run. Social revolution, in
-other words, does not aim to alter one form of subjection for another, but to
-do away with everything that can enslave and oppress the individual. Secondly,
-it means bringing about this fundamental change **directly** by the mass of
-people in society, rather than relying on political means of achieving this
-end, in the style of Marxist-Leninists and other authoritarian socialists. For
-anarchists, such an approach is a political revolution only and doomed to
-failure. Hence the _"actual, positive work of the social revolution must . . .
-be carried out by the toilers themselves, by the labouring people."_
-[Alexander Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 45]
+relationships, and so on -- and the individuals who comprise it. Indeed, these
+two transformations go hand in hand, complementing each other and supporting
+each other. People, while transforming society, transform themselves. As
+Alexander Berkman put it:
+
+> _"there are revolutions and revolutions. Some revolutions change only the
+governmental form by putting a new set of rulers in place of the old. These
+are political revolutions, and as such they are often meet with little
+resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the entire system of wage
+slavery must also do away with the power of one class to oppress another. That
+is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers, of government, not a political
+revolution, but one that seeks to alter the whole character of society. That
+would be a **social** revolution."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 176]
+
+It means two related things. First, it means transforming all parts of society
+and not just tinkering with certain aspects of the current system. Where
+political revolution means, in essence, changing bosses, social revolution
+means changing society, a transformation in the way society is organised and
+run. Social revolution, in other words, does not aim to change one form of
+subjection for another, but to do away with everything that can enslave and
+oppress the individual. Second, it means bringing about this fundamental
+change **directly** by the mass of people in society, rather than relying on
+political means of achieving this end, in the style of Marxist-Leninists and
+other authoritarian socialists. For anarchists, such an approach is a
+political revolution only and doomed to failure. The _"actual, positive work
+of the social revolution must . . . be carried out by the toilers themselves,
+by the labouring people"_ as _"the worse victims of present institutions, it
+is to their own interest to abolish them."_ [Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 189 and
+p. 187]
That is not to say that an anarchist social revolution is not political in
-content -- far from it; it should be obvious to anyone reading this FAQ that
-there are considerable political theories at work within anarchism. What we
-**are** saying, however, is that anarchists do not seek to seize power and
-attempt, through control of law enforcement and the military (in the style of
-governments) to bring change about from the top-down. Rather, we seek to bring
-change upward from below, and in so doing, make such a revolution inevitable
-and not contingent on the machinations of a political vanguard. As Durruti
-argued, _"[w]e never believed that the revolution consisted of the seizure of
-power by a minority which would impose a dictatorship on the people . . . We
-want a revolution by and for the people. Without this no revolution is
-possible. It would be a Coup d'Etat, nothing more."_ [quoted by Abel Paz,
+content -- far from it; it should be obvious to anyone familiar with anarchist
+theory that there are political theories and goals at work within anarchism.
+With an analysis of the state which proclaims it to be an instrument of
+minority class rule, designed to exclude participation by the many, it should
+be obvious that we aim to abolish it. What we **are** saying, however, is that
+anarchists do not seek to seize power and attempt, through control of law
+enforcement and the military (in the style of governments) to bring change
+about from the top-down. Rather, we seek to bring change upward from below,
+and in so doing, make such a revolution inevitable and not contingent on the
+machinations of a political vanguard (unsurprisingly, as we noted in [section
+H.3.3](secH3.html#sech33), Lenin dismissed talk of change exclusively from
+below as anarchist and saw the need for change from above by government). As
+Durruti argued: _"We never believed that the revolution consisted of the
+seizure of power by a minority which would impose a dictatorship on the people
+. . . We want a revolution by and for the people. Without this no revolution
+is possible. It would be a Coup d'Etat, nothing more."_ [quoted by Abel Paz,
**Durruti: The People Armed**, pp. 135-7]
-Thus, for anarchists, a social revolution is a movement from below, of the
-oppressed and exploited struggling for their own freedom. Moreover, such a
-revolution does not appear as if by magic. Rather, it is the case that
-revolutions _"are not improvised. They are not made at will by individuals.
-They come about through the force of circumstance and are independent of any
-deliberate will or conspiracy."_ [Michael Bakunin, quote by Brian Morris,
-**Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom**, p. 139] They are, in fact, a product
-of social evolution and of social struggle. As Malatesta reminds us:
+For anarchists, a social revolution is a movement from below, of the oppressed
+and exploited struggling for their own freedom. Moreover, such a revolution
+does not appear as if by magic. Rather, it is the case that revolutions _"are
+not improvised. They are not made at will by individuals nor even by the most
+powerful associations. They come independently of all will and all
+conspiracies, and are always brought on by the natural force of
+circumstance."_ [Bakunin, **The Political Philosophy of Bakunin**, p. 323]
+Revolutions break-out when the conditions are ripe and cannot be artificially
+produced (by, say, a union leadership proclaiming out of the blue such-and-
+such a day for a general strike). However, the actions of individuals and
+associations can make revolution more likely by their propaganda, struggles
+and organising so that when the circumstances change, people are able and
+willing to act in a revolutionary manner (by, say, spontaneously going on
+strike and their unions expanding the struggle into a general strike). This
+means that there is no mechanical, objective, process at work but rather
+something which we can influence but not command. Revolutions are a product of
+social evolution and of the social struggle which is an inevitable part of it:
> _"the oppressed masses . . . have never completely resigned themselves to
-oppression and poverty, and who today more than ever than ever show themselves
-thirsting for justice, freedom and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that
-they will not be able to achieve their emancipation except by union and
-solidarity with all the oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in the world.
-And they also understand that the indispensable condition for their
-emancipation which cannot be neglected is the possession of the means of
-production, of the land and of the instruments of labour."_ [**Anarchy**, p.
-30]
+oppression and poverty, and who today more than ever show themselves thirsting
+for justice, freedom and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that they will
+not be able to achieve their emancipation except by union and solidarity with
+all the oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in the world. And they also
+understand that the indispensable condition for their emancipation which
+cannot be neglected is the possession of the means of production, of the land
+and of the instruments of labour."_ [Malatesta, **Anarchy**, p. 33]
Thus any social revolution proceeds from the daily struggles of working class
people (just as anarchism does). It is not an event, rather it is a
-**process** \-- a process which is occurring at this moment. Thus, for
-anarchists, a social revolution is not something in the future but an process
-which is occurring in the here and now. As German Anarchist Gustav Landauer
+**process** \-- a process which is occurring at this moment. So a social
+revolution is not something in the future which we wait for but an process
+which is occurring in the here and now which we influence along side other
+tendencies as well as objective factors. This means that _"evolution and
+revolution are not two separate and different things. Still less are they
+opposites . . . Revolution is merely the boiling point of evolution."_
+[Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 179] This means how we act **now** matters as we
+shape the future by our struggles today. As German Anarchist Gustav Landauer
put it:
> _"The State is not something that can be destroyed by a revolution, but it
@@ -81,56 +98,55 @@ behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving
differently."_ [quoted by George Woodcock, **Anarchism**, p. 421]
This does not mean that anarchists do not recognise that a revolution will be
-marked by, say, insurrectionary events (such as a general strike, wide scale
-occupations of land, housing, workplaces, etc., actual insurrections and so
-on). Of course not, it means that we place these events in a process, within
-social movements and that they do not occur in isolation from history or the
+marked by, say, specific events (such as a general strike, wide scale
+occupations of land, housing, workplaces, actual insurrections and so on). Of
+course not. It means that we place these events in a process, within social
+movements recognising that they do not occur in isolation from history nor the
evolution of ideas and movements within society.
-Berkman echoes this point when he argued that while _"a social revolution is
+Berkman echoed this point when he argued that while _"a social revolution is
one that entirely changes the foundation of society, its political, economic
-and social character,"_ such a change _"must **first** take place in the ideas
+and social character"_ such a change _"must **first** take place in the ideas
and opinions of the people, in the minds of men [and women]."_ This means that
_"the social revolution must be prepared. Prepared in these sense of
furthering evolutionary process, of enlightening the people about the evils of
present-day society and convincing them of the desirability and possibility,
-of the justice and practicability of a social life based on liberty."_
-[Alexander Berkman, **Op. Cit.**, p. 38] And such preparation would be the
-result of social struggle in the here and now, social struggle based on direct
-action, solidarity and self-managed organisations. While Berkman concentrates
-on the labour movement in his classic work, but his comments are applicable to
-all social movements:
+of the justice and practicability of a social life based on liberty."_ [**Op.
+Cit.**, p. 180-1] Such preparation would be the result of social struggle in
+the here and now, social struggle based on direct action, solidarity and self-
+managed organisations. While Berkman concentrated on the labour movement, his
+comments are applicable to all social movements:
> _"In the daily struggle of the proletariat such an organisation [a
syndicalist union] would be able to achieve victories about which the
-conservative union, as at present built, cannot even dream. . . . Such a union
+conservative union, as at present built, cannot even dream . . . Such a union
would soon become something more than a mere defender and protector of the
worker. It would gain a vital realisation of the meaning of unity and
consequent power, of labour solidarity. The factory and shop would serve as a
-training camp to develop the worker's understanding of his proper role in
-life, to cultivate his [or her] self-reliance and independence, teach him [or
-her] mutual help and co-operation, and make him [or her] conscious of his [or
-her] responsibility. He will learn to decide and act on his [or her] own
-judgement, not leaving it to leaders or politicians to attend to his [or her]
-affairs and look out for his [or her] welfare. . . He [or she] will grow to
-understand that present economic and social arrangements are wrong and
-criminal, and he [or she] will determine to change them. The shop committee
-and union will become the field of preparation for a new economic system, for
-a new social life."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 59]
+training camp to develop the worker's understanding of his [or her] proper
+role in life, to cultivate his [or her] self-reliance and independence, teach
+him [or her] mutual help and co-operation, and make him [or her] conscious of
+his [or her] responsibility. He [or she] will learn to decide and act on his
+[or her] own judgement, not leaving it to leaders or politicians to attend to
+his [or her] affairs and look out for his [or her] welfare . . . He [or she]
+will grow to understand that present economic and social arrangements are
+wrong and criminal, and he [or she] will determine to change them. The shop
+committee and union will become the field of preparation for a new economic
+system, for a new social life."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 206-7]
In other words, the struggle against authority, exploitation, oppression and
domination in the here and now is the start of the social revolution. It is
-this daily struggle which creates free people and the organisations it
-generates _"bear . . . the living seed of the new society which is to replace
-the old one. They are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the
-future itself."_ [Michael Bakunin, **Bakunin On Anarchism**, p. 255] Hence
-Bakunin's comment that anarchists think socialism will be attained only _"by
-the development and organisation, not of the political but of the social
-organisation (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses
-as much in the towns as in the countryside."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected
-Writings**, pp. 197-8] Such social power is expressed in economic and
-community organisations such as self-managed unions and workplace/community
-assemblies (see [section J.5](secJ5.html)).
+this daily struggle, Bakunin stressed, which creates free people and the
+organisations it generates _"bear . . . the living seed of the new society
+which is to replace the old one. They are creating not only the ideas, but
+also the facts of the future itself."_ Therefore (libertarian) socialism will
+be attained only _"through the development and organisation of the non-
+political or anti-political social power of the working classes in city and
+country."_ [**Bakunin On Anarchism**, p. 255 and p. 263] Such social power is
+expressed in economic and community organisations such as self-managed unions
+and workplace/community assemblies (see [section J.5](secJ5.html)) and these
+form the organisational framework of a free society (see [section
+I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23)).
Anarchists try and follow the example of our Spanish comrades in the C.N.T.
and F.A.I. who, when _"faced with the conventional opposition between
@@ -138,15 +154,15 @@ reformism and revolution, they appear, in effect, to have put forward a third
alternative, seeking to obtain immediate practical improvements through the
actual development, in practice, of autonomous, libertarian forms of self-
organisation."_ [Nick Rider, _"The Practice of Direct Action: The Barcelona
-Rent Strike of 1931"_, in **For Anarchism**, pp. 79-105, David Goodway (ed.),
-p. 99] While doing this, anarchists must also _"beware of ourselves becoming
-less anarchist because the masses are not ready for anarchy."_ [Malatesta,
-**Life and Ideas**, p. 162]
-
-Therefore, revolution and anarchism is the product of struggle, a social
-process in which anarchist ideas spread and develop. However, _"[t]his does
-not mean. . . that to achieve anarchy we must wait till **everyone** becomes
-an anarchist. On the contrary. . . under present conditions only a small
+Rent Strike of 1931"_, pp. 79-105, **For Anarchism**, David Goodway (ed.), p.
+99] While doing this, anarchists must also _"beware of ourselves becoming less
+anarchist because the masses are not ready for anarchy."_ [Malatesta, **Errico
+Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 162]
+
+So revolution and anarchism is the product of struggle, a social process in
+which anarchist ideas spread and develop._"This does not mean,"_ argued
+Malatesta, _"that to achieve anarchy we must wait till **everyone** becomes an
+anarchist. On the contrary . . . under present conditions only a small
minority, favoured by specific circumstances, can manage to conceive what
anarchy is. It would be wishful thinking to hope for a general conversion
before a change actually took place in the kind of environment in which
@@ -155,40 +171,38 @@ that [we] . . . need to organise for the bringing about of anarchy, or at any
rate that degree of anarchy which could become gradually feasible, as soon as
a sufficient amount of freedom has been won and a nucleus of anarchists
somewhere exists that is both numerically strong enough and able to be self-
-sufficient and to spread its influence locally."_ [Errico Malatesta, **The
-Anarchist Revolution**, pp. 83-4]
+sufficient and to spread its influence locally."_ [**The Anarchist
+Revolution**, pp. 83-4]
-Thus anarchists influence the struggle, the revolutionary process by
+Thus anarchists influence social struggle, the revolutionary process, by
encouraging anarchistic tendencies within those who are not yet anarchists but
-are instinctively acting in a libertarian manner. Anarchists spread the
-anarchist message to those in struggle and support libertarian tendencies in
-it as far as they can. In this way, more and more people will become
-anarchists and anarchy will become increasingly possible. We discuss the role
-of anarchists in a social revolution in [section J.7.4](secJ7.html#secj74) and
-will not do so now.
-
-For anarchists, a social revolution is the end product of years of social
-struggle. It is marked by the transformation of a given society and the
-breaking down of all forms of oppression and the creation of new ways of
-living, new forms of self-managed organisation, a new attitude to live itself.
-Moreover, we do not wait for the future to introduce such transformations in
-our daily life. Rather, we try and create as much anarchistic tendencies in
-today's society as possible in the firm belief that in so doing we are pushing
-the creation of a free society nearer.
-
-So anarchists, including revolutionary ones, try to make the world more
+are instinctively acting in a libertarian manner. Anarchists spread our
+message to those in struggle and support libertarian tendencies in it as far
+as we can. In this way, more and more people will become anarchists and
+anarchy will become increasingly possible (we discuss the role of anarchists
+in a social revolution in [section J.7.4](secJ7.html#secj74)). For anarchists,
+a social revolution is the end product of years of struggle. It is marked by
+the transformation of a given society, the breaking down of all forms of
+oppression and the creation of new ways of living, new forms of self-managed
+organisation, a new attitude to life itself. Moreover, we do not wait for the
+future to introduce such transformations in our daily life. Rather, we try and
+create as many anarchistic tendencies in today's society as possible in the
+firm belief that in so doing we are pushing the creation of a free society
+nearer.
+
+So anarchists, including revolutionary ones, try to make the world today more
libertarian and so bring us closer to freedom. Few anarchists think of anarchy
as something in (or for) the distant future, rather it is something we try and
create in the here and now by living and struggling in a libertarian manner.
Once enough people do this, then a more extensive change towards anarchy (i.e.
-a revolution) is inevitable.
+a revolution) is possible.
-## J.7.1 Are all anarchists revolutionaries?
+## J.7.1 Why are most anarchists revolutionaries?
-No, far from it. While most anarchists do believe that a social revolution is
-required to create a free society, some reject the idea. This is because they
-think that revolutions are by their very nature violent and coercive and so
-are against anarchist principles. In the words of Proudhon (in reply to Marx):
+While most anarchists do believe that a social revolution is required to
+create a free society, some reject the idea. This is because they think that
+revolutions are by their very nature coercive and so are against anarchist
+principles. In the words of Proudhon (in reply to Marx):
> _"Perhaps you still hold the opinion that no reform is possible without a
helping **coup de main,** without what used to be called a revolution but
@@ -208,15 +222,20 @@ power, they argue, revolution is doomed to failure.
Those opposed to revolution come from all tendencies of the movement.
Traditionally, Individualist anarchists are usually against the idea of
revolution, as was Proudhon. However, with the failure of the Russian
-Revolution and the defeat of the C.N.T.-F.A.I. in Spain, some social
-anarchists have rethought support for revolution. Rather than seeing
-revolution as the key way of creating a free society they consider it doomed
-to failure as the state is too strong a force to be overcome by insurrection.
-Instead of revolution, such anarchists support the creation of alternatives,
-such as co-operatives, mutual banks and so on, which will help transform
-capitalism into libertarian socialism. Such alternative building, combined
-with civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes, is seen as the best way to
-creating anarchy.
+Revolution and the defeat of the CNT-FAI in Spain, some social anarchists have
+rethought support for revolution. Rather than seeing revolution as the key way
+of creating a free society they consider it doomed to failure as the state is
+too strong a force to be overcome by insurrection. Instead of revolution, such
+anarchists support the creation of alternatives, such as co-operatives, mutual
+banks and so on, which will help transform capitalism into libertarian
+socialism by _"burn[ing] Property little by little"_ via _"some system of
+economics"_ which will _"put back into society . . . the wealth which has been
+taken out of society by another system of economics."_ [Proudhon, **Op.
+Cit.**, p. 151] Such alternative building, combined with pressurising the
+state to, say, use co-operatives to run public services and industries as well
+as civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes, is seen as the best way to
+creating anarchy. This may take time, they argue, but such gradual change will
+be more successful in the long run.
Most revolutionary anarchists agree on the importance of building libertarian
alternatives in the here and now. They would agree with Bakunin when he argued
@@ -232,73 +251,68 @@ most anarchists, the difference of evolution and revolution is one of little
import -- anarchists should support libertarian tendencies within society as
they support revolutionary situations when they occur.
-Moreover, revolutionary anarchists argue that, ultimately, capitalism cannot
-be reformed away nor will the state wither away under the onslaught of
-libertarian institutions and attitudes. They do not consider it possible to
-_"burn Property little by little"_ via _"some system of economics"_ which will
-_"put back into society . . . the wealth which has been taken out of society
-by another system of economics"_, to use Proudhon's expression. [**Op. Cit.**,
-p. 151] Therefore, libertarian tendencies within capitalism may make life
-better under that system but they cannot, ultimately, get rid of it. This
-implies a social revolution, they argue. Such anarchists agree with Alexander
-Berkman when he writes:
-
-> _"This is no record of any government or authority, of any group or class in
-power having given up its mastery voluntarily. In every instance it required
-the use of force, or at least the threat of it."_ [**ABC of Anarchism**, p.
-32]
-
-Even the end of State capitalism ("Communism") in the Eastern Block does not
-contradict this argument. Without the mass action of the population, the
-regime would have continued. Faced with a massive popular revolt, the
-Commissars realised that it was better to renounce power than have it taken
-from them. Thus mass rebellion, the start of any true revolution, was
-required.
-
-Moreover, the argument that the state is too powerful to be defeated has been
-proven wrong time and time again. Every revolution has defeated a military
-machine which previously been claimed to be unbeatable. For example, the
-people armed is Spain defeated the military in two-thirds of the country.
+However, revolutionary anarchists argue that, ultimately, capitalism cannot be
+reformed away nor will the state wither away under the onslaught of
+libertarian institutions and attitudes. Neither mutual banking (see [section
+J.5.7](secJ5.html#secj57)) nor co-operatives (see [section
+J.5.11](secJ5.html#secj511)) can out-compete capitalist institutions. This
+means that these alternatives, will important, are insufficient to the task of
+creating a free society. This suggests that while libertarian tendencies
+within capitalism may make life better under that system, they cannot get rid
+of it. This requires a social revolution, they argue. Such anarchists agree
+with Alexander Berkman that there _"is no record of any government or
+authority, of any group or class in power having given up its mastery
+voluntarily. In every instance it required the use of force, or at least the
+threat of it."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 174] Even the end of State
+capitalism ("Communism") in Eastern Europe did not contradict this argument.
+Without the mass action of the population, the regime would have continued.
+Faced with a massive popular revolt, the Commissars realised that it was
+better to renounce (some) power than have it all taken from them (and they
+were right, as this allowed many of them to become part of the new, private
+capitalist, ruling class). Thus mass rebellion, the start of any true
+revolution, was required.
+
+The argument that the state is too powerful to be defeated has been proven
+wrong time and time again. Every revolution has defeated a military machine
+which previously had been proclaimed to be unbeatable (most obviously, the
+people armed in Spain defeated the military in two-thirds of the country).
Ultimately, the power of the state rests on its troops following orders. If
those troops rebel, then the state is powerless. That is why anarchists have
always produced anti-militarist propaganda urging troops to join strikers and
-other people in revolt. Revolutionary anarchists, therefore, argue that any
-state can be defeated, if the circumstances are right and the work of
-anarchists is to encourage those circumstances.
+other people in revolt. Revolutionary anarchists argue that any state can be
+defeated, if the circumstances are right and the work of anarchists is to
+encourage those circumstances.
In addition, revolutionary anarchists argue that even if anarchists did not
support revolutionary change, this would not stop such events happening.
Revolutions are the product of developments in human society and occur whether
we desire them or not. They start with small rebellions, small acts of refusal
-by individuals, groups, workplaces, communities and grow. These acts of
+by individuals, groups, workplaces and communities, then grow. These acts of
rebellion are inevitable in any hierarchical society, as is their spreading
wider and wider. Revolutionary anarchists argue that anarchists must, by the
nature of our politics and our desire for freedom, support such acts of
rebellion and, ultimately, social revolution. Not to do so means ignoring
people in struggle against our common enemy and ignoring the means by which
anarchists ideas and attitudes will grow within existing society. Thus
-Alexander Berkman is right when he wrote:
+Alexander Berkman was right when he wrote:
> _"That is why it is no prophecy to foresee that some day it must come to
-decisive struggle between the masters of life and the dispossessed masses.
+decisive struggle between the masters of life and the dispossessed masses._
->
+> _"As a matter if fact, that struggle is going on all the time._
-> "As a matter if fact, that struggle is going on all the time. There is a
-continuous warfare between capital and labour. That warfare generally proceeds
-within so-called legal forms. But even these erupt now and then in violence,
-as during strikes and lockouts, because the armed fist of government is always
-at the service of the masters, and that fist gets into action the moment
-capital feels its profits threatened: then it drops the mask of 'mutual
-interests' and 'partnership' with labour and resorts to the final argument of
-every master, to coercion and force.
+> _"There is a continuous warfare between capital and labour. That warfare
+generally proceeds within so-called legal forms. But even these erupt now and
+then in violence, as during strikes and lockouts, because the armed fist of
+government is always at the service of the masters, and that fist gets into
+action the moment capital feels its profits threatened: then it drops the mask
+of 'mutual interests' and 'partnership' with labour and resorts to the final
+argument of every master, to coercion and force._
->
-
-> "It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow
+> _"It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow
themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will they
miraculously 'disappear' of themselves, as some people pretend to believe. It
-will require a revolution to get rid of them."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 33]
+will require a revolution to get rid of them."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 174]
However, all anarchists are agreed that any revolution should be as non-
violent as possible. Violence is the tool of oppression and, for anarchists,
@@ -307,7 +321,11 @@ Therefore revolutionary anarchists do not seek "violent revolution" -- they
are just aware that when people refuse to kow-tow to authority then that
authority will use violence against them. This use of violence has been
directed against non-violent forms of direct action and so those anarchists
-who reject revolution will not avoid state violence directed against.
+who reject revolution will not avoid state violence directed against them
+unless they renounce **all** forms of resistance to state and capitalist
+authority. So when it comes to effective action by the subjects of an
+authority, the relevant question quickly becomes how much does our freedom
+depend on us **not** exercising it?
Nor do revolutionary anarchists think that revolution is in contradiction to
the principles of anarchism. As Malatesta put it, _"[f]or two people to live
@@ -315,13 +333,13 @@ in peace they must both want peace; if one insists on using force to oblige
the other to work for him and serve him, then the other, if he wishes to
retain his dignity as a man and not be reduced to abject slavery, will be
obliged, in spite of his love of peace, to resist force with adequate means."_
-[Malatesta, **Life and Ideas**, p. 54] Under any hierarchical system, those in
-authority do not leave those subject to them in peace. The boss does not treat
-his/her workers as equals, working together by free agreement without
-differences in power. Rather, the boss orders the worker about and uses the
-threat of sanctions to get compliance. Similarly with the state. Under these
-conditions, revolution cannot be authoritarian -- for it is not authoritarian
-to destroy authority! To quote Rudolf Rocker:
+[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 54] Under any hierarchical
+system, those in authority do not leave those subject to them in peace. The
+boss does not treat his/her workers as equals, working together by free
+agreement without differences in power. Rather, the boss orders the worker
+about and uses the threat of sanctions to get compliance. Similarly with the
+state. Under these conditions, revolution cannot be authoritarian -- for it is
+not authoritarian to destroy authority! To quote Rudolf Rocker:
> _"We . . . know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And we
know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their privileges
@@ -334,33 +352,30 @@ is, and will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people
under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of liberation; a
proclamation of social justice; the very essence of social revolution, which
has nothing in common with the utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship."_
-[**Anarchism and Sovietism**]
+[_"Anarchism and Sovietism"_, pp. 53-74, **The Poverty of Statism**, Albert
+Meltzer (ed.), p. 73]
-Errico Malatesta comments reflect well the position of revolutionary
-anarchists with regards to the use of force:
+It should also be noted that those who proclaim that a revolution is
+inherently authoritarian like, say, Engels (see [section
+H.4.7](secH4.html#sech47)) are confused. They fail to see that it is hardly
+"authoritarian" to stop someone ruling you! It is an act of liberation to free
+oneself from those oppressing you. Malatesta comments reflect well the
+position of revolutionary anarchists with regards to the use of force:
> _"We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we wish to submit to a
-violent imposition.
-
->
-
-> "We intend to use force against government, because it is by force that we
-are kept in subjection by government.
-
->
+violent imposition._
-> "We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by force that
-they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the fruit of human
-labour, and use it to oblige others to work in their interest.
+> _"We intend to use force against government, because it is by force that we
+are kept in subjection by government._
->
+> _"We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by force
+that they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the fruit of human
+labour, and use it to oblige others to work in their interest._
-> "We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain or regain
-the means to impose his will and exploit the labour of others. . .
+> _"We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain or
+regain the means to impose his will and exploit the labour of others . . ._
->
-
-> "With the exception of these cases, in which the use of violence is
+> _"With the exception of these cases, in which the use of violence is
justified as a defence against force, we are always against violence, and for
self-determination."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 56]
@@ -393,51 +408,48 @@ contagious. That is, as soon as any group of people anywhere in the world
becomes addicted to power, those within range of their aggression also feel
compelled to embrace the structures of power, including centralised control
over the use of deadly force, in order to protect themselves from their
-neighbours. But once these structures of power are adopted, authoritarian
+neighbours. Once these structures of power are adopted, authoritarian
institutions become self-perpetuating.
In this situation, fear becomes the underlying emotion behind the
conservatism, conformity, and mental inertia of the majority, who in that
state become vulnerable to the self-serving propaganda of authoritarian elites
alleging the necessity of the state, strong leaders, militarism, "law and
-order," capitalist bosses, etc. Hence the simultaneous transformation of
+order," capitalists, rulers, etc. The simultaneous transformation of
institutions and individual psychology becomes even more difficult to imagine.
Serious as these obstacles may be, they do not warrant despair. To see why,
-let's note first that "paradigm shifts" in science have not generally derived
+let us note first that "paradigm shifts" in science have not generally derived
from new developments in one field alone but from a convergence of cumulative
developments in several different fields at once. For example, the Einsteinian
revolution which resulted in the overthrow of the Newtonian paradigm was due
to simultaneous progress in mathematics, physics, astronomy and other sciences
that all influenced, reacted on, and cross-fertilised each other (see Thomas
-Kuhn, **The Structure of Scientific Revolutions**, 1962). Similarly, if there
-is going to be a "paradigm shift" in the social realm, i.e. from hierarchical
-to non-hierarchical institutions, it is likely to emerge from the convergence
-of a number of different socio-economic and political developments at the same
-time. We have discussed these developments in [section J.4](secJ4.html) and so
-will not repeat ourselves here. In a hierarchical society, the oppression
-which authority produces resistance, and so hope. The _"instinct for freedom"_
-cannot be repressed forever.
-
-That is why anarchists stress the importance of direct action and self-help
-(see sections [J.2](secJ2.html) and [J.4](secJ4.html)). By the very process of
-struggle, by practising self-management, direct action, solidarity people
-create the necessary "paradigm shift" in both themselves and society as a
-whole. In the words of Malatesta, _"[o]nly freedom or the struggle for freedom
-can be the school for freedom."_ [**Life and Ideas**, p. 59] Thus the struggle
-against authority is the school of anarchy -- it encourages libertarian
-tendencies in society and the transformation of individuals into anarchists.
-In a revolutionary situation, this process is accelerated. It is worth quoting
-Murray Bookchin at length on this subject:
+Kuhn's **The Structure of Scientific Revolutions**). Similarly, if there is
+going to be a "paradigm shift" in the social realm, i.e. from hierarchical to
+non-hierarchical institutions, it is likely to emerge from the convergence of
+a number of different socio-economic and political developments at the same
+time. In a hierarchical society, the oppression authority produces also
+generates resistance, and so hope. The _"instinct for freedom"_ cannot be
+repressed forever.
+
+That is why anarchists stress the importance of direct action ([section
+J.2](secJ2.html)) and self-help ([section J.5](secJ5.html)). By the very
+process of struggle, by practising self-management, direct action and
+solidarity, people create the necessary "paradigm shift" in both themselves
+and society as a whole. Thus the struggle against authority is the school of
+anarchy -- it encourages libertarian tendencies in society and the
+transformation of individuals into anarchists (_"Only freedom or the struggle
+for freedom can be the school for freedom."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta:
+His Life and Ideas**, p. 59]). In a revolutionary situation, this process is
+accelerated. It is worth quoting Murray Bookchin at length on this subject:
> _"Revolutions are profoundly educational processes, indeed veritable
cauldrons in which all kinds of conflicting ideas and tendencies are sifted
-out in the minds of a revolutionary people. . .
-
->
+out in the minds of a revolutionary people . . ._
-> "Individuals who enter into a revolutionary process are by no means the same
-after the revolution as they were before it began. Those who encounter a
+> _"Individuals who enter into a revolutionary process are by no means the
+same after the revolution as they were before it began. Those who encounter a
modicum of success in revolutionary times learn more within a span of a few
weeks or months than they might have learned over their lifetime in non-
revolutionary times. Conventional ideas fall away with extraordinary rapidity;
@@ -447,11 +459,9 @@ necessary, discarded. Even newer ideas, often flagrantly radical in character,
are adopted with an elan that frightens ruling elites -- however radical the
latter may profess to be -- and they soon become deeply rooted in the popular
consciousness. Authorities hallowed by age-old tradition are suddenly divested
-of their prestige, legitimacy, and power to govern. . .
-
->
+of their prestige, legitimacy, and power to govern . . ._
-> "So tumultuous socially and psychologically are revolutions in general that
+> _"So tumultuous socially and psychologically are revolutions in general that
they constitute a standing challenge to ideologues, including sociobiologists,
who assert that human behaviour is fixed and human nature predetermined.
Revolutionary changes reveal a remarkable flexibility in 'human nature,' yet
@@ -459,16 +469,14 @@ few psychologists have elected to study the social and psychological tumult of
revolution as well as the institutional changes it so often produces. Thus
much must be said with fervent emphasis: **to continue to judge the behaviour
of a people during and after a revolution by the same standards one judged
-them by beforehand is completely myopic.**
-
->
-
-> "I wish to argue [like all anarchists] that the capacity of a revolution to
-produce far-reaching ideological and moral changes in a people stems primarily
-from the opportunity it affords ordinary, indeed oppressed, people to exercise
-popular self-management -- to enter directly, rapidly, and exhilaratingly into
-control over most aspects of their social and personal lives. To the extent
-that an insurrectionary people takes over the reins of power from the formerly
+them by beforehand is completely myopic.**_
+
+> _"I wish to argue that the capacity of a revolution to produce far-reaching
+ideological and moral changes in a people stems primarily from the opportunity
+it affords ordinary, indeed oppressed, people to exercise popular self-
+management -- to enter directly, rapidly, and exhilaratingly into control over
+most aspects of their social and personal lives. To the extent that an
+insurrectionary people takes over the reins of power from the formerly
hallowed elites who oppressed them and begins to restructure society along
radically populist lines, individuals grow aware of latent powers within
themselves that nourish their previously suppressed creativity, sense of self-
@@ -477,25 +485,28 @@ sanctified, as inflexible custom had previously taught them; rather, it is
malleable and subject, within certain limits, to change according to human
will and desire."_ [**The Third Revolution**, vol. 1, pp. 6-7]
-So, social revolutions are possible. Anarchists anticipate successful co-
-operation within certain circumstance. People who are in the habit of taking
-orders from bosses are not capable of creating a new society. Tendencies
-towards freedom, self-management, co-operation and solidarity are not simply
-an act of ethical will which overcomes the competitive and hierarchical
-behaviour capitalism generates within those who live in it. Capitalism is, as
-Malatesta argued, based on competition -- and this includes the working class.
-Thus conflict is endemic to working class life under capitalism. However,
-**_co-operation**_ is stimulated within our class by our struggles to survive
-in and resist the system. This tendency for co-operation generated by struggle
-against capitalism also produces the habits required for a free society -- by
-struggling to change the world (even a small part of it), people also change
-themselves. Direct action produces empowered and self-reliant people who can
-manage their own affairs themselves. It is on the liberating effects of
-struggle, the tendencies towards individual and collective self-management and
-direct action it generates, the needs and feelings for solidarity and creative
-solutions to pressing problems it produces that anarchists base their positive
-answer on whether social revolution is possible. History has shown that we are
-right. It will do so again.
+In short, _"it is only through th[e] struggle for freedom, equality and
+solidarity that you will reach an understanding of anarchism."_ [Nestor
+Makhno, **The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays**, p. 71]
+
+So, social revolutions are possible. Anarchists anticipate successful revolts
+within certain circumstance. People who are in the habit of taking orders from
+bosses are not capable of creating a new society. Tendencies towards freedom,
+self-management, co-operation and solidarity are not simply an act of ethical
+will which overcomes the competitive and hierarchical behaviour capitalism
+generates within those who live in it. Capitalism is, as Malatesta noted,
+based on competition -- and this includes **within** the working class.
+However, **_co-operation**_ is stimulated within our class by our struggles to
+survive in and resist the system. This tendency for co-operation generated by
+struggle against capitalism also produces the habits required for a free
+society -- by struggling to change the world (even a small part of it), people
+also change themselves. Direct action produces empowered and self-reliant
+people who can manage their own affairs themselves. It is on the liberating
+effects of struggle, the tendencies towards individual and collective self-
+management and direct action it generates, the needs and feelings for
+solidarity and creative solutions to pressing problems it produces that
+anarchists base their positive answer on whether social revolution is
+possible. History has shown that we are right. It will do so again.
## J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?
@@ -503,21 +514,21 @@ While many try and paint revolutions (and anarchists) as being violent by
their very nature, the social revolution desired by anarchists is essentially
non-violent. This is because, to quote Bakunin, _"[i]n order to launch a
radical revolution, it is . . . necessary to attack positions and things and
-to destroy [the institution of] property and the State, but there will be no
-need to destroy men and to condemn ourselves to the inevitable reaction which
-is unfailingly produced in every society by the slaughter of men."_ [**Michael
-Bakunin: Selected Writings**, pp. 168-9]
-
-As Bakunin noted elsewhere, the end of property is also non-violent:
+to destroy property and the State, but there will be no need to destroy men
+and to condemn ourselves to the inevitable reaction which is unfailingly
+produced in every society by the slaughter of men."_ [**Michael Bakunin:
+Selected Writings**, pp. 168-9] Equally, to destroy the institution of private
+property there is no need to destroy the actual useful things monopolised by
+the few:
> _"How to smash the tyranny of capital? Destroy capital? But that would be to
destroy all the riches accumulated on earth, all primary materials, all the
-instruments of labour, all the means of labour. . . Thus capital cannot and
+instruments of labour, all the means of labour . . . Thus capital cannot and
must not be destroyed. It must be preserved . . . there is but a single
solution -- **the intimate and complete union of capital and labour** . . .
the workers must obtain not individual but **collective** property in capital
. . . the collective property of capital . . . [is] the absolutely necessary
-conditions for of the emancipation **of labour and of the workers.**"_ [**The
+conditions of the emancipation **of labour and of the workers.**"_ [**The
Basic Bakunin**, pp. 90-1]
The essentially non-violent nature of anarchist ideas of social revolution can
@@ -537,67 +548,93 @@ out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt -- no matter how
achieved."_ [quoted by Howard Zinn, **A People's History of the United
States**, pp. 370-1]
-If the strikers had occupied their workplaces and local communities can
+If the strikers had occupied their workplaces and local communities had
created popular assemblies then the attempted revolution would have become an
-actual one without any use of violence at all. This indicates the strength of
-ordinary people and the relative weakness of government and capitalism -- they
-only work when they can force people to respect them.
-
-In Italy, a year latter, the occupations of the factories and land started. As
-Malatesta pointed out, _"in **Umanita Nova** [the daily anarchist newspaper]
-we . . . said that if the movement spread to all sectors of industry, that is
-workers and peasants followed the example of the metallurgists, of getting rid
-of the bosses and taking over the means of production, the revolution would
-succeed without shedding a single drop of blood."_ Thus the _"occupation of
-the factories and the land suited perfectly our programme of action."_ [**Life
-and Ideas**, p. 135]
+actual one without any use of violence at all. In Italy, a year later, the
+occupations of the factories and land started. As Malatesta pointed out, _"in
+**Umanita Nova** [the daily anarchist newspaper] we . . . said that if the
+movement spread to all sectors of industry, that is workers and peasants
+followed the example of the metallurgists, of getting rid of the bosses and
+taking over the means of production, the revolution would succeed without
+shedding a single drop of blood."_ Thus the _"occupation of the factories and
+the land suited perfectly our programme of action."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His
+Life and Ideas**, p. 135] Sadly the workers followed their socialist trade
+union leaders and stopped the occupations rather than spreading them.
+
+These events indicate the strength of ordinary people and the relative
+weakness of government and capitalism -- they only work when they can force
+people to respect them. After all, a government is _"only a handful of men"_
+and is strong _"when the people are with it. Then they supply the government
+with money, with an army and navy, obey it, and enable it to function."_
+Remove that support and _"no government can accomplish anything."_ The same
+can be said of capitalists, whose wealth _"would do them no good but for the
+willingness of the people to work for them and pay tribute to them."_ Both
+would _"find out that all their boasted power and strength disappear when the
+people refuse to acknowledge them as masters, refuse to let them lord it over
+them."_ In contrast, _"the people's power"_ is _"**actual**: it cannot be
+taken away . . . It cannot be taken away because it does not consist of
+possessions but in ability. It is the ability to create, to produce."_ To
+achieve a free society we need to _"be conscious of its tremendous power."_
+[Alexander Berkman, **What is Anarchism?**, p. 84, p. 86, p. 87 and p. 83]
Therefore the notion that a social revolution is necessarily violent is a
false one. For anarchists, social revolution is essentially an act of self-
liberation (of both the individuals involved and society as a whole). It has
nothing to do with violence, quite the reverse, as anarchists see it as the
-means to end the rule and use of violence in society. Therefore anarchists
-hope that any revolution is essentially non-violent, with any violence being
-defensive in nature.
-
-Of course, many revolutions are marked by violence. However, as Alexander
-Berkman argues, this is not the aim of anarchism or the revolution and has far
-more to do with previous repression and domination than anarchist ideas:
+means to end the rule and use of violence in society. Anarchists hope that any
+revolution is essentially non-violent, with any violence being defensive in
+nature. As Malatesta stressed, _"Anarchists are opposed to violence"_ and it
+_"is justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from
+violence."_ [**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 53]
+
+Of course, many revolutions are marked by violence. It has two sources. First,
+and most obviously, the violent resistance of those protecting their power and
+wealth against those seeking liberty. Unsurprisingly, this violence is usually
+downplayed in history books and the media. Second, acts of revenge resulting
+from the the domination and repression of the system the revolution seeks to
+end. Such violence is not desired nor the aim of anarchism nor of the
+revolution. As Berkman argued:
> _"We know that revolution begins with street disturbances and outbreaks; it
is the initial phase which involves force and violence. But that is merely the
spectacular prologue of the real revolution. The age long misery and indignity
suffered by the masses burst into disorder and tumult, the humiliation and
-injustice meekly borne for decades find vents in facts of fury and
-destruction. That is inevitable, and it is solely the master class which is
-responsible for this preliminary character of revolution. For it is even more
-true socially than individually that 'whoever sows the wind will reap the
-whirlwind;' the greater the oppression and wretchedness to which the masses
-had been made to submit, the fiercer the rage [of] the social storm. All
-history proves it . . ."_ [**ABC of Anarchism**, p. 50]
-
-He also argues that _"[m]ost people have very confused notions about
-revolution. To them it means just fighting, smashing things, destroying. It is
-the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the work
-itself that you have to do. The fighting bit of the revolution is merely the
-rolling up of your sleeves."_ The task of the revolution is the _"destruction
-of the existing conditions"_ and _"**conditions** are not destroyed [by]
-breaking and smashing things. You can't destroy wage slavery by wrecking the
-machinery in the mills and factories . . . You won't destroy government by
-setting fire to the White House."_ He correctly points out that to think of
-revolution _"in terms of violence and destruction is to misinterpret and
-falsify the whole idea of it. In practical application such a conception is
-bound to lead to disastrous results."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 40-1]
+injustice meekly borne for decades find vents in acts of fury and destruction.
+That is inevitable, and it is solely the master class which is responsible for
+this preliminary character of revolution. For it is even more true socially
+than individually that 'whoever sows the wind will reap the whirlwind'; the
+greater the oppression and wretchedness to which the masses had been made to
+submit, the fiercer will rage the social storm. All history proves it, but the
+lords of life have never harkened to its warning voice."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p.
+195]
+
+_"Most people have very confused notions about revolution,"_ Berkman
+suggested. _"To them it means just fighting, smashing things, destroying. It
+is the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the
+work itself that you have to do. The fighting bit of the revolution is merely
+the rolling up of your sleeves."_ The task of the revolution is the
+_"destruction of the existing conditions"_ and _"**conditions** are not
+destroyed [by] breaking and smashing things. You can't destroy wage slavery by
+wrecking the machinery in the mills and factories . . . You won't destroy
+government by setting fire to the White House."_ To think of revolution _"in
+terms of violence and destruction is to misinterpret and falsify the whole
+idea of it. In practical application such a conception is bound to lead to
+disastrous results."_ For what is there to destroy? _"The wealth of the rich?
+Nay, that is something we want the whole of society to enjoy."_ The means of
+production are to be made _"useful to the entire people"_ and _"serve the
+needs of all."_ Thus the aim of revolution is _"to **take over** things for
+the general benefit, not to destroy them. It is to reorganise conditions for
+public welfare . . . to reconstruct and rebuild."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 183-4]
Thus when anarchists like Bakunin speak of revolution as "destruction" they
mean that the idea of authority and obedience must be destroyed, along with
the institutions that are based on such ideas. We do not mean, as can be
-clearly seen, the destruction of people or possessions. Nor do we imply the
+clearly seen, the destruction of people or wealth. Nor do we imply the
glorification of violence -- quite the reserve, as anarchists seek to limit
violence to that required for self-defence against oppression and authority.
Therefore a social revolution **may** involve some violence. It may also mean
-no-violence at all. It depends on the revolution and how widely anarchist
+no violence at all. It depends on the revolution and how widely anarchist
ideas are spread. One thing is sure, for anarchists social revolution is
**not** synonymous violence. Indeed, violence usually occurs when the ruling
class resists the action of the oppressed -- that is, when those in authority
@@ -611,11 +648,13 @@ subversives. The question is, what do anarchists do in response to these
actions? If anarchists are in the majority or near it, then defensive violence
would likely succeed. For example, _"the people armed"_ crushed the fascist
coup of July 19th, 1936 in Spain and resulted in one of the most important
-experiments in anarchism the world has ever seen. This should be contrasted
-with the aftermath of the factory occupations in Italy in 1920 and the fascist
-terror which crushed the labour movement. In other words, you cannot just
-ignore the state even if the majority are acting, you need to abolish it and
-organise self-defence against attempts to re-impose it or capitalism.
+experiments in anarchism the world has ever seen (see [section
+A.5.6](secA5.html#seca56)). This should be contrasted with the aftermath of
+the factory occupations in Italy in 1920 and the fascist terror which crushed
+the labour movement (see [section A.5.5](secA5.html#seca55)). In other words,
+you cannot just ignore the state even if the majority are acting, you need to
+abolish it and organise self-defence against attempts to re-impose it or
+capitalism.
We discuss the question of self-defence and the protection of the revolution
in [section J.7.6](secJ7.html#secj76).
@@ -634,31 +673,34 @@ it is the new spirit of justice, of brotherhood, of freedom which must renew
the whole of social life, raise the moral level and the material conditions of
the masses by calling on them to provide, through their direct and conscious
action, for their own futures. Revolution is the organisation of all public
-services by those who in them in their own interest as well as the public's;
-Revolution is the destruction of all of coercive ties; it is the autonomy of
-groups, of communes, of regions; Revolution is the free federation brought
-about by a desire for brotherhood, by individual and collective interests, by
-the needs of production and defence; Revolution is the constitution of
-innumerable free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes of all kinds
-that exist among the people; Revolution is the forming and disbanding of
-thousands of representative, district, communal, regional, national bodies
-which, without having any legislative power, serve to make known and to co-
-ordinate the desires and interests of people near and far and which act
-through information, advice and example. Revolution is freedom proved in the
-crucible of facts -- and lasts so long as freedom lasts. . ."_ [**Life and
-Ideas**, p. 153]
+services by those who work in them in their own interest as well as the
+public's; Revolution is the destruction of all of coercive ties; it is the
+autonomy of groups, of communes, of regions; Revolution is the free federation
+brought about by a desire for brotherhood, by individual and collective
+interests, by the needs of production and defence; Revolution is the
+constitution of innumerable free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes
+of all kinds that exist among the people; Revolution is the forming and
+disbanding of thousands of representative, district, communal, regional,
+national bodies which, without having any legislative power, serve to make
+known and to co-ordinate the desires and interests of people near and far and
+which act through information, advice and example. Revolution is freedom
+proved in the crucible of facts \-- and lasts so long as freedom lasts."_
+[**Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas**, p. 153]
This, of course, presents a somewhat wide vision of the revolutionary process.
We will need to give some more concrete examples of what a social revolution
would involve. However, before so doing, we stress that these are purely
examples drawn from previous revolutions and are not written in stone. Every
revolution creates its own forms of organisation and struggle. The next one
-will be no different. Just as we argued in [section I](secIcon.html), an
-anarchist revolution will create its own forms of freedom, forms which may
-share aspects with previous forms but which are unique to themselves. All we
-do here is give a rough overview of what we expect (based on previous
-revolutions) to see occur in a social revolution. We are not predicting the
-future. As Kropotkin put it:
+will be no different. As we argued in [section I.2](secI2.html), an anarchist
+revolution will create its own forms of freedom, forms which will share
+features with organisations generated in previous revolutions, but which are
+unique to this one. Thus the Paris Commune of 1871 had mandated and recallable
+delegates as did the Russian soviets of 1905 and 1917, but the first was based
+on geographical delegation and the later on workplaces. All we do here is give
+a rough overview of what we expect (based on previous revolutions) to see
+occur in a future social revolution. We are not predicting the future. As
+Kropotkin put it:
> _"A question which we are often asked is: 'How will you organise the future
society on Anarchist principles?' If the question were put to . . . someone
@@ -668,15 +710,17 @@ strangely, and the only answer we can give to it is: 'We cannot organise you.
It will depend upon **you** what sort of organisation you choose.'"_ [**Act
for Yourselves**, p. 32]
-And organise themselves they have. In each social revolution, the oppressed
-have organised themselves into many different self-managed organisations.
-These bodies include the Sections during the Great French Revolution, the
-workers councils ("soviets" or "rate") during the Russian and German
-revolutions, the industrial and rural collectives during the Spanish
-Revolution, the workers councils during the Hungarian revolution of 1956,
-assemblies and action committees during the 1968 revolt in France, and so on.
-These bodies were hardly uniform in nature and some were more anarchistic than
-others, but the tendency towards self-management and federation existing in
+And organise themselves they have. In every social revolution, the oppressed
+have created many different self-managed organisations. These bodies include
+the directly democratic neighbourhood Sections of the Great French Revolution,
+the neighbourhood clubs of the 1848 French Revolution and the Paris Commune,
+the workers councils and factory committees of the Russian and German
+revolutions, the industrial and rural collectives of the Spanish Revolution,
+the workers councils of the Hungarian revolution of 1956, assemblies and
+action committees of the 1968 revolt in France, the neighbourhood assemblies
+and occupied workplaces of the 2001 revolt in Argentina, and so on. These
+bodies were hardly uniform in structure and some were more anarchistic than
+others, but the tendency towards self-management and federation existed in
them all. This tendency towards anarchistic solutions and organisation is not
unsurprising, for, as Nestor Makhno argued, _"[i]n carrying through the
revolution, under the impulsion of the anarchism that is innate in them, the
@@ -693,80 +737,87 @@ leave it up to others to describe their vision of revolution (for Marxists,
the creation of a "workers' state" and the seizure of power by the
"proletarian" vanguard or party, and so on).
-So what would a libertarian social revolution involve? Firstly, a revolution
-_"it is not the work of one day. It means a whole period, mostly lasting for
-several years, during which the country is in a state of effervescence; when
-thousands of formerly indifferent spectators take a lively part in public
-affairs . . [and] criticises and repudiates the institutions which are a
-hindrance to free development; when it boldly enters upon problems which
-formerly seemed insoluble."_ [Peter Kropotkin, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 25-6] Thus,
+So what would a libertarian revolution involve?
+
+Firstly, a revolution _"is not the work of one day. It means a whole period,
+mostly lasting for several years, during which the country is in a state of
+effervescence; when thousands of formerly indifferent spectators take a lively
+part in public affairs."_ It _"criticises and repudiates the institutions
+which are a hindrance to free development . . . it boldly enters upon problems
+which formerly seemed insoluble."_ [Kropotkin, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 25-6] Thus,
it would be a **process** in which revolutionary attitudes, ideas, actions and
organisations spread in society until the existing system is overthrown and a
new one takes its place. It does not come overnight. Rather it is an
accumulative development, marked by specific events of course, but
-fundamentally it goes on in the fabric of society. For example, the **real**
-Russian revolution went on during the period between the 1917 February and
-October insurrections when workers took over their workplaces, peasants seized
-their land and new forms of social life (soviets, factory committees, co-
-operatives, etc.) were formed and people lost their previous submissive
-attitudes to authority by using direct action to change their lives for the
-better (see **The Unknown Revolution** by Voline for more details and evidence
-of this revolutionary process in action). Similarly, the Spanish Revolution
-occurred after the 19th of July, 1936, when workers again took over their
-workplaces, peasants formed collectives and militias were organised to fight
-fascism (see **Collectives in the Spanish Revolution** by Gaston Leval for
-details).
+fundamentally it goes on in the fabric of society.
+
+So the **real** Russian revolution occurred during the period between the 1917
+February and October insurrections when workers took over their workplaces,
+peasants seized their land, new forms of social life (soviets, factory
+committees, co-operatives, etc.) were formed and people lost their previous
+submissive attitudes to authority by using direct action to change their lives
+for the better (see [section A.5.4](secA5.html#seca54)). Similarly, the
+Spanish Revolution occurred after the 19th of July, 1936, when workers again
+took over their workplaces, peasants formed collectives and militias were
+organised to fight fascism (see [section A.5.6](secA5.html#seca56))
Secondly, _"there **must** be a rapid modification of outgrown economical and
political institutions, an overthrow of the injustices accumulated by
-centuries past, a displacement of wealth and political power."_ [**Op. Cit.**,
-p. 25]
-
-This aspect is the key one. Without the abolition of the state and capitalism,
-not real revolution has taken place. As Bakunin argued, _"the program of
-social revolution"_ is _"the abolition of all exploitation and all political
-or juridical as well as governmental and bureaucratic oppression, in other
-words, to the abolition of all classes through the equalisation of economic
-conditions, and the abolition of their last buttress, the state."_ That is,
-_"the total and definitive liberation of the proletariat from economic
-exploitation and state oppression."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**, pp. 48-9]
+centuries past, a displacement of wealth and political power."_ [Kropotkin,
+**Op. Cit.**, p. 25] This aspect is the key one. Without the abolition of the
+state and capitalism, no real revolution has taken place. As Bakunin argued,
+_"the program of social revolution"_ is _"the abolition of all exploitation
+and all political or juridical as well as governmental and bureaucratic
+oppression, in other words, to the abolition of all classes through the
+equalisation of economic conditions, and the abolition of their last buttress,
+the state."_ That is, _"the total and definitive liberation of the proletariat
+from economic exploitation and state oppression."_ [**Statism and Anarchy**,
+pp. 48-9]
We should stress here that, regardless of what Marxists may say, anarchists
see the destruction of capitalism occurring **at the same time as** the
destruction of the state. We do not aim to abolish the state first, then
-capitalism as Engels asserted we did. This perspective of a simultaneous
-political and economic revolution is clearly seen when Bakunin wrote that a
-city in revolt would _"naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can,
-in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into associations and
-made a clean sweep of all the instruments of labour and every kind of capital
-and building; armed and organised by streets and **quartiers,** they will form
-the revolutionary federation of all the **quartiers,** the federative commune.
-. . All . . .the revolutionary communes will then send representatives to
-organise the necessary services and arrangements for production and exchange .
-. . and to organise common defence against the enemies of the Revolution."_
-[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 179]
-
-As can be seen from Bakunin's comments just quoted that an essential part of a
-social revolution is the _"expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the
-benefit of all."_ This would be done by workers occupying their workplaces and
-placing them under workers' self-management. Individual self-managed
-workplaces would then federate on a local and industrial basis into workers'
-councils to co-ordinate joint activity, discuss common interests and issues as
-well as ensuring common ownership and universalising self-management. _"We
-must push the workers to take possession of the factories, to federate among
-themselves and work for the community, and similarly the peasants should take
-over the land and the produce usurped by the landlords, and come to an
-agreement with the industrial workers on the necessary exchange of goods."_
-[Errico Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 198 and p. 165]
-
-In this way capitalism is replaced by new economic system based on self-
-managed work. The end of hierarchy in the economy, in other words. These
-workplace assemblies and local, regional, etc., federations would start to
-organise production to meet human needs rather than capitalist profit. While
-most anarchists would like to see the introduction of communistic relations
-begin as quickly as possible in such an economy, most are realistic enough to
-recognise that tendencies towards libertarian communism will be depend on
-local conditions. As Malatesta argued:
+capitalism as Engels asserted we did (see [section H.2.4](secH2.html#sech24)).
+This perspective of a simultaneous political and economic revolution is
+clearly seen when Bakunin wrote that a city in revolt would _"naturally make
+haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary style, after the
+workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all the
+instruments of labour and every kind of capital and building; armed and
+organised by streets and **quartiers,** they will form the revolutionary
+federation of all the **quartiers,** the federative commune"_ All _"the
+revolutionary communes will then send representatives to organise the
+necessary services and arrangements for production and exchange . . . and to
+organise common defence against the enemies of the Revolution."_ [**Michael
+Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 179]
+
+As can be seen, an essential part of a social revolution is the
+_"expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the benefit of all."_
+[Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 198] This would be done by workers occupying
+their workplaces and placing them under workers' self-management. As
+Voltairine de Cleyre argued in 1910 _"the weapon of the future will be the
+general strike"_ and its it not clear that _"it must be the strike which will
+**stay in** the factory, not **go out**? which will guard the machines and
+allow no scab to touch them? which will organise, not to inflict deprivation
+on itself, but on the enemy? which will take over industry and operate it for
+the workers, not for franchise holder, stockholders, and officeholders?"_ [_"A
+Study of the General Strike in Philadelphia"_, pp. 307-14, **Anarchy! An
+Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth**, Peter Glassgold (ed.), p. 311]
+Individual self-managed workplaces would then federate on a local and
+industrial basis into workers' councils to co-ordinate joint activity, discuss
+common interests and issues as well as ensuring common ownership and
+universalising self-management: _"We must push the workers to take possession
+of the factories, to federate among themselves and work for the community, and
+similarly the peasants should take over the land and the produce usurped by
+the landlords, and come to an agreement with the industrial workers on the
+necessary exchange of goods."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 165]
+
+In this way capitalism is replaced by new economic system based the end of
+hierarchy, on self-managed work. These workplace assemblies and local,
+regional, etc., federations would start to organise production to meet human
+needs rather than capitalist profit. While most anarchists would like to see
+the introduction of communistic relations begin as quickly as possible in such
+an economy, most are realistic enough to recognise that tendencies towards
+libertarian communism will be depend on local conditions. As Malatesta argued:
> _"It is then that graduation really comes into operation. We shall have to
study all the practical problems of life: production, exchange, the means of
@@ -785,24 +836,25 @@ possibilities available to those involved. Hence the very complexity of life,
and the needs of social living, will push a social revolution towards
anarchism. _"Unavoidably,"_ argued Kropotkin, _"the Anarchist system of
organisation -- free local action and free grouping -- will come into play."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 72] Without this local action and the free agreement between
-local groups to co-ordinate activity, a revolution would be dead in the water
-and fit only to produce a new bureaucratic class structure, as the experience
-of the Russian Revolution proves. Unless the economy is transformed from the
-bottom up by those who work within it, socialism is impossible. If it is re-
-organised from the top-down by a centralised body all that will be achieved is
-state capitalism and rule by bureaucrats instead of capitalists.
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 72] Unless the economy is transformed from the bottom up by
+those who work within it, socialism is impossible. If it is re-organised from
+the top-down by a centralised body all that will be achieved is state
+capitalism and rule by bureaucrats instead of capitalists. Without local
+action and free agreement between local groups to co-ordinate activity, a
+revolution would be dead in the water and fit only to produce a new
+bureaucratic class structure, as the experience of the Russian Revolution
+proves (see [section H.6](secH6.html)).
Therefore, the key economic aspect of a social revolution is the end of
capitalist oppression by the direct action of the workers themselves and their
re-organisation of their work and the economy by their own actions,
-organisations and initiative from the bottom-up. As Malatesta argued:
+organisations and initiative from the bottom-up:
> _"To destroy radically this oppression without any danger of it re-emerging,
all people must be convinced of their right to the means of production, and be
prepared to exercise this basic right by expropriating the landowners, the
industrialists and financiers, and putting all social wealth at the disposal
-of the people."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 167]
+of the people."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 167]
However, the economic transformation is but part of the picture. As Kropotkin
argued, _"throughout history we see that each change in the economic relations
@@ -811,39 +863,42 @@ political organisation . . . Thus, too, it will be with Socialism. If it
contemplates a new departure in economics it **must** be prepared for a new
departure in what is called political organisation."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 39]
Thus the anarchist social revolution also aims to abolish the state and create
-a confederation of self-governing communes to ensure its final elimination. To
-really destroy something you must replace it with something better. Hence
-anarchism will destroy the state by a confederation of self-managed, free
-communities (or communes).
-
-This destruction of the state is essential. This is because _"those workers
-who want to free themselves, or even only to effectively improve their
-conditions, will be forced to defend themselves from the government . . .
-which by legalising the right to property and protecting it with brute force,
-constitutes a barrier to human progress, which must be beaten down . . . if
-one does not wish to remain indefinitely under present conditions or even
-worse."_ Therefore, _"[f]rom the economic struggle one must pass to the
-political struggle, that is to the struggle against government."_ [Malatesta,
-**Op. Cit.**, p. 195]
-
-Thus a social revolution will have to destroy the state bureaucracy and the
-states forces of violence and coercion (the police, armed forces, intelligence
+a confederation of self-governing communes to ensure its final elimination.
+This destruction of the state is essential as _"those workers who want to free
+themselves, or even only to effectively improve their conditions, will be
+forced to defend themselves from the government . . . which by legalising the
+right to property and protecting it with brute force, constitutes a barrier to
+human progress, which must be beaten down . . . if one does not wish to remain
+indefinitely under present conditions or even worse."_ Therefore, _"[f]rom the
+economic struggle one must pass to the political struggle, that is to the
+struggle against government."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 195]
+
+Thus a social revolution will have to destroy the state bureaucracy and its
+forces of violence and coercion (the police, armed forces, intelligence
agencies, and so on). If this is not done then the state will come back and
-crush the revolution. Such a destruction of the state does not involve
-violence against individuals, but rather the end of hierarchical
-organisations, positions and institutions. It would involve, for example, the
-disbanding of the police, army, navy, state officialdom etc. and the
-transformation of police stations, army and naval bases, state bureaucracy's
-offices into something more useful (or, as in the case of prisons, their
-destruction). Town halls would be occupied and used by community and
-industrial groups, for example. Mayors' offices could be turned into creches,
-for example. Police stations, if they have not been destroyed, could, perhaps,
-be turned into storage centres for goods. In William Morris' utopian novel,
-**News from Nowhere**, the Houses of Parliament were turned into a manure
-storage facility. And so on. Those who used to work in such occupations would
-be asked to pursue a more fruitful way of life or leave the community. In this
-way, all harmful and useless institutions would be destroyed or transformed
-into something useful and of benefit to society.
+crush the revolution. As the CNT newspaper put it in the 1930s, the _"first
+step in the social revolution is to take control of Town Hall and proclaim the
+free commune. Once this occurs, self-management spreads to all areas of life
+and the people exercise their sovereign executive power through the popular
+assembly." _ This free commune _"is the basic unit of libertarian communism .
+. . and, federated, it provides the basic structure of the new society in all
+its aspects: administrative, economic and political."_ [quoted by Abel Paz,
+**Durrutu in the Spanish Revolution**, p. 312]
+
+Such a destruction of the state does not involve violence against individuals,
+but rather the end of hierarchical organisations, positions and institutions.
+It would involve, for example, the disbanding of the police, army, navy, state
+officialdom, etc. It would mean the transformation of police stations,
+military bases, the offices used by the bureaucracy into something more useful
+(or, as in the case of prisons, their destruction). Town halls would be
+occupied and used by community and industrial groups, for example. Offices of
+the mayor could be turned into crches. Police stations, if they have not been
+destroyed, could be turned into storage centres for goods (William Morris, in
+his utopian novel **News from Nowhere**, imagined the Houses of Parliament
+being turned into a manure storage facility). And so on. Those who used to
+work in such occupations would be asked to pursue a more fruitful way of life
+or leave the community. In this manner, all harmful and useless institutions
+would be destroyed or transformed into something of benefit to society.
In addition, as well as the transformation/destruction of the buildings
associated with the old state, the decision making process for the community
@@ -855,7 +910,7 @@ neighbourhood assemblies and confederations would be means by which power
would be dissolved in society and government finally eliminated in favour of
freedom (both individual and collective).
-Ultimately, anarchism means creating positive alternatives to existing
+Ultimately, anarchism means creating positive alternatives to those existing
institutions which provide some useful function. For example, we propose self-
management as an alternative to capitalist production. We propose self-
governing communes to organise social life instead of the state. _"One only
@@ -866,18 +921,48 @@ give time to the institutions one is intending to abolish to recover from the
shock and reassert themselves, perhaps under other names, but certainly with
the same structure."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 159] This was the failure of the
Spanish Revolution, which ignored the state rather than abolish it via new,
-self-managed organisations (see [ section I.8](secI8.html)).
+self-managed organisations (see [section I.8.13](secI8.html#seci813)). It must
+be stressed that this was not due to anarchist theory (see [section
+I.8.11](secI8.html#seci811)).
Hence a social revolution would see the _"[o]rganisation of social life by
means of free association and federations of producers and consumers, created
and modified according to the wishes of their members, guided by science and
experience, and free from any kind of imposition which does not spring from
natural needs, to which everyone, convinced by a feeling of overriding
-necessity, voluntarily submits."_ [Errico Malatesta, **Life and Ideas**, p.
-184]
-
-These organisations, we must stress, are usually products of the revolution
-and the revolutionary process itself:
+necessity, voluntarily submits."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, p. 184] A
+revolution organises itself from the bottom up, in a self-managed way. As
+Bakunin summarised:
+
+> _"the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . . will
+constitute the Commune . . . The Commune will be organised by the standing
+federation of the Barricades and by the creation of a Revolutionary Communal
+Council composed of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . vested with
+plenary but accountable and removable mandates . . . all provinces, communes
+and associations . . . **reorganising** on revolutionary lines . . . [would
+send] their representatives to an agreed meeting place . . . vested with
+similar mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations,
+communes and provinces in the name of the same principles and to organise a
+revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of
+the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-
+defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the
+revolution . . . There can no longer be any successful revolution unless the
+political revolution is transformed into social revolution . . . Since
+revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must
+always belong to the people organised in a free federation of agricultural and
+industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of
+revolutionary delegation."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, pp.
+170-2]
+
+Thus we have a dual framework of revolution, the federation of self-managed
+workplace and community assemblies based on mandated and recallable delegates.
+_"Through its class organisations,"_ Makhno argued, _"the people yearned to
+lay the foundations of a new, free society intended, as it develops without
+interference, to eliminate from the body of society all the parasites and all
+the power exercised by some over others, these being deemed by the toilers to
+be stupid and harmful."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 79] These organisations, as we
+stressed in [section I.2.3](secI2.html#seci23), are the products of the social
+struggle and revolution themselves:
> _"Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process
itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must **be** the formation of
@@ -888,37 +973,36 @@ assemblies of people in the block, the neighbourhood or the district -- the
revolutionary sections to come -- will stand on a higher social level than all
the present-day committees, syndicates, parties and clubs adorned by the most
resounding 'revolutionary' titles. They will be the living nuclei of utopia in
-the decomposing body of bourgeois society"_ In this way, the _"specific
-gravity of society . . . [will] be shifted to its base -- the armed people in
-permanent assembly."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp. 167-8 and pp. 168-9]
-
-Such organisations are required because, in the words of Murray Bookchin,
-_"[f]reedom has its forms . . . a liberatory revolution always poses the
-question of what social forms will replace existing ones. At one point or
-another, a revolutionary people must deal with how it will manage the land and
-the factories from which it requires the means of life. It must deal with the
-manner in which it will arrive at decisions that affect the community as a
-whole. Thus if revolutionary thought is to be taken at all seriously, it must
-speak directly to the problems and forms of social management."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 143] If this is not done, capitalism and the state will not be
-destroyed and the social revolution will fail. Only be destroying hierarchical
-power by abolishing state and capitalism by self-managed organisations can
-individuals free themselves and society.
+the decomposing body of bourgeois society . . . The specific gravity of
+society . . . must be shifted to its base -- the armed people in permanent
+assembly."_ [Murray Bookchin, **Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp. 104-5]
+
+Such organisations are required because _"[f]reedom has its forms . . . a
+liberatory revolution always poses the question of what social forms will
+replace existing ones. At one point or another, a revolutionary people must
+deal with how it will manage the land and the factories from which it requires
+the means of life. It must deal with the manner in which it will arrive at
+decisions that affect the community as a whole. Thus if revolutionary thought
+is to be taken at all seriously, it must speak directly to the problems and
+forms of social management."_ [Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 86] If this is not
+done, capitalism and the state will not be destroyed and the social revolution
+will fail. Only by destroying hierarchical power, by abolishing state and
+capitalism by self-managed organisations, can individuals free themselves and
+society.
As well as these economic and political changes, there would be other changes
-as well -- far too many to chronicle here. For example, _"[w]e will see to it
+as well -- far too many to chronicle here. For example: _"We will see to it
that all empty and under-occupied houses are used so that no one will be
without a roof over his [or her] head. We will hasten to abolish banks and
title deeds and all that represents and guarantees the power of the State and
capitalist privilege. And we will try to reorganise things in such a way that
it will be impossible for bourgeois society to be reconstituted."_ [Malatesta,
**Op. Cit.**, p. 165] Similarly, free associations will spring up on a whole
-range of issues and for a whole range of interests and needs. Social life will
-become transformed, as will many aspects of personal life and personal
-relationships. We cannot say in which way, bar there will be a general
-libertarian movement in all aspects of life as women resist and overcome
-sexism, gays resist and end homophobia, the young will expect to be treated as
-individuals, not property, and so on.
+range of issues, interests and needs. Social life will become transformed, as
+will many aspects of personal life and personal relationships. We cannot say
+in which way, bar there will be a general libertarian movement in all aspects
+of life as women resist and overcome sexism, gays resist and end homophobia,
+the young will expect to be treated as individuals, not property, and so on.
Society will become more diverse, open, free and libertarian in nature. And,
hopefully, it and the struggle that creates it will be **fun** \-- anarchism
@@ -926,37 +1010,40 @@ is about making life worth living and so any struggle must reflect that. The
use of fun in the struggle is important. There is no incongruity in conducting
serious business and having fun. We are sure this will piss off the "serious"
Left no end. The aim of revolution is to emancipate **individuals** not
-abstractions like "the proletariat," "society," "history" and so on. And
-having fun is part and parcel of that liberation. As Emma Goldman said, _"If I
-can't dance, it's not my revolution."_ Revolutions should be **_"festivals of
-the oppressed"_** \-- we cannot _"resolve the anarchic, intoxicating phase
-that opens all the great revolutions of history merely into an expression of
-class interest and the opportunity to redistribute social wealth."_ [Murray
-Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 277f]
+abstractions like "the proletariat," "society," "history" and so on. Having
+fun is part and parcel of that liberation. As Emma Goldman argued (and was
+paraphrased in the 1970s to _"If I cannot dance, it is not my revolution!"_),
+anarchism stands for _"release and freedom from conventions and prejudice"_
+and so she could _"not believe"_ that it _"should demand the denial of life
+and joy"_ (_"If it meant that, I did not want it"_): _"I want freedom, the
+right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things."_
+[**Living My Life**, vol. 1, p. 56] As Bookchin suggested: _"Can we resolve
+the anarchic, intoxicating phase that opens all the great revolutions of
+history merely into an expression of class interest and the opportunity to
+redistribute social wealth?"_ [Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 189f]
Therefore a social revolution involves a transformation of society from the
bottom up by the creative action of working class people. This transformation
would be conducted through self-managed organisations which will be the basis
-for abolishing hierarchy, state and capitalism. _"There can be no separation
+for abolishing hierarchy, state and capitalism: _"There can be no separation
of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. **A society based on
-self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.** . . .
+self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration** . . .
If we define 'power' as the power of man over man, power can only be destroyed
by the very process in which man acquires power over his own life and in which
he not only 'discovers' himself, but, more meaningfully, formulates his
-selfhood in all its social dimensions."_ [Murray Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p.
-167]
+selfhood in all its social dimensions."_ [Bookchin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 104]
## J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social revolution?
-All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed, it is cliche
+All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed, it is clich
that the revolutionaries are usually the most surprised when a revolution
breaks out. Nor do anarchists assume that a revolution will initially be
-libertarian in nature. All we assume is that there will be libertarian
-tendencies which anarchists are work within and try and strengthen. Therefore
-the role of anarchists and anarchist organisations is to try and push a
-revolution towards a social revolution by encouraging the tendencies we
-discussed in the [last section](secJ77.html#secj74) and by arguing for
-anarchist ideas and solutions. In the words of Vernon Richards:
+totally libertarian in nature. All we assume is that there will be libertarian
+tendencies which anarchists work within to try and strengthen. Therefore the
+role of anarchists and anarchist organisations is to push a revolution towards
+a social revolution by encouraging the tendencies we discussed in the [last
+section](secJ7.html#secj74) and by arguing for anarchist ideas and solutions.
+In the words of Vernon Richards:
> _"We do not for one moment assume that all social revolutions are
necessarily anarchist. But whatever form the revolution against authority
@@ -965,75 +1052,80 @@ capitalistic property and the institutions through which it exercises its
power for the exploitation of the majority by a minority."_ [**Lessons of the
Spanish Revolution**, p. 44]
-For anarchists, their role in a social revolution is clear. They try to spread
+For anarchists, our role in a social revolution is clear -- we try to spread
anarchist ideas and encourage autonomous organisation and activity by the
oppressed. For example, during the Russian Revolution anarchists and anarcho-
syndicalists played a key role in the factory committee movement for workers'
self-management. They combated Bolshevik attempts to substitute state control
for workers' self-management and encouraged workplace occupations and
federations of factory committees (see Maurice Brinton's **The Bolsheviks and
-Workers' Control** for a good introduction to the movement for workers' self-
-management during the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik hostility to it).
-Similarly, they supported the soviets (councils elected by workers in their
-workplaces) but opposed their transformation from revolutionary bodies into
-state organs (and so little more than organs of the Communist Party and so the
-enemies of self-management). The anarchists tried to _"work for their
-conversion from centres of authority and decrees into non-authoritarian
-centres, regulating and keeping things in order but not suppressing the
-freedom and independence of local workers' organisations. They must become
-centres which link together these autonomous organisations."_ [G. P. Maksimov
-in Paul Avrich (ed.) **The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution**, p. 105]
-
-Therefore, the anarchist role, as Murray Bookchin puts it, is to _"preserve
-and extend the anarchic phase that opens all the great social revolutions"_ by
-working _"**within the framework of the forms created by the revolution,** not
-within the forms created by the party. What this means is that their
-commitment is to the revolutionary organs of self-management . . . to the
-**social** forms, not the **political** forms. Anarcho-communists [and other
-revolutionary anarchists] seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies
-or soviets to make themselves into **genuine organs of popular self-
-management,** not to dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-
-knowing political party."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, p. 215 and p. 217]
+Workers' Control** for a good introduction to this movement and Bolshevik
+hostility to it). Similarly, they supported the soviets (councils elected by
+workers in their workplaces) but opposed their transformation from
+revolutionary bodies into state organs (and so little more than organs of the
+Communist Party, rubber-stamping the decisions of the party leadership). The
+anarchists tried to _"work for their conversion from centres of authority and
+decrees into non-authoritarian centres, regulating and keeping things in order
+but not suppressing the freedom and independence of local workers'
+organisations. They must become centres which link together these autonomous
+organisations."_ [G. P. Maksimov, **The Anarchists in the Russian
+Revolution**, p. 105]
+
+Therefore, the role of anarchists, as Murray Bookchin put it, is to
+_"**preserve and extend the anarchic phase that opens all the great social
+revolutions**"_ by working _"**within the framework of the forms created by
+the revolution,** not within the forms created by the party. What this means
+is that their commitment is to the revolutionary organs of self-management . .
+. to the **social** forms, not the **political** forms."_ Revolutionary
+anarchists _"seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies or soviets to
+make themselves into **genuine organs of popular self-management,** not to
+dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-knowing political
+party,"_ to organise to _"propagate ideas systematically . . . **ideas which
+promote the concept of self-management**."_ The revolutionary organisation
+_"presents the most advanced demands"_ and _"formulate[s] -- in the most
+concrete fashion -- the immediate task that should be performed to advance the
+revolutionary process. It provides the boldest elements in action and in the
+decision-making organs of the revolution."_ [**Post-Scarcity Anarchism**, pp.
+139-140]
Equally as important, _"is that the people, all people, should lose their
-sheeplike instincts and habits with which their minds have been inculcated by
+sheep-like instincts and habits with which their minds have been inculcated by
an age-long slavery, and that they should learn to think and act freely. It is
to this great task of spiritual liberation that anarchists must especially
-devote their attention."_ [Malatesta, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 160-1] Unless people
-think and act for themselves, no social revolution is possible and anarchy
-will remain just a tendency with authoritarian societies.
-
-Practically, this means the encouragement of self-management and direct
-action. Anarchists thus _"push the people to expropriate the bosses and put
-all goods in common and organise their daily lives themselves, through freely
-constituted associations, without waiting for orders from outside and refusing
-to nominate or recognise any government or constituted body in whatever guise
-. . . even in a provisional capacity, which ascribes to itself the right to
-lay down the law and impose with force its will on others."_ [Malatesta, **Op.
-Cit.**, p. 197] This is because, to quote Bakunin, anarchists do _"not accept,
-even in the process of revolutionary transition, either constituent
-assemblies, provisional governments or so-called revolutionary dictatorships;
-because we are convinced that revolution is only sincere, honest and real in
-the hands of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those of a few
-ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes reaction."_
-[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 237]
-
-As the history of every revolution shows, _"revolutionary government"_ is a
-contradiction in terms. Government bodies mean _"the transferring of
-initiative from the armed workers to a central body with executive powers. By
-removing the initiative from the workers, the responsibility for the conduct
-of the struggle and its objectives [are] also transferred to a governing
-hierarchy, and this could have no other than an adverse effect on the morale
-of the revolutionary fighters."_ [Vernon Richards, **Lessons of the Spanish
-Revolution**, pp. 42-3] Such a centralisation of power means the suppression
-of local initiatives, the replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and
-the creation of a new, exploitative and oppressive class of officials and
-party hacks. Only when power rests in the hands of everyone can a social
-revolution exist and a free society created. If this is not done, if the state
-replaces the self-managed associations of a free people, all that happens is
-the replacement of one class system by another. This is because the state is
-an instrument of minority rule -- it can never become an instrument of
-majority rule, its centralised, hierarchical and authoritarian nature excludes
+devote their attention."_ Unless people think and act for themselves, no
+social revolution is possible and anarchy will remain just an opposition
+tendency within authoritarian societies. Practically, this means the
+encouragement of self-management and direct action. Anarchists thus _"push the
+people to expropriate the bosses and put all goods in common and organise
+their daily lives themselves, through freely constituted associations, without
+waiting for orders from outside and refusing to nominate or recognise any
+government or constituted body in whatever guise . . . even in a provisional
+capacity, which ascribes to itself the right to lay down the law and impose
+with force its will on others."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and
+Ideas**, pp. 160-1 and p. 197] This is because, to quote Bakunin, anarchists
+do _"not accept, even in the process of revolutionary transition, either
+constituent assemblies, provisional governments or so-called revolutionary
+dictatorships; because we are convinced that revolution is only sincere,
+honest and real in the hands of the masses, and that when it is concentrated
+in those of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes
+reaction."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 237]
+
+The history of every revolution confirms Kropotkin (who echoed Proudhon) that
+_"revolutionary government"_ is a contradiction in terms. Government bodies
+mean _"the transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central body
+with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the workers, the
+responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and its objectives [are] also
+transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could have no other than an
+adverse effect on the morale of the revolutionary fighters."_ [Richards, **Op.
+Cit.**, pp. 42-3] Such a centralisation of power means the suppression of
+local initiatives, the replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and the
+creation of a new, exploitative and oppressive class of officials and party
+hacks. Only when power rests in the hands of everyone can a social revolution
+exist and a free society created. If this is not done, if the state replaces
+the self-managed associations of a free people, all that happens is the
+replacement of one class system by another. This is because the state is an
+instrument of minority rule -- it can never become an instrument of majority
+empowerment as its centralised, hierarchical and authoritarian nature excludes
such a possibility (see [section H.3.7](secH3.html#sech37) for more discussion
on this issue).
@@ -1042,73 +1134,158 @@ organisation by creating self-managed ones, by keeping the management and
direction of a struggle or revolution in the hands of those actually
conducting it. It is **their** revolution, **not** a party's and so they
should control and manage it. They are the ones who have to live with the
-consequences of it. _"The revolution is safe, it grows and becomes strong,"_
-correctly argues Alexander Berkman, _"as long as the masses feel that they are
-direct participants in it, that they are fashioning their own lives, that
-**they** are making the revolution, that they **are** the revolution. But the
-moment that their activities are usurped by a political party or are centred
-in some special organisation, revolutionary effort becomes limited to a
-comparatively small circle from the which the large masses are practically
-excluded. The natural result of that [is that] popular enthusiasm is dampened,
-interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness wanes, and the
-revolution becomes the monopoly of a clique which presently turns dictator."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 65]
-
-The history of every revolution proves this point, we feel, and so the role of
-anarchists (like those described in [section J.3](secJ3.html)) is clear -- to
-keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian ideas,
-organisation, tactics and activity. To requote Emma Goldman:
-
-> _"No revolution can ever succeed as factor of liberation unless the MEANS
-used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSE to be
-achieved."_ [**Patterns of Anarchy**, p. 113]
-
-Anarchists, therefore, aim to keep the means in line with the goal and their
-role in any social revolution is to combat authoritarian tendencies and
-parties while encouraging working class self-organisation, self-activity and
-self-management and the spreading of libertarian ideas and values within
-society.
+consequences of it. As Bakunin argued, social revolution _"should not only be
+made for the people's sake; it should also be made by the people."_ [**No
+Gods, No Masters**, vol. 1, p. 141] _"The revolution is safe, it grows and
+becomes strong,"_ correctly argued Alexander Berkman, _"as long as the masses
+feel that they are direct participants in it, that they are fashioning their
+own lives, that **they** are making the revolution, that they **are** the
+revolution. But the moment that their activities are usurped by a political
+party or are centred in some special organisation, revolutionary effort
+becomes limited to a comparatively small circle from which the large masses
+are practically excluded. The natural result is that popular enthusiasm is
+dampened, interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness
+wanes, and the revolution becomes the monopoly of a clique which presently
+turns dictator."_ [**What is Anarchism?**, p. 213] The history of every
+revolution proves this point, we feel, and so the role of anarchists is clear
+\-- to keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian ideas,
+organisation, tactics and activity.
+
+Anarchists, therefore, organise to influence social struggle in a libertarian
+manner and our role in any social revolution is to combat authoritarian
+tendencies and parties while encouraging working class self-organisation,
+self-activity and self-management (how we organise to achieve this is
+described in [section J.3](secJ3.html)). Only by the spreading of libertarian
+ideas and values within society, encouraging libertarian forms of social
+organisation (i.e., self-management, decentralisation, federalism, etc.) and
+continually warning against centralising power into a few hands can a
+revolution become more than a change of masters.
## J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?
To some, particularly Marxists, this section may seem in contradiction with
-anarchist ideas. After all, did Marx not argue in a diatribe against Proudhon
-that anarchist _"abolishing the state"_ implies the _"laying down of arms"_ by
-the working class? However, as will become very clear nothing could be further
-from the truth. Anarchists have always argued for defending a revolution -- by
-force, if necessary. Anarchists do not think that abolishing the state
-involves _"laying down arms."_ We argue that Marx (and Marxists) confuse self-
-defence by _"the people armed"_ with the state, a confusion which has horrific
-implications (as the history of the Russian Revolution shows -- see the
-appendix on ["What happened during the Russian Revolution?"](append41.html)
-for details).
+anarchist ideas. As we discussed in [section H.2.1](secH2.html#sech21),
+Marxists tend to assume, incorrectly, that anarchists are either against
+defending a revolution or see no need to. However, as will become very clear,
+nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have always argued for
+defending a revolution -- by force, if necessary. Anarchists argue that Marx
+(and Marxists) confuse self-defence by _"the people armed"_ with the state, a
+confusion which has horrific implications (as the history of the Russian
+Revolution shows).
So how would an anarchist revolution (and by implication, society) defend
itself? Firstly, we should note that it will **not** defend itself by creating
a centralised body, a new state. If it did this then the revolution will have
failed and a new class society would have been created (a society based on
state bureaucrats and oppressed workers as in the Soviet Union). Thus we
-reject Marx's notion of _"a revolutionary and transitory form"_ of state as
-confused in the extreme. [Marx quoted by Lenin, **Essential Works of Lenin**,
-p. 315] Rather, we seek libertarian means to defend a libertarian revolution.
-What would these libertarian means be?
-
-History, as well as theory, points to them. In all the major revolutions of
-this century which anarchists took part in they formed militias to defend
-freedom. For example, anarchists in many Russian cities formed "Black Guards"
-to defend their expropriated houses and revolutionary freedoms. In the
-Ukraine, Nestor Makhno helped organise a peasant-worker army to defend the
-social revolution against authoritarians of right and left. In the Spanish
-Revolution, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. organised militias to free those parts of
-Spain under fascist rule after the military coup in 1936.
+reject the Marxist notion of a so-called "workers" or "revolutionary" state as
+confused in the extreme (as should be obvious from our analysis in [section
+H](secHcon.html)). Rather, we seek libertarian means to defend a libertarian
+revolution. What would these libertarian means be?
+
+In short, this would involve the _"creation of a voluntary militia, without
+powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal
+with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves,
+or to resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of
+revolution."_ The creation of a free militia would be part of the general
+social transformation as the _"most powerful means for defending the
+revolution remains always that of taking away from the bourgeois the economic
+means on which their power rests, and of arming everybody (until such time as
+one will have managed to persuade everybody to throw away their arms as
+useless and dangerous toys), and of interesting the mass of the population in
+the victory of the revolution."_ [Malatesta, **Errico Malatesta: His Life and
+Ideas**, p. 166 and p. 173] As Bakunin stressed:
+
+> _"let us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . . Paris
+will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary
+style, after the workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep
+of all the instruments of labour, every kind of capital and building; armed
+and organised by streets and **quartiers**, they will form the revolutionary
+federation of all the **quartiers**, the federative commune . . . All the
+French and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives to
+organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common defence
+against the enemies of the Revolution, together with propaganda, the weapon of
+revolution, and practical revolutionary solidarity with friends in all
+countries against enemies in all countries."_ [**Michael Bakunin: Selected
+Writings**, pp. 178-9]
+
+So anarchists have always seen the necessity to defend a revolution. There is
+no theoretical contradiction implied by this for while anarchism _"is opposed
+to any interference with your liberty"_ and _"against all invasion and
+violence"_, it recognises that when _"any one attacks **you**, then it is
+**he** who is invading you, he who is employing violence against you. You have
+a right to defend yourself. More than that, it is your duty, as an anarchist
+to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion . . . In other
+words, the social revolution will attack no one, but it will defend itself
+against invasion from any quarter."_ [Alexander Berkman, **What is
+Anarchism?**, p. 231] These militias, in other words, do not seek to impose a
+revolution, for you cannot impose freedom or force people to be free against
+their will: _"The power of the people in arms can only be used in the defence
+of the revolution and the freedoms won by their militancy and their
+sacrifices."_ [Vernon Richards, **Lessons of the Spanish Revolution**, p. 44]
+
+Such activity, Berkman stressed, _"must be in consonance with th[e] spirit [of
+anarchism]. Self-defence excludes all acts of coercion, of persecution or
+revenge. It is concerned only with repelling attack and depriving the enemy of
+opportunity to invade you."_ Any defence would be based on _"the strength of
+the revolution . . . First and foremost, in the support of the people . . . If
+they feel that they themselves are making the revolution, that they have
+become masters of their lives, that they have gained freedom and are building
+up their welfare, then in that very sentiment you have the greatest strength
+of the revolution . . . Let them believe in the revolution, and they will
+defend it to the death."_ Thus the _"armed workers and peasants are the only
+effective defence of the revolution."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp. 231-2] Malatesta
+stressed that a government is not required to defend freedom:
+
+> _"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still
+unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free
+people to a state of slavery once again. Would this people require a
+government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the
+necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of
+the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the
+abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the
+experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their
+own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps
+of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies
+composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear."_ [**Anarchy**, p. 42]
+
+As can be seen, anarchist theory has always addressed the necessity of
+defending a social revolution and proposed a solution -- the voluntary, self-
+managed militia organised by the free communes and federations of workers'
+associations. The militias would be unified and co-ordinated by federations of
+communes while delegates from each militia unit would co-ordinate the actual
+fighting. In times of peace the militia members would be living and working
+among the rest of the populace, and, thus, they would tend to have the same
+outlook and interests as their fellows. Moreover, in the case of foreign
+intervention, the importance of international solidarity is important (_"a
+social revolution cannot be a revolution in one nation alone. It is by nature
+an international revolution."_ [Bakunin, **Op. Cit.**, p. 49]). Thus any
+foreign intervention would face the problems of solidarity actions and revolts
+on its own doorstep and not dare send its troops abroad for long, if at all.
+Ultimately, the only way to support a revolution is to make your own.
-(As an aside, we **must** point out that these militias had nothing in common
--- bar the name -- with the present "militia movement" in the United States.
-The anarchist militias were organised in a libertarian manner and aimed to
-defend an anti-statist, anti-capitalist revolution from pro-state, pro-
-capitalist forces. In contrast, the US "militia movement" is organised in a
-military fashion, defend property rights and want to create their own
-governments.)
+Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people than will
+defend it. Firstly, the population would be armed and so counter-
+revolutionaries would face stiff opposition to their attempts to recreate
+authority. Secondly, they would face liberated individuals who would reject
+and resist their attempts Thus, as we discuss in [section
+I.5.11](secI5.html#seci511), any authoritarian would face the direct action of
+a free people, of free individuals, who would refuse to co-operate with the
+would-be authorities and join in solidarity with their friends and fellow
+workers to resist them. The only way a counter-revolution could spread
+internally is if the mass of the population had become alienated from the
+revolution and this is impossible in an anarchist revolution as power remains
+in their hands. A free society need not fear internal counter-revolutionaries
+gaining support.
+
+History, as well as theory, points to such libertarian forms of self-defence.
+In all the major revolutions which anarchists took part in they formed
+militias to defend freedom. For example, anarchists in many Russian cities
+formed _"Black Guards"_ to defend their expropriated houses and revolutionary
+freedoms. In the Ukraine, Nestor Makhno helped organise a peasant-worker army
+to defend the social revolution against authoritarians of right and left. In
+the Spanish Revolution, the CNT organised militias to free those parts of
+Spain under fascist rule after the military coup in 1936.
These anarchist militias were as self-managed as possible, with any "officers"
elected and accountable to the troops and having the same pay and living
@@ -1121,7 +1298,7 @@ passed through a district they would put on posters announcing:
> _"The freedom of the workers and the peasants is their own, and not subject
to any restriction. It is up to the workers and peasants to act, to organise
themselves, to agree among themselves in all aspects of their lives, as they
-themselves see fit and desire. . . The Makhnovists can do no more than give
+themselves see fit and desire . . . The Makhnovists can do no more than give
aid and counsel . . . In no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to,
govern."_ [quoted by Peter Marshall, **Demanding the Impossible**, p. 473]
@@ -1131,25 +1308,18 @@ and means of production. They argued that _"[f]reedom of speech, of the press
and of assembly is the right of every toiler and any gesture contrary to that
freedom constitutes an act of counter-revolution."_ [**No Gods, No Masters**,
vol. 2, pp. 157-8] The Makhnovists also organised regional congresses of
-peasants and workers to discuss revolutionary and social issues (a fact that
-annoyed the Bolsheviks, leading to Trotsky trying to ban one congress and
-arguing that _"participation in said congress will be regarded as an act of
-high treason."_ [**Op. Cit.**, p. 151] Little wonder workers' democracy
-withered under the Bolsheviks!).
-
-The Makhnovists declared principles were voluntary enlistment, the election of
-officers and self-discipline according to the rules adopted by each unit
-themselves. Remarkably effective, the Makhnovists were the force that defeated
-Denikin's army and helped defeat Wrangel. After the Whites were defeated, the
-Bolsheviks turned against the Makhnovists and betrayed them. However, while
-they existed the Makhnovists defended the freedom of the working class to
-organise themselves against both right and left statists. See Voline's **The
-Unknown Revolution** and Peter Arshinov's **History of the Makhnovist
-Movement** for more information or the appendix on ["Why does the Makhnovist
-movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?"](append46.html) of this
-FAQ.
-
-A similar situation developed in Spain. After defeating the military/fascist
+peasants and workers to discuss revolutionary and social issues. The army's
+declared principles were voluntary enlistment, the election of officers and
+self-discipline according to the rules adopted by each unit themselves.
+Remarkably effective, the Makhnovists were the force that defeated Denikin's
+army and helped defeat Wrangel. After the Whites were defeated, the Bolsheviks
+turned against the Makhnovists and betrayed them. However, while they existed
+the Makhnovists defended the freedom of the working class to organise
+themselves against both right and left statists (see Voline's **The Unknown
+Revolution**, Peter Arshinov's **History of the Makhnovist Movement** or
+Alexandre Skirda's **Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack** for more information).
+
+A similar situation developed in Spain. After defeating the fascist military
coup on 19th of July, 1936, the anarchists organised self-managed militias to
liberate those parts of Spain under Franco. These groups were organised in a
libertarian fashion from the bottom up:
@@ -1159,140 +1329,102 @@ militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which come to
accommodations among themselves for small-scale operations. Ten such groups
together make up one **centuria,** which appoints a delegate to represent it.
Thirty **centurias** make up one column, which is directed by a war committee,
-on which the delegates from the **centurias** have their say. . . although
+on which the delegates from the **centurias** have their say . . . although
every column retains its freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of
-forces, which is not the same thing as unity of command."_ [**No Gods, No
-Masters**, vol. 2, pp. 256-7]
+forces, which is not the same thing as unity of command."_ [**Op. Cit.**, pp.
+256-7]
Like the Makhnovists, the anarchist militias in Spain were not only fighting
-against reaction, they were fighting for a better world. As Durruti argued,
+against reaction, they were fighting for a better world. As Durruti argued:
_"Our comrades on the front know for whom and for what they fight. They feel
themselves revolutionaries and they fight, not in defence of more or less
promised new laws, but for the conquest of the world, of the factories, the
workshops, the means of transportation, their bread and the new culture."_
-[**Op. Cit.**, p. 248]
-
-When they liberated towns and villages, the militia columns urged workers and
-peasants to collectivise the land and means of production, to re-organise life
-in a libertarian fashion. All across anti-Fascist Spain workers and peasants
-did exactly that (see [section I.8](secI8.html) for more information). The
-militias only defended the workers' and peasants' freedom to organise their
-own lives as they saw fit and did not force them to create collectives or
-dictate their form.
-
-Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the C.N.T. militias were betrayed by
-their so-called allies on the left. The anarchist troops were not given enough
-arms and were left on the front to rot in inaction. The "unified" command by
-the Republican State preferred not to arm libertarian troops as they would use
-these arms to defend themselves and their fellow workers against the
-Republican and Communist led counter-revolution. Ultimately, the _"people in
-arms"_ won the revolution and the "People's army" which replaced it lost the
-war. See Abel Paz's **Durruti: The People Armed**, Vernon Richards **Lessons
-of the Spanish Revolution** and George Orwell's **Homage to Catalonia** for
-more information.
+[**Op. Cit.**, p. 248] When they liberated towns and villages, the militia
+columns urged workers and peasants to collectivise the land and means of
+production, to re-organise life in a libertarian fashion. All across anti-
+Fascist Spain workers and peasants did exactly that. The militias only
+defended the workers' and peasants' freedom to organise their own lives as
+they saw fit and did not force them to create collectives or dictate their
+form.
+
+In this, the CNT was not only following the suggestions of the likes of
+Bakunin and Malatesta, it was implementing its own stated policies. Thus
+before the revolution we find leading FAI member D. A. Santillan arguing that
+the _"local Council of Economy will assume the mission of defence and raise
+voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be, for combat"_ in the _"cases of
+emergency or danger of a counter-revolution."_ These Local Councils would be a
+federation of workplace councils and would be members of the Regional Council
+of the Economy which, like the Local Council, would be _"constitute[d] by
+delegations or through assemblies."_ [**After the Revolution**, p. 80 and pp.
+82-83] Thus defence of a free society is based on the federation of workers'
+councils and so directly controlled by the revolutionary population. This can
+also be seen in the Spanish CNT's 1936 resolution on Libertarian Communism in
+the section entitled **_"Defence of the Revolution"_**:
+
+> _"We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made through the
+revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will be taken to defend the new
+regime, whether against the perils of a foreign capitalist invasion . . . or
+against counter-revolution at home. It must be remembered that a standing army
+constitutes the greatest danger for the revolution, since its influence could
+lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the revolution . . .
+The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to restore the
+system destroyed from either within or without . . . Let each Commune have its
+weapons and means of defence . . . the people will mobilise rapidly to stand
+up to the enemy, returning to their workplaces as soon as they may have
+accomplished their mission of defence. . . . _
+
+> _"1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to the
+communes which be responsible for ensuring defensive means are effectively
+organised nationwide._
+
+> _"2. In the international context, we shall have to mount an intensive
+propaganda drive among the proletariat of every country so that it may take an
+energetic protest, calling for sympathetic action against any attempted
+invasion by its respective government. At the same time, our Iberian
+Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will render material and
+moral assistance to all the world's exploited so that these may free
+themselves forever from the monstrous control of capitalism and the State."_
+[quoted by Jose Peirats, **The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, vol. 1, p.
+110]
+
+Which was precisely what the CNT did do in July 1936 when faced with the
+fascist coup. Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the CNT militias were
+betrayed by their so-called allies on the left. The anarchist troops were not
+given enough arms and were left on the front to rot in inaction. The "unified"
+command by the Republican State preferred not to arm libertarian troops as
+they would use these arms to defend themselves and their fellow workers
+against the Republican and Communist led counter-revolution. Ultimately, the
+_"people in arms"_ won the revolution and the _"People's Army"_ which replaced
+it lost the war (see Jose Peirats' **The CNT in the Spanish Revolution**, Abel
+Paz's **Durruti in the Spanish Revolution**, Vernon Richard's **Lessons of the
+Spanish Revolution** or Noam Chomsky's **Objectivity and Liberal
+Scholarship**).
While the cynic may point out that, in the end, these revolutions and militias
were defeated, it does not mean that their struggle was in vain or a future
revolution will not succeed. That would be like arguing in 1940 that democracy
-is inferior to fascism because the majority of democratic states had been
-(temporarily) defeated by fascism or fascist states. It does not mean that
-these methods will fail in the future or that we should embrace apparently
-more "successful" approaches which end in the creation of a society the total
-opposite of what we desire (means determine ends, after all, and statist means
-will create statist ends and apparent "successes" -- like Bolshevism -- are
-the greatest of failures in terms of our ideas and ideals). All we are doing
-here is pointing how anarchists have defended revolutions in the past and that
-these methods were successful for a long time in face of tremendous opposition
-forces.
-
-Thus, in practice, anarchists have followed Malatesta's argument for the
-_"creation of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in
-the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the
-forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside
-intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 166] This militia would be based on an armed population and _"[t]he
-power of the people in arms can only be used in the defence of the revolution
-and the freedoms won by their militancy and their sacrifices."_ [Vernon
-Richards, **Lessons of the Spanish Revolution**, p. 44] It does not seek to
-impose a revolution, for you cannot impose freedom or force people to be free
-against their will.
-
-Hence anarchists would seek to defend a revolution because, while anarchism
-_"is opposed to any interference with your liberty . . . [and] against all
-invasion and violence"_ it recognises that when _"any one attacks **you**,
-then it is **he** who is invading you, he who is employing violence against
-you. You have a right to defend yourself. More than that, it is your duty, as
-an anarchist to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion. . .
-In other words, the social revolution will attack no one, but it will defend
-itself against invasion from any quarter."_ [Alexander Berkman, **ABC of
-Anarchism**, p. 81]
-
-As Berkman stresses, this revolutionary defence _"must be in consonance with
-th[e] spirit [of anarchism]. Self-defence excludes all acts of coercion, of
-persecution or revenge. It is concerned only with repelling attack and
-depriving the enemy of opportunity to invade you."_ Any defence would be based
-on _"the strength of the revolution . . . First and foremost, in the support
-of the people . . . If they feel that they themselves are making the
-revolution, that they have become masters of their lives, that they have
-gained freedom and are building up their welfare, then in that very sentiment
-you have the greatest strength of the revolution. . . Let them believe in the
-revolution, and they will defend it to the death."_ Thus the _"armed workers
-and peasants are the only effective defence of the revolution."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, pp. 81-81]
-
-Part of this strength lies in liberty, so no attempt would be made to "defend"
-the revolution against mere talk, against the mere expression of an opinion.
-To _"suppress speech and press is not only a theoretical offence against
-liberty; it is a direct blow at the very foundations of the revolution. . . It
-would generate fear and distrust, would hatch conspiracies, and culminate in a
-reign of terror which has always killed revolution in the pass."_ [**Op.
-Cit.**, p. 83]
-
-Moreover, in the case of foreign intervention, the importance of international
-solidarity is important. As Bakunin argued, _"a social revolution cannot be a
-revolution in one nation alone. It is by nature an international revolution."_
-[**Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings**, p. 49] Thus any foreign intervention
-would face the problems of solidarity actions and revolts on its own doorstep
-and not dare send its troops abroad for long, if at all. Ultimately, the only
-way to support a revolution is to make your own.
-
-Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people than will
-defend it. Firstly, the population would be armed and so counter-
-revolutionaries would face stiff opposition to their attempts to recreate
-authority. Secondly, they would face liberated individuals who would reject
-their attempts:
-
-> _"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man
-[or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in
-defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial
-extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual
-revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many
-successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the
-revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to
-constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power
-upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that
-any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same
-revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and
-that the **maintenance** of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far
-easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the
-face of hitherto unshaken opposition."_ [Kropotkin, **Op. Cit.**, pp. 87-8]
-
-Thus any authoritarian would face the direct action of a free people, of free
-individuals, who would refuse to co-operate with the would-be authorities and
-join in solidarity with their friends and fellow workers to resist them. The
-only way a counter-revolution could spread internally is if the mass of the
-population can become alienated from the revolution and this is impossible in
-an anarchist revolution as power remains in their hands. If power rests in
-their hands, there is no danger from counter-revolutionaries.
-
-In the end, an anarchist revolution can be defended only by applying its ideas
-as widely as possible. Its defence rests in those who make it. If the
-revolution is an expression of their needs, desires and hopes then it will be
-defended with the full passion of a free people. Such a revolution **may** be
-defeated by superior force, who can tell? But the possibility is that it will
-not and that is what makes it worth trying. To not act because of the
-possibility of failure is to live half a life. Anarchism calls upon everyone
-to live the kind of life they deserve as unique individuals and desire as
-human beings. Individually we can make a difference, together we can change
-the world.
+is inferior to fascism because most democratic states had been (temporarily)
+defeated by the Axis powers. It does not mean that these methods will fail in
+the future or that we should embrace apparently more "successful" approaches
+which end in the creation of a society the total opposite of what we desire
+(means determine ends, after all, and statist means will create statist ends
+and apparent "successes" -- like Bolshevism -- are the greatest of failures in
+terms of our ideas and ideals). All we are doing here is pointing how
+anarchists have defended revolutions in the past and that these methods were
+successful for a long time in face of tremendous opposition forces.
+
+Thus, in practice, anarchists have followed libertarian theory and created
+self-managed forms of self-defence against attempts to re-enslave a free
+people. In the end, an anarchist revolution can be defended only by applying
+its ideas as widely as possible. Its defence rests in those who make it. If
+the revolution is an expression of their needs, desires and hopes then it will
+be defended with the full passion of a free people. Such a revolution **may**
+be defeated by superior force, who can tell? But the possibility is that it
+will not and that is what makes it worth trying. To not act because of the
+possibility of failure is to live half a life.
+
+Anarchism calls upon everyone to live the kind of life they deserve as unique
+individuals and desire as human beings. Individually we can make a difference,
+together we can change the world.
diff --git a/markdown/secJcon.md b/markdown/secJcon.md
index 81c0a299b58fd14ebb881bbf1d3047c1ba5c18f7..1cc4e59dce1e8dd42dcf09da6522067452e3e8af 100644
--- a/markdown/secJcon.md
+++ b/markdown/secJcon.md
@@ -59,9 +59,6 @@ struggle?](secJ4.html#secj45)
[J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and anti-big business
feelings? ](secJ4.html#secj46)
[J.4.7 What about the communications revolution? ](secJ4.html#secj47)
-[J.4.8 What is the significance of the accelerating rate of change and the
-information explosion? ](secJ4.html#secj48)
-[J.4.9 What are Netwars?](secJ4.html#secj49)
## [J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists
create?](secJ5.html)
@@ -73,17 +70,17 @@ unions?](secJ5.html#secj53)
[J.5.4 What are industrial networks?](secJ5.html#secj54)
[J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists
support?](secJ5.html#secj55)
-[J.5.6 What are the key features of mutual credit schemes?](secJ5.html#secj56)
+[J.5.6 Why are mutual credit schemes important?](secJ5.html#secj56)
[J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
capitalism?](secJ5.html#secj57)
[J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like?
](secJ5.html#secj58)
[J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?](secJ5.html#secj59)
[J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?](secJ5.html#secj510)
-[J.5.11 If workers really want self-management, why aren't there more producer
-co-operatives?](secJ5.html#secj511)
-[J.5.12 If self-management is more efficient, surely capitalist firms will be
-forced to introduce it by the market?](secJ5.html#secj512)
+[J.5.11 If workers really want self-management then why are there so few co-
+operatives?](secJ5.html#secj511)
+[J.5.12 If self-management were more efficient then surely the market would
+force capitalists to introduce it?](secJ5.html#secj512)
[J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?](secJ5.html#secj513)
[J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?](secJ5.html#secj514)
[J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare
@@ -93,28 +90,22 @@ help?](secJ5.html#secj516)
## [J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?](secJ6.html)
-### [J.6.1 What are the main principles of raising free children and the main
-obstacles to implementing those principles?](secJ6.html#secj61)
-[J.6.2 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods applied to
-the care of newborn infants](secJ6.html#secj62)
-[J.6.3 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods applied to
-the care of young children?
-[J.6.4 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be
-good?](secJ6.html#secj64)
-[J.6.5 But how can children learn _ethics_ if they are not given punishments,
-prohibitions, and religious instruction? ](secJ6.html#secj65)
-[J.6.6 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?](secJ6.html#secj66)
-[J.6.7 Isn't what you call "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for
-spoiling the child?](secJ6.html#secj67)
-[J.6.8 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual
-liberation?](secJ6.html#secj68)
-[J.6.9 But isn't this concern with teenage sexual liberation just a
-distraction from issues that should be of more concern to anarchists, like
-restructuring the economy?](secJ6.html#secj69)
+### [J.6.1 What are the main obstacles to raising free
+children?](secJ6.html#secj61)
+[J.6.2 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing
+methods?](secJ6.html#secj62)
+[J.6.3 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be
+good?](secJ6.html#secj63)
+[J.6.4 Isn't "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for spoiling the
+child?](secJ6.html#secj64)
+[J.6.5 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual
+liberation?](secJ6.html#secj65)
+[J.6.6 But isn't this concern with sexual liberation just a distraction from
+revolution?](secJ6.html#secj66)
## [J.7 What do anarchists mean by social revolution?](secJ7.html)
-### [J.7.1 Are all anarchists revolutionaries?](secJ7.html#secj71)
+### [J.7.1 Why are most anarchists revolutionaries?](secJ7.html#secj71)
[J.7.2 Is social revolution possible?](secJ7.html#secj72)
[J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?](secJ7.html#secj73)
[J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?](secJ7.html#secj74)