Section A - What is Anarchism? 
 
A.1 What is anarchism?  
	A.1.1		What does "anarchy" mean? 
	A.1.2 	What does "anarchism" mean? 
	A.1.3		Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?	 
	A.1.4 	Are anarchists socialists?  
	A.1.5 	Where does anarchism come from? 
 
A.2 What does anarchism stand for? 
	A.2.1 	What is the essence of anarchism?  
	A.2.2 	Why do anarchists emphasise liberty? 
	A.2.3 	Are anarchists in favour of organisation? 
	A.2.4 	Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty? 
	A.2.5 	Why are anarchists in favour of equality?  
	A.2.6 	Why is solidarity important to anarchists? 
	A.2.7 	Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation? 
	A.2.8 	Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy? 
	A.2.9 	What sort of society do anarchists want? 
	A.2.10 	What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve? 
	A.2.11 	Why do most anarchists support direct democracy? 
	A.2.12 	Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy? 
	A.2.13 	Are anarchists individualists or collectivists? 
	A.2.14 	Why is voluntarism not enough? 
	A.2.15 	What about Human Nature? 
	A.2.16 	Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work? 
	A.2.17 	Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work? 
	A.2.18 	Do anarchists support terrorism? 
	A.2.19 	What ethical views do anarchists hold? 
 
A.3 What types of anarchism are there? 
	A.3.1 	What are the differences between individualist and 
	        	social anarchists? 
	A.3.2 	Are there different types of social anarchism? 
	A.3.3 	What kinds of Green anarchism is there? 
	A.3.4 	Is anarchism pacifistic? 
	A.3.5 	What is anarcha-feminism? 
	A.3.6		What is Cultural Anarchism? 
	A.3.7 	Are there religious anarchists? 
	A.3.8 	What is "anarchism without adjectives"? 
 
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers? 
 
A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"? 
	A.5.1		The Paris Commune 
	A.5.2 	The Haymarket Martyrs 
	A.5.3 	Building the Syndicalist Unions 
	A.5.4 	Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. 
	A.5.5 	Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations 
	A.5.6 	Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution. 
	A.5.7 	The May-June revolt in France, 1968. 
 
Section A - What is Anarchism? 
 
Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises:  
(1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, 
homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol 
abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the 
deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual 
aid, etc.; (2) destruction of  the planet's delicate ecosystems on 
which all complex forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.  
 
Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment "experts," mainstream 
media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable, each 
having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on a 
piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however, this 
"orthodox" approach isn't working, since the problems in question are 
getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly  
headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon, 
or a descent into urban savagery -- or all of the above.  
 
Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these 
crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle 
of *hierarchical authority,* which underlies the major institutions of all 
"civilised" societies, whether capitalist or "communist." Anarchist 
analysis therefore starts from the fact that all of our major institutions 
are in the form of hierarchies, i.e. organisations that concentrate power 
at the top of a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government 
bureaucracies, armies, political parties, religious organisations, 
universities, etc. It then goes on to show how the authoritarian 
relations inherent in such hierarchies negatively affect individuals, 
their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A - 
E) we will present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and 
its negative effects in greater detail.  
 
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of 
modern civilisation, just "negative" or "destructive." Because it is much 
more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society.  
Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the "anarchist question" as 
follows: "The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one's 
self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings 
and still retain one's own characteristic qualities." [_Red Emma Speaks_, 
pp. 133-134] In other words, how can we create a society in which the 
potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of 
others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which, 
instead of being controlled "from the top down" through hierarchical 
structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will "be managed 
by individuals or voluntary associations." [Ben Tucker, _Anarchist Reader_, 
p. 149] Later sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe  
anarchism's positive proposals for organising society in this way, "from  
the bottom up." However, some of the constructive core of anarchism will  
be seen even in the earlier sections.  
 
As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "[l]ike all great ideas, anarchism is 
pretty simple when you get down to it -- human beings are at their best 
when they are living free of authority, deciding things among themselves 
rather than being ordered about." [_Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. vii] 
Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore social freedom, 
anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that repress people: 
 
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political 
and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development 
of a free humanity" [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 16]  
 
As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive 
nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.  
 
Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. 
The difference is *very* important. Basically, theory means you have 
ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, 
but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open 
to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so 
does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which 
people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so 
as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such 
"fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to 
attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true 
regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism, 
"Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the 
destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that 
usually serves the interest of some ruling elite. Or, as Michael Bakunin 
puts it:  
 
"Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody 
immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some 
pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national honour, 
historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare."  
[_God and the State_, p. 59]
 
Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of some 
dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or her 
ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living to 
bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The living 
should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis of 
critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules 
and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for ourselves. 
 
In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you 
the "correct" answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about 
what anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its modern 
forms and why *we* are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to provoke 
thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new ideology, 
then sorry, anarchism is not for you. 
 
While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not "reasonable" 
people. "Reasonable" people uncritically accept what the "experts" and 
"authorities" tell them is true, and so they will always remain slaves! 
Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote:  
 
"[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when he speaks  
and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the situation he may be  
in, he always knows what he must say and do. He may fall, but he cannot bring 
shame upon himself or his causes." [_Statism and Anarchy_ - cited in Albert  
Meltzer, _I couldn't Paint Golden Angels_, p. 2] 
 
What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is the 
power of freedom. We encourage you not to be "reasonable," not to accept 
what others tell you, but to think and act for yourself! 
 
One last point: to state the obvious, this is *not* the final word on 
anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written here, 
but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All we wish 
to do is indicate the *basic* ideas of anarchism and give our analysis of 
certain topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are 
sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we 
present, even if they may disagree with our application of them here and 
there. 
 
A.1 What is anarchism? 
 
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the 
absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, _What is Property_, 
p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims 
to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together  
as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical 
control -- be that control by the state or a capitalist -- as harmful 
to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary. 
 
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown: 
 
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State 
movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a 
simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that 
power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate 
more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and 
economic organisation." [_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 106] 
 
However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented  
ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or 
"without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos 
and a return to the "laws of the jungle." 
 
This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For 
example, in countries which have considered government by one person 
(monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used 
precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a 
vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply 
that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a 
new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta 
expresses it:  
 
"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without  
government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural  
and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should  
sound like absence of order." [_Anarchy_, p. 12] 
 
Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people 
will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are 
both harmful *and* unnecessary: 
 
"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only  
unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just  
because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody:  
natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete  
freedom within complete solidarity." [Ibid., pp. 12-13]

This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas  
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. 
 
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean? 
 
The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix *an* (or *a*), meaning 
"not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus *archos*, 
meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." 
Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning
"contrary to authority." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 284]

While the Greek words *anarchos* and *anarchia* are often taken to
mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be 
seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no 
government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, 
"without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have 
continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing
that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources
of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit.,
p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of 
order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin 
Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent 
summary:

"Anarchism can be understood as the *generic* social and political
idea that expresses negation of *all* power, sovereignty, domination,
and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . 
Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] 
government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus 
of anarchist critique." [_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 139]

For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, 
anarchism is primarily a movement against *hierarchy.* Why? Because 
hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since 
the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, 
anti-state; but this is *not* a sufficient definition of anarchism. This 
means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical 
organisation, not only the state. In the words of Brian Morris:

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. 
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," 
_Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed_ no. 45, p. 38]

Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development -- 
the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use  
the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as 
short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings  
that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of  
power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when he
attacked "official" authority but defended "natural influence," and also 
when he said: 
 
"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man?  
Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [_The Political Philosophy  
of Bakunin_, p. 271]  
 
As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the 
'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of  
anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root 
of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'"  
[_Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement_] 
 
We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not  
limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian  
economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly  
those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be 
seen from Proudhon's argument that "*Capital* . . . in the political field 
is analogous to *government* . . . The economic idea of capitalism . . .  
[and] the politics of government or of authority . . . [are] identical . . .  
[and] linked in various ways. . . What capital does to labour . . . the  
State [does] to liberty . . ." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _A Short History  
of Anarchism_, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism
as it involved people selling their labour and so ensuring that "the 
worker's inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a
master." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 36] Forty years earlier Bakunin made
the same point when he argued that under the current system "the worker 
sells his person and his liberty for a given time" to the capitalist 
in exchange for a wage [Op. Cit., p. 187].
 
Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition 
to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's 
words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] 
the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian 
conceptions of  society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are 
seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary 
Pamphlets_, p. 158] Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely
anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been 
used by the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one 
examines the writings of classical anarchists . . . as well as the 
character of anarchist movements . . . it is clearly evident that it 
has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It 
has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has 
been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the 
state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]

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

A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean? 
 
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of  
socialism." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 46] In other 
words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, 
that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and 
government." [Errico Malatesta, "Towards Anarchism," in _Man!_, 
M. Graham (ed.), p. 75] 
 
Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society  
which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists  
maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social  
system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social  
equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually  
self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:  
 
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and  
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."  
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 269] 
 
The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality 
is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is 
impossible and a justification for slavery.  
 
While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist  
anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details), 
there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them --  
opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of  
the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists on "the  
abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government  
of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited in  
_Native American Anarchism: A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism_  
by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent  
as *usury* (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions  
that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State. 
 
More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within  
anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and  
a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." [_The 
Politics of Individualism_, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be 
free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority. 
 
So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of 
anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this, 
"[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private 
ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is 
condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and 
will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common 
by the producers of wealth. And . . . they maintain that the ideal of the 
political organisation of society is a condition of things where the 
functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the 
ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government  
to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy." [Peter 
Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46] 
 
Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques 
current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential 
new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the 
current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty, 
equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2. 
 
Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin pointed  
out, "the urge to destroy is a creative urge." One cannot build a better 
society without understanding what is wrong with the present one.  
 
A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism? 
 
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of 
"anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive 
and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are 
"free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and 
"libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, 
libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.  
 
Considering definitions from the _American Heritage Dictionary_, 
we find: 
 
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; 
one who believes in free will. 
 
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both 
political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. 
 
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields: 
 
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in 
freedom of  action and thought and free will, in which the producers 
possess both political power and the means of producing and 
distributing goods. 
 
(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political 
sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions 
to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor 
"socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have 
different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to 
debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and 
politically useless hobby but we will not). 
 
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA,  
many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a 
contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are 
just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" 
(as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make 
those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to 
steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.  
 
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term 
"libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The  
revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published _Le Libertaire, Journal  
du Mouvement social_ in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, 
_A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max  
Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November,  
1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use 
of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s 
onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist  
laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the  
popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper  
_Le Libertaire_  -- _The Libertarian_ -- in France in 1895, for example).  
Since then, particularly outside America, it has *always* been associated  
with anarchist ideas and movements.  Taking a more recent example, in the  
USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had  
staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based  
"Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early  
1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe  
their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian  
communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who  
have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea  
of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is  
a contradiction in terms.  
 
As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system 
of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state 
ownership -- what is commonly *called* "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, 
not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state 
"socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content 
whatever. 
 
A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists? 
 
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because 
capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C).  
Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they  
have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think 
that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own  
regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By 
so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of 
capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, _Man!_,  
M. Graham (ed.), p. 32, p. 34] 
 
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to *all* economic forms  
which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism,  
Soviet-style "socialism" and so on. We just concentrate on capitalism 
because that is what is dominating the world just now). 
 
Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like 
Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so 
because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and 
Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, 
and true sense -- as an effort to *abolish* the exploitation of Labour by 
Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists 
of that time." [_Evolution and Environment_, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, 
"the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession 
of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . 
State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 144] 
Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those 
who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." 
[Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in 
_Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed_, no. 34] This opposition to 
exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places 
them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits
of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin,
_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example,
supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the
association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company"
because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force
[i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of 
managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [_The General Idea
of the Revolution_, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the 
end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a 
society within which the producers own and control the means of production. 
The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist
and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists
favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations
or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists). 

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian *as
well as* exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves 
during the production process nor have control over the product of their 
labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor 
can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This 
perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired 
both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see 
"[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere 
[and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will 
be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he 
will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, 
exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the 
second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms 
part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the 
slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is 
necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without 
that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and 
there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which 
is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and 
pp. 215-216]

Therefore *all* anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned the 
wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander Berkman, 
_What is Communist Anarchism?_, p. 37]). Benjamin Tucker, for example 
-- the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss 
later) -- called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced 
capitalism as a system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of 
interest, rent and profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, 
non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant 
and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since "labour. . . 
will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product." [_The 
Individualist Anarchists_, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy would 
be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between 
co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other 
Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, 
being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that 
capitalists have the advantage over working people, so resulting in 
the latters exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section 
G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had 
nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various "spooks," 
which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, 
such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so 
forth. 
 
So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a 
specific  kind -- *libertarian socialists*. As the individualist 
anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin): 
 
"[i]t is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. 
Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, 
archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and 
free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to 
increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over 
the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease 
they are anarchistic." [_Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not_] 
 
Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists,  
but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's  
comment that  "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The  
anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the  
exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history  
of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings 
[_Anarchism_, p. 12]. Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer 
used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same
fact -- "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not 
necessarily an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement
was "divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the
Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." [_The Autobiographies of the
Haymarket Martyrs_, p. 81]
 
So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many 
issues -- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, 
free market would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they 
agree that capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive 
and that an anarchist society must, by definition, be based on 
associated, not wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease 
the powers of external wills and forces over the individual" during 
working hours and such self-management of work by those who do it 
is the core ideal of real socialism. This perspective can be seen 
when Joseph Labadie argued that the trade union was "the 
exemplification of gaining freedom by association" and that 
"[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more the slave of 
his employer than he is with it." [_Different Phases of the 
Labour Question_]  
 
However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism"  
almost always refers to *state* socialism, a system that all anarchists  
have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals.  
All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this 
issue:  
 
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would 
flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest 
enemies of socialism." ["Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future",
_Red and Black Revolution_, no. 2]
 
Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, 
social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Michael 
Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that 
would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's 
state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of 
Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of 
State Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were 
among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik 
regime in Russia. 
 
Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share *some* ideas with  
*some* Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker  
accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his  
labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily  
influenced by Max Stirner's book _The Ego and Its Own_, which contains  
a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as  
state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement  
holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the  
anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example,  
Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are  
very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of  
the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from  
Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more  
libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and 
Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the  
free association of equals. 
 
Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands 
in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. 
state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which 
many people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate 
free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and 
communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism 
in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the
State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist
Anarchists_, p. 81] Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most
people think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State 
as Capitalist . . . which the Social-Democratic fraction of the 
great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter
Kropotkin, _The Great French Revolution_, p. 31] The anarchist 
objection to the identification of Marxism, "central planning" 
and State Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed 
in section H.  
 
It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce 
confusion,  most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is 
taken for granted  that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise 
of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some pro-capitalists 
have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that is why we have 
laboured the point somewhat here.  Historically, and logically, anarchism 
implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is something, we stress, 
that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a fuller discussion of why 
"anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist see section F). 
 
A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from? 
 
Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the 
_The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists_ produced 
by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution  
(see Section A.5.4). They point out that: 
 
"The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their  
aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of  
anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on  
the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free  
non-statist society of workers under self-management. 
 
"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an  
intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers  
against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from  
their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become  
particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle  
of the working masses. 
 
"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others,  
did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in  
the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and  
knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16] 
 
Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass  
movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both  
Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917  
to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has traditionally 
found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants." [_Demanding 
the Impossible_, p. 652] 
 
Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for 
freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, "Anarchism . . . originated in 
everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each 
time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: 
it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself" (see also
section J.5). [_Evolution and Environment_, p. 58 and p. 57] For 
Proudhon, "the proof" of his mutualist ideas lay in the "current 
practice, revolutionary practice" of "those labour associations . . . 
which have spontaneously . . . been formed in Paris and Lyon . . . 
[show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour 
amount to one and the same." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, 
pp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was "close 
similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and 
the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that there was "a remarkable 
convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was 
able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of 
the example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that 
he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by 
such workers." [K. Steven Vincent, _Piere-Joseph Proudhon and the 
Rise of French Republican Socialism_, p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead 
a fully human  life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to 
play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory 
towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based 
on their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product
of working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and
exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it, "[t]here were never theoreticians
of Anarchism as such, [a] writer comes along and writes down what has
already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he/she is
attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leaders, and by successive
bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois
writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that
proves the working class relies on the bourgeois leaders." [_Anarchism:
Arguments for and against_, pp. 10-12] In Kropotkin's eyes, all 
anarchist writers did was to "work out a general expression of 
[anarchism's] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis 
of its teachings" derived from the experiences of working class people 
in struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society 
in general. [Op. Cit., p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed 
long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an
anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with 
the rise of capitalism (Anarchism "emerged at the end of the eighteenth
century . . .[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both
Capital and the State." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist
writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin
argued, for example, that "from all times there have been Anarchists
and Statists." [Op. Cit., p. 16] In _Mutual Aid_ (and elsewhere) 
Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies
and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) 
anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. This was particularly 
the case with indigenous peoples, for example most Native American
tribes organised themselves in a very anarchistic manner. 

Kropotkin recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic 
ideas to predate the creation of the "official" anarchist movement 
and argued that:

"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised
the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal
authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan,
the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the
free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist
the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers
who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured
to establish their personal authority." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets_, pp. 158-9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern
anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation.
He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same
popular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists
in this case" as were the clan, the village community and so on, as
were "the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the 
'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes'
during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working
class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, 
the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action 
throughout human existence. Most indigenous peoples in North America and 
elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before 
anarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic 
tendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution -- 
the New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian 
'Sections' during the French Revolution, the workers' councils and factory 
committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see 
Murray Bookchin's _The Third Revolution_ for details). This is to be expected 
if anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then 
any society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate 
anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities 
cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression  
and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's experiences and  
analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our  
hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was
called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people
calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is
essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and
the state, against oppression and exploitation, and *for* a free society
of free and equal individuals. 
 
A.2 What does anarchism stand for? 
 
These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands 
for in practice and what ideals drive it:  
 
	 The man 
	 Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys: 
	 Power, like a desolating pestilence, 
	 Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience, 
	 Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, 
	 Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame, 
	 A mechanised automaton. 
 
As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty, 
desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider 
individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most 
important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality 
does not exist in a vacuum but is a *social* phenomenon. Outside of 
society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in 
order to develop, expand, and grow.  
 
Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal  
effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society,  
while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society  
(as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts.  
A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would  
be hollow and dead. Thus, "the making of a human being. . . is a collective  
process, a process in which both community and the individual *participate.*"  
[Murray Bookchin, _The Modern Crisis_, p. 79] Consequently, any political  
theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.  
 
In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent, 
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three 
principles: liberty, equality and solidarity, which are interdependent.  
 
Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, 
creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the 
chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and 
develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and 
personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the 
society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be 
based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote 
Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it, 
anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of 
association" [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 35] (See further section 
A.2.2, "Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?"). 
 
If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then 
equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real 
freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross 
inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only 
a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while 
the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a 
mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under 
capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really 
free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by 
the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality 
develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free 
individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for 
their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to 
interact. (See also A.2.5 "Why are anarchists in favour of equality?)  
 
Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and 
co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But 
without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing 
classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In 
such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," 
"dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism" 
is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom 
resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them.  
Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a 
partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed, 
which weakens society as a whole. (See also A.2.6, "Why is solidarity 
important to anarchists?") 
 
It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or  
self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear: 
 
"we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the anarchist  
finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for the  
achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers,  
and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is  
adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the  
labour of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [_Life and Ideas_,  
p. 23]
 
For anarchists, *real* wealth is other people and the planet on which  
we live.  
 
Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are 
idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society.  
Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to 
material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people 
actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a *materialist* 
theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction 
and individuals' mental activity (see Michael Bakunin's _God and the 
State_ for the classic discussion of materialism verses idealism). 
 
This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings, 
not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever  
arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do  
the arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding  
of things." [Alexander Berkman, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 42] 
 
Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability 
of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to 
be right. In other words, liberty.  
 
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism? 
 
As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical)  
authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts  
who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe  
that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their 
recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a  
nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism. 
 
Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human 
being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words, 
"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual." 
[_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 107] Domination is inherently  
degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of  
the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying  
the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy.  
Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation,  
which is the root of alienation, inequality, poverty, and social breakdown. 
 
In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively)  
is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and  
individuality.  
 
Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By  
co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique  
individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual  
can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime,  
if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for  
others." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in _Anarchy_, p. 27]  
 
While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings 
have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We 
cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as 
Bakunin reminds us:  
 
"[t]he abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we  
advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the  
abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups  
of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of  
influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official."  
[quoted by Malatesta, in _Anarchy_, p. 50] 
 
In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority. 
 
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty? 
 
An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover 
of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which 
the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and 
increase." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 196] Because 
human beings are thinking creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny 
them the opportunity to think for themselves, which is to deny their 
very existence as humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our 
humanity, because: 
 
"the very fact. . . that a person has a consciousness of self, of being  
different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for  
liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait."  
[Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, p. 393] 
 
For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and 
independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority.  
Only in freedom can man [sic] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom 
will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only 
in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie 
men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life."  
[Ibid., p. 59] 
 
Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their  
own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power  
of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their  
lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This 
is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions 
they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect 
than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. 
 
So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of 
one's individual potential, which is also a social product and can be 
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will 
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich 
the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed.  
Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because they have been 
legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the 
ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet 
with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from 
others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. 
This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in 
political life as well." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 64] 
 
In short, liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it.  
Thus Murray Bookchin writes:  
 
"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given 
historical period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a 
*collective* development -- which is not to deny that individuals play 
an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged 
to do so if they wish to be free." [_Social Anarchism or Lifestyle 
Anarchism_, p. 15] 
 
But freedom requires the right *kind* of social environment in which 
to grow and develop. Such an environment *must* be decentralised 
and based on the direct management of work by those who do it. 
For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas 
self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management 
ensures that the individuals involved use (and so develop) all 
their abilities -- particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in 
contrast, substitutes the activities and thoughts of a few for the 
activities and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus, 
rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy 
marginalises the many and ensures that their development 
is blunted.  
 
It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. 
As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority "dresses
itself in two principal forms: the political form, that is the State;
and the economic form, that is private property." [cited by Peter
Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 43] Capitalism, like 
the state, is based on centralised authority (i.e. of the boss over
the worker), the very purpose of which is to keep the management 
of work out of the hands of those who do it. This means "that the 
serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only 
upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, 
of raw material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the 
whole body of the workers." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Rudolf
Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 45]  
 
Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose 
private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery 
which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle 
that labour  must be freely undertaken and under the control of the 
producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", _For Reasons of State_, p. 158] 
 
Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in  
which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they  
govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it  
implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one  
in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince" 
individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm 
supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support, 
they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy.  
And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to "government" means  
only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations  
or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations  
of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on  
direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives."  
For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation  
based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of  
the people subjected to that power.  
 
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within 
which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and 
statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property 
and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals 
will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their 
liberty and making impossible the "full development of all the material, 
intellectual and moral capacities that are latent in every one of us" 
[Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_,  p. 261] (see section B for further 
discussion of the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism 
and statism). 
 
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation? 
 
Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty 
*cannot* exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett, 
in _Objections to Anarchism_, points out: 
 
"[t]o get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to 
co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to 
suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely 
an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. 
 
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage 
freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to 
take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a 
walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I 
should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I 
cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I 
must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, 
and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is 
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree 
with my friend to go for a walk." 
 
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating 
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of 
us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective 
work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico 
Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 86]
 
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange 
at first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all 
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making them appear to be the 
only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode 
of  organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific  
kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and  
exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind 
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with 
the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the 
labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.  
 
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human 
societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on 
co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access 
to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour 
according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings 
based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised 
dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and 
resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of 
one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology of Freedom_).  
 
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do *not* advocate  
going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the 
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent 
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to 
suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that 
human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive, 
and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this 
claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or 
*learned,* and as such, can be *unlearned* (see Ashley Montagu, 
_The Nature of Human Aggression_). We are not fatalists or genetic 
determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change 
the way they do things, including the way they organise society.  
 
And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because 
presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and  
power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social  
pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for  
those at the bottom.  Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion  
through its control of the state (see B.2.4), it is able to suppress the  
majority and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller 
scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within 
authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of 
their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it: 
 
"capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer:  
just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches  
and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the organisation or union  
may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do  
so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all  
over." [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 53]
 
Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result 
that it is, indeed, "sick all over."  
 
For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation 
and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement  
is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a free and  
independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of  
mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful."  
[Op. Cit., p. 53] In the "political" sphere, this means direct democracy  
and confederation, which are the expression and environment of liberty.  
Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and  
equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and  
debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray  
Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent."  
 
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct 
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections 
A.2.9 and A.2.10. 
 
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty? 
 
No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do 
whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the 
denial of the liberty of others.  
 
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, 
to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. 
On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, 
and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists 
recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.  
 
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule 
others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for 
everybody. . .with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; 
which does *not* mean. . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and 
certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 53]
 
In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority 
is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or public (the 
state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on "Civil 
Disobedience" (1847) 
 
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." 
 
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality? 
 
As mentioned in A.2, anarchists are dedicated to social equality because 
it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish.  However, 
there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much 
of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before 
discussing what anarchist *do* mean by equality, we have to indicate 
what we *do not* mean by it. 
 
Anarchists do *not* believe in "equality of endowment," which is not 
only  non-existent but would be *very* undesirable if it could be brought 
about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences 
not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because 
"life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will 
only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share." [Noam 
Chomsky, "Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future", _Red and Black 
Revolution_, No. 2]
 
That some people *seriously* suggest that anarchists mean by "equality" 
is at everyone should be *identical* is a sad reflection on the state of 
present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption 
used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and 
side-track people into discussions of biology.  
 
Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We 
have *no* desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same 
goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. 
Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and 
statism is that they standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's 
_The McDonaldization of Society_ on why capitalism is driven 
towards standardisation and conformity, for example). In the
words of Alexander Berkman:

"The spirit of authority, law, written and unwritten, tradition 
and custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or woman]
a will-less automation without independence or individuality. . . 
All of us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed
in breaking its chains, and that only partly." [_The ABC of 
Anarchism_, p., 26]

Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common
grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social
relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.
 
"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, 
which would *not* be equality anyway, as some would have more power 
than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, 
as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, 
desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. 
Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, 
they do not receive an "equal" amount  of medical care. The same is 
true of other human needs. As Alexander Berkman put it: 

"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal *opportunity*. . . Do 
not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced 
equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, 
not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear 
the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from 
it: the very reverse in fact." He goes on to argue that "[i]ndividual 
needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is *equal opportunity* 
to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. . . Free opportunity of 
expressing and acting out your individuality means development of natural 
dissimilarities and variations." [Op. Cit., p. 25]
 
For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" 
or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical
society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" *are* 
related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each 
generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. 
This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without 
a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources)
becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for 
the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those 
who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers 
created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what 
they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society 
depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. 
From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists 
desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical 
system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will see). 

Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual 
diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes: 
 
"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various 
individuals' abilities and their levels of energy cease to differ? Some
will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some will
always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two 
identical leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And
it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are much 
more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On
the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this
diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual  
complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite  
diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the
very  basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for 
equality." ["All-Round Education", _The Basic Bakunin_, pp. 117-8] 
 
Equality for anarchists means *social* equality, or, to use Murray 
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta
used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By 
this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in 
ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to 
be turned into power. Individual differences, in other words,  "would 
be of  no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the 
collectivity when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution." 
[Michael Bakunin, _God and the State_, p. 53] 

If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, 
are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and 
are based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural 
differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power. 
For example, without capitalist property rights there would not be 
means by which a minority could monopolise the means of life 
(machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of 
others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). 
Similarly, if workers manage their own work, there is no class of 
capitalists to grow rich off their labour. Thus Proudhon:

"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?

"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of
this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.

"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of
citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that
caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of
the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists
of reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into
the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every
citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist,
labourer and expert or artist." [_No Gods, No Masters_, pp. 57-8]

Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions
as the key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management
as the means to achieve it. Thus self-management is the key to 
social equality. Social equality in the workplace, for example, 
means that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on 
how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong 
believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all." 
 
This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that 
everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different 
people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they 
will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is 
also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert 
-- who manages his or her own work rather than being directed by a 
committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the 
topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some 
people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed 
in a socially equal way will *not* involve non-medical staff voting on how 
doctors should perform an operation! 
 
In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without 
the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality) 
to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect 
the individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both, 
some will have power over others, making decisions *for* them (i.e. 
governing them), and thus some will be more free than others.

Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express 
themselves, for the self-management it implies means "people working 
in face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the 
uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving 
common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, 
_From the Ground Up_, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression 
of individuality and so is a necessary base for individual liberty.
 
Section F.3 ("Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists generally place little or no 
value on 'equality,' and what do they mean by that term?) discusses 
anarchist ideas on equality further. 
 
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists? 
 
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link 
between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can 
work together to meet their common interests in an environment that 
supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual 
aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and 
happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence. 
 
Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the 
"human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific 
conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one 
of  the strongest motivations of human behaviour." [_To Be or To Have_, 
p. 107] Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use 
Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions, 
or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to 
be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised 
in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and 
non-hierarchical. 
 
Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life and 
is far from a denial of liberty. "What wonderful results this unique 
force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation 
with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Co-operation -- as 
opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival 
and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary 
co-operation. . . can create the basis for a free individual and 
associational life." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 95]
 
Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our 
common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity 
(i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those 
subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the 
recognition of common interests:  
 
"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. *I* 
want to be free! *I* hope to be happy! *I* want to appreciate all the 
beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured *only* when all other 
people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people 
around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and 
meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And *only* then can I eat my 
fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other 
people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a 
question of *my own contentment,* only of *my own self,* when I rebel 
against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ." 
[Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), _The BrickBurner_ magazine quoted by 
Karl S. Guthke, _B. Traven: The life behind the legends_, pp. 133-4] 
 
To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of 
Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to 
all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and  
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:  
 
"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept  
with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation  
with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism  
dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at  
the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates  
now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly  
successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and  
at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also  
good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health  
and to liking one another." [_No Contest: The Case Against Competition_,  
p. 7] 
 
And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only 
because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary 
to resist those in power. By standing together, we can increase our 
strength and get what we want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we 
can start to manage our own collective affairs together and so replace the 
boss once and for all. "*Unions* will. . . multiply the individual's 
means and secure his assailed property." [Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its 
Own, p. 258] By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current 
system with one more to our liking. There is power in "union."  
 
Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own 
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for 
*another.* By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so 
that we may enjoy *more,* not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest --  
that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others  
based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone,  
this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in  
all probability I too will be dominated in turn. 
 
As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our 
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule 
us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to 
let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will 
touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you 
are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in 
in Luigi Galleani's _The End of Anarchism?_, p. 79 -- different translation  
in _The Ego and Its Own_, p. 197] 
 
Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means 
by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is 
strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity  
should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a 
leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people,  
co-operating together as *equals.* The "big WE" is *not* solidarity, although  
the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union.  
It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are  
conditioned to blindly obey leaders.  
 
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation? 
 
Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot 
be freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through 
their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective 
action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As 
Emma Goldman points out: 
 
"history tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual]  
gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts."  
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 142]
 
Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves 
by their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this 
process will be discussed in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") and  
will not be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people 
organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways that 
empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for 
them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves" (performing  
what anarchists call "direct action"). 
 
Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved 
in it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative, 
imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be 
developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico 
Malatesta points out "[b]etween man and his social environment there is a 
reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men what 
they are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. . . .  
Fortunately existing society has not been created by the inspired will of 
a dominating class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to  
passive and unconscious instruments. . . . It is the result of a thousand 
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . ."  
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 188] 
 
Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through 
their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that 
limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the 
process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This 
process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and 
creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation 
begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is 
only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose 
from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs." [Op. Cit., p.
142] But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes, 
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging 
a piece of chain with him." [Max Stirner, Op. Cit., p. 168] 
 
In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist 
militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only 
self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision 
in our hearts and gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in 
the real world. 
 
Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait  
for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is 
political, and given the nature of society, how we act in the here 
and now will influence the future of our society and our lives. 
Therefore, even in pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, 
as Bakunin puts it, "not only the ideas but also the facts of the 
future itself." We can do so by creating alternative social 
relationships and organisations, acting as free people in a 
non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and now can 
we lay the foundation for a free society. Moreover, this process 
of self-liberation goes on all the time:

"Subordinates of all kinds exercise their capacity for critical 
self-reflection every day -- that is why masters are thwarted,
frustrated and, sometimes, overthrown. But unless masters are
overthrown, unless subordinates engage in political activity,
no amount of critical reflection will end their subjection and
bring them freedom." [Carole Pateman, _The Sexual Contract_, 
p. 205]

Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life 
to reject, resist and thwart authority and bring them to their
logical conclusion -- a society of free individuals, co-operating
as equals in free, self-managed associations. Without this process
of critical self-reflection, resistance and self-liberation a
free society is impossible. Thus, for anarchists, anarchism comes
from the natural resistance of subordinated people striving to
act as free individuals within a hierarchical world. This process
of resistance is called by many anarchists the "class struggle" (as 
it is working class people who are generally the most subordinated 
group within society) or, more generally, "social struggle." It is
this everyday resistance to authority (in all its forms) and the 
desire for freedom which is the key to the anarchist revolution.
It is for this reason that "anarchists emphasise over and over 
that the class struggle provides the only means for the workers 
[and other oppressed groups] to achieve control over their
destiny." [Marie-Louise Berneri, _Neither East Nor West_, 
p. 32]

Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous 
revolutionary action" is usually results from and is based upon 
the patient work of many years of organisation and education by 
people with "utopian" ideas. The process of "creating the new 
world in the shell of the old" (to use another I.W.W. expression), 
by building alternative institutions and relationships, is but one 
component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary 
commitment and militancy. 
 
As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of 
all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and 
should therefore be an integral part of our programme. . . 
anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the 
people to emancipate themselves. . . , we want the new way of 
life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to 
the state of their development and advance as they advance." 
[Op. Cit. p. 90] 

Unless a process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is 
impossible. Only when individuals free themselves, both materially 
(by abolishing the state and capitalism) and intellectually (by 
freeing themselves of submissive attitudes towards authority), 
can a free society be possible. We should not forget that capitalist 
and state power, to a great extent, is power over the minds of those 
subject to them (backed up, of course, with sizeable force if the
mental domination fails and people start rebelling and resisting). In 
effect, a spiritual power as the ideas of the ruling class dominate 
society and permeate the minds of the oppressed. As long as this 
holds, the working class will acquiesce to authority, oppression 
and exploitation as the normal condition of life. Minds submissive 
to the doctrines and positions of their masters cannot hope to win 
freedom, to revolt and fight. Thus the oppressed must overcome the 
mental domination of the existing system before they can throw 
off its yoke (and, anarchists argue, direct action is the means 
of doing both -- see sections J.2 and J.4). Capitalism and statism 
must be beaten spiritually and theoretically before it is beaten 
materially (many anarchists call this mental liberation "class
consciousness" -- see section B.7.3). And self-liberation through 
struggle against oppression is the only way this can be done. Thus
anarchists encourage (to use Kropotkin's term) "the spirit of
revolt." 

Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation,
solidarity and direct action. Direct action is the means of creating 
anarchists, free people, and so "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." This is because "[s]uch a struggle . . . better than 
any indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary 
improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens his 
[or her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State 
that supports it, 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," that is, see the
possibility of a free society. Kropotkin, like many anarchists,
pointed to the Syndicalist and Trade Union movements as a means of
developing libertarian ideas within existing society (although he,
like most anarchists, did not limit anarchist activity exclusively
to them). Indeed, any movement which "permit[s] the working men
[and women] to realise their solidarity and to feel the community
of their interests . . . prepare[s] the way for these conceptions" of
communist-anarchism, i.e. the overcoming the spiritual domination of
existing society within the minds of the oppressed. [_Evolution and 
Environment_, p. 83 and p. 85]

For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the 
"history of human progress [is] seen as the history of rebellion and 
disobedience, with the individual debased by subservience to authority 
in its many forms and able to retain his/her dignity only through 
rebellion and disobedience." [Robert Lynn, _Not a Life Story, Just a 
Leaf from It_, p. 77] This is why anarchists stress self-liberation 
(and self-organisation, self-management and self-activity). Little
wonder Bakunin considered "rebellion" as one of the "three fundamental
principles [which] constitute the essential conditions of all
human development, collective or individual, in history." [_God
and the State_, p. 12] This is simply because individuals and 
groups cannot be freed by others, only by themselves. Such 
rebellion (self-liberation) is the *only* means by which existing 
society becomes more libertarian and an anarchist society a possibility. 

A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy? 
 
No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is  
an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions,  
since they embody the principle of authority. The argument for this  
(if anybody needs one) is as follows: 
 
A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series 
of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually) 
remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have 
found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and 
exploitation. For example, in his article "What Do Bosses Do?" (_Review  
of Radical Political Economics_, Vol. 6, No. 2), a study of the modern 
factory, Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate 
hierarchy is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), 
but greater control over workers, the purpose of such control being 
more effective exploitation. 
 
Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat 
of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, 
psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of  
dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set  
of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the  
few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those  
in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom  
have virtually none. 
 
Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential 
features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in 
hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover,  
for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and 
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose 
both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to 
dismantle *all* forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist. This
applies to capitalist firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure
of the capitalist firm is extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in 
nature:

"a fascist system. . . It's absolutist. Power goes from top down. . . 
the ideal state is top down control with the public essentially
following orders.

"Let's take a look at a corporation. . . [I]f you look at 
what they are, power goes strictly top down, from the board of 
directors to managers to lower managers to ultimately the people 
on the shop floor, typing messages, and so on. There's no flow 
of power or planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and 
make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. The 
structure of power is linear, from the top down." [_Keeping the 
Rabble in Line_, p. 237]

David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company
and the state well when he writes:

"Most factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the
bottom are privates, the supervisors are sergeants, and on up
through the hierarchy. The organisation can dictate everything
from our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large portion
of our lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require
us to see a company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it
can forbid us free time to engage in political activity; it
can suppress freedom of speech, press and assembly -- it can use
ID cards and armed security police, along with closed-circuit
TVs to watch us; it can punish dissenters with 'disciplinary
layoffs' (as GM calls them), or it can fire us. We are forced,
by circumstances, to accept much of this, or join the millions
of unemployed. . . In almost every job, we have only the 'right'
to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and we are expected
to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft."
["For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social 
self-management", _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, Howard J. 
Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193-4]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its
forms, including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support
*archy* -- which an anarchist, by definition, cannot do. In other
words, for anarchists, "[p]romises to obey, contracts of (wage) 
slavery, agreements requiring the acceptance of a subordinate 
status, are all illegitimate because they do restrict and 
restrain individual autonomy." [Robert Graham, "The Anarchist 
Contract", _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.),
p. 77]

Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it 
has an hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. 
This is for two reasons. Firstly, under capitalism workers are
driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty)
to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the
economic conditions workers face by creating "massive disparities
in wealth . . . [as] workers. . . sell their labour to the 
capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value." 
[Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70] Therefore:

"To portray the parties to an employment contract, for example, as 
free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious inequality of 
bargaining power which exists between the worker and the employer. 
To then go on to portray the relationship of subordination and 
exploitation which naturally results as the epitome of freedom 
is to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social 
justice." [Ibid.]

It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action
and organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working
people and allows them to assert their autonomy (see section J).

Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association 
is voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state
system must be considered as "anarchy" - no one forces an individual 
to live in a specific state. We are free to leave and go somewhere 
else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature of an association, you 
can end up supporting organisations based upon the denial of 
freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed forces, 
states even) all because they are "voluntary." As Bob Black 
argues, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring 
identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements 
in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy 
is fetishism at its worst." [_Libertarian as Conservative_] Anarchy 
is more than being free to pick a master. 
 
Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, 
otherwise you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly 
anarchistic. For more on this see section A.2.14 (Why is voluntarism 
not enough?). 
 
Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they  
can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own 
affairs directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures  
(i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an  
association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly 
anarchistic. 
 
We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists, 
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its 
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a 
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho" 
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on 
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism  
is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see section F) 
 
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want? 
 
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We 
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we 
have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a 
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, 
can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power 
into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty 
and dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away 
from people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour 
organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in 
the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached. 
 
Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals 
must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of 
freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based 
on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism),  
as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to 
grow and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic 
collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct 
democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section 
A.2.11, "Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?").  
 
We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some 
sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from 
it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will  
always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress. 
But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for 
food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved 
without the slightest threat to the social order and individual liberty."  
[_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 28] 
 
Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict 
as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should 
not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement destructive is not the fact of 
conflict itself but the addition of competition." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest: 
The Case Against Competition_, p. 156] Indeed, "a rigid demand for  
agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from contributing 
their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] It is for this reason that most 
anarchists reject consensus decision making in large groups (see section 
A.2.12). 
 
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies 
of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative  
conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by  
elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable  
and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of 
the assembly which elected them. If the delegates act against their mandate  
or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the  
assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly  
recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains  
in the hands of the union of individuals who created it. 
 
This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power 
of recall are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation. The *key* 
difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an anarchist 
community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for example, 
people give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for 
them for a fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises 
is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power 
lies at the top and those at the base are expected to obey. Similarly, 
in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an unelected minority of 
bosses and managers at the top and the workers are expected to obey. 

In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one individual 
or group (elected or unelected) holds power in an anarchist community
or association. Instead decisions are made using direct democratic 
principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint 
delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction 
between policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and 
the co-ordination and administration of any adopted policy (which is 
the job for delegates). 
 
These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely 
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would 
be run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental 
assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner 
as the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" 
and international conferences in which all important issues and problems  
affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition,  
the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would 
be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed,  
and co-ordinated.  
 
Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and 
administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under 
strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies  
would have a limited tenure and, like the delegates to the congresses,
have a fixed mandate -- they are not able  to make decisions on behalf 
of the people they are delegates for. In addition, like the delegates 
to conferences and congresses, they would be subject to instant recall 
by the assemblies and congresses from which they emerged in the first 
place. In this way any committees required to co-ordinate join activities 
would be, to quote Malatesta's words, "always under the direct control 
of the population." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 175]
 
Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions  
reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any  
compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go  
back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification  
any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the  
community that has delegated a particular task to a particular individual  
or committee. In addition, the assemblies can call confederal conferences  
to discuss new developments and to inform action committees about changing  
wishes and to instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas. 

In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation 
or society are *not* representatives (as they are in a democratic 
government). Kropotkin makes the difference clear:

"The question of true delegation versus representation can be better
understood if one imagines a hundred or two hundred men [and women],
who meet each day in their work and share common concerns . . . who
have discussed every aspect of the question that concerns them and
have reached a decision. They then choose someone and send him [or
her] to reach an agreement with other delegates of the same kind. . . 
The delegate is not authorised to do more than explain to other
delegates the considerations that have led his [or her] colleagues
to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he [or she]
will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition
which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens
when true delegation comes into being." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 132] 

Unlike in a representative system, *power* is not delegated into the
hands of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply a mouthpiece for
the association that elected (or otherwise selected) them in the
first place. All delegates and action committees would be mandated
and subject to instant recall to ensure they express the wishes of 
the assemblies they came from rather than their own. In this way 
government is replaced by anarchy, a network of free associations 
and communities co-operating as equals based on a system of mandated 
delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free federation from 
the bottom up.

This network of anarchist communities would work on three levels. There
would be "independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and of
federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the 
organisation of men [and women] in accordance with their different
functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the
satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary,
and educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas,
for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin, _Evolution and
Environment_, p. 79] All would be based on self-management, free
association, free federation and self-organisation from the bottom up.

By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of
live, because the people at the base of the organisation are in control, 
*not* their delegates. Only this form of organisation can replace 
government (the initiative and empowerment of the few) with anarchy 
(the initiative and empowerment of all). This form of organisation 
would exist in all activities which required group work and the 
co-ordination of many people. It would be, as Bakunin said, the 
means "to integrate individuals into structures which they could 
understand and control." For individual initiatives, the individual 
involved would manage them. 
 
As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures  
that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others.  
Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and  
limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of  
governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the  
decisions. For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would 
look like see section I. 
 
A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve? 
 
The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will 
have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions 
of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now.  
However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and 
doomed to failure. 
 
To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations 
would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the 
statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces 
indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity, 
uniformity instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality.  
More importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and 
crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy, 
see section B.1, "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" and 
related sections).  
 
That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes) 
liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner 
Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting 
Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that "the great solidarity that  
existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual relying on his [sic]  
own strength and not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations  
must, to be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a  
mass, but free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_,  
p. 58] 
 
As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures 
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all very  
well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one  
thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he 
cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all." 
[quoted in _Paths in Utopia_, Martin Buber, p. 33]
 
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.  
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in  
the street. As Bob Black puts it, "If you spend most of your waking life  
taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will  
become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and  
you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life."  
[_The Libertarian as Conservative_]
 
This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a *massive* transformation 
in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred 
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their  
abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating  
in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and 
society, they can ensure the full development of their individual  
capacities. 
 
Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society 
can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity 
of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation 
allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed 
and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and 
developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of 
thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that 
affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and 
protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of 
people enslaved by hierarchy.  
 
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from 
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that *both* 
rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; *both* exploiters and exploited 
are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, _Act for Yourselves_, p. 
83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as 
well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of 
command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated 
to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the 
submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [For 
Ourselves, _The Right to Be Greedy_]
 
A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? 
 
For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within  
free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement. The  
reason is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.' 
non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that 
mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of 
oppression." [John P. Clark, _Max Stirner's Egoism_, p. 93] 
 
It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a  
fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans . . . [the 
individual has three options;] he [or she] must submit to the will of 
others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or 
live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest 
good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity." 
[Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 85] 
 
Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means  
by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings,  
respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct 
democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and  
self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities  
to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their  
intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes  
in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what  
is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy? 
 
Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a 
"citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association  
is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large  
workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific  
office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the  
content of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within  
the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e.  
manage their own activity. This means that political obligation is not  
owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state  
or company, but to one's fellow "citizens." 
 
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing 
their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also 
superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or 
repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political 
authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships 
between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an 
elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see 
section B.1, "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" for 
more on this). Thus Proudhon: 
 
"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No  
more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen,  
each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [_The General 
Idea of the Revolution_, pp. 245-6] 
 
Such a society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the 
workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject 
to the approval of the members." [Op. Cit., p. 222] Instead of capitalist 
or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the  
guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free  
society. 
 
Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are 
governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown,  
_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct  
democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept  
of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular  
vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or  
refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity  
to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to  
impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive 
imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed 
obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. 
Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the 
context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means 
by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains 
in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of  
the error of its ways. 
 
And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does  
not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case  
for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but  
that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the 
good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that 
anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, 
whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the 
expense of those subject to their decisions. 
 
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is 
why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. 
This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases 
itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions 
and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman: 
 
"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will  
have to take political action, including politically disobedient action 
if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the 
political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one 
possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing 
democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the 
right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of 
self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical 
recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, 
or where necessary, to disobey." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, 
p. 162] 
 
Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how 
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links  
between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations  
themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have  
associations joining confederations. The links between associations in  
the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as  
within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members  
and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an  
association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of 
communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising  
participation and self-management. 
 
The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 (What  
sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in  
section I (What would an anarchist society look like?). 
 
This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta  
speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of 
the majority to govern human society in general." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As can  
be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the  
minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's  
words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they  
have even heard what these might be." [Op. Cit., p. 101] Hence, direct  
democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule"  
nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. 
In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it 
fits Malatesta's argument that: 
 
"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it 
is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of 
the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing 
something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should 
feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such  
adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be  
reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and  
of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being  
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and  
statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100] 
 
As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as 
having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule  
is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making 
tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and 
acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the 
majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the 
minority. After all, as Malatesta argued: 
 
"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced 
that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice 
his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should 
support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 132] 
 
Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct  
democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary  
associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less  
than the whole, the right to use some *limited* discretion as to the  
*means* to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the  
unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice  
of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly  
represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced 
by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, 
or person of any individual, except it be such as *all* members of the 
association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results 
from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for 
*all* members of an association to agree) [