Ok this is the page where I (Evan) get to have my say on what i think is important. After much reading and contemplating I have decided that Anarchy is the only fesible option for the human race to progress as peaceful people, free of exploitation and suffering at the hands of others. Let me say this now, before your thought controlled brains go into submission, ANARCHY IS NOT CHOAS, DISORDER OR TERROR.
I believe strongly as an Anarchist that people will always exploit any power or authority that is bestowed upon them. You see it in the Police, teachers, your employers and even your parents at times. People just love being able to tell others what to do. So how do you solve this problem? Take away all authority. If no one can tell others what to do then can they. But, it must be stated that TOTAL FREEDOM comes with TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY. That's right you will no longer be able to blame others for your mistakes. Look at the Civil legal system at the moment, everyone is sueing everyone else for their own mistakes. Public Liability Insurance costs have sky-rocketed because everyone is afraid of getting sued if even the tinniest accident occurs. Of cousre there are still cases where people have sued justifiably for the wrong doings of corporations and other exploitative groups.
This is only a very brief look at Anarchism. The following are questions and answers that i have taken from the 'Anarchist Age' web site. They look at different aspects of anarchism and are better written than anything I could write. E-mail me (Evan) if your are confused about something and I'll see if I can further explain it to you.
*****Again, I stress that Recalcitrant are not the authors of these Qs and As. They are from the Anarchist Age*****
Q. No God, No Masters?
A. Many Anarchists make the mistake of thinking the slogan 'No Gods, No Masters!' encapsulates the essence of anarchist thought. Anarchism is a philosophy that rests on the idea of creating a society where there are no rulers. How this society will look like and how people make decisions within such a society is a matter for debate, what isn't a matter for debate is whether a belief in God can play a role of the lives of people who call themselves anarchists.
While all anarchists accept the idea that a 'master' has no role in an anarchist society, not all anarchistsaccept the idea that a belief in God does not play a role in an anarchist society. The original 'No Gods, No Masters' slogan was in essence a reaction to the power that the Christian Church weilded over the State apparatus. The modern European Nation-State that anarchists struggled against, was to a degree, a product of that struggle.
The problem anarchists have with God is not a problem with individuals, or even groups of people having a relationship with a god of their choice, but the apparatus which is formed when a religious class springs up which acts as intermediaries between people and their belief system. Anarchists are against the idea of a State, irrespective of whether it's religious, secular, or a combination of both.
Anarchists problem with God rests with their problems with a specific religious class weilding institutionalised power. A 'Master', whether an employer, a religious figure, a family member or a friend is a 'master'. As long as they have power to tell you how to live your life, they control what you can and cannot do. A religious theocracy -a government directed through a preistly order- is to an anarchist as obnoxious as a government that is controlled by a military dictatorship. Both rule through fear and their control of the disciplinary arm of the State.
The problem doesn't lie within people having ideas about, or even worshipping some type of supernatural being. Problems occur when an intermediary class that acts to protect the interests of that supernatural being, imposes its views and will through force on believers and non-believers who live in the sphere of influence of that intermediary class.
Q. Human Nature?
A. Anarchists are constantly told that anarchism could never work because we hold naive views about human nature and human beings. Anarchists naive? I don't think so. Anarchists want to abolish the State because they understand the limitations of human nature. Who's naive? The person who puts their faith in a ruler to do the right thing by them, or, the anarchist who wants to abolish the State because they believe that no individual should be allowed to exercise that amount of power on behalf of other people.
When you look at the great human tragedies of the 20th century, most of them are directly related to one person, or a small group of people exercising power on behalf of tens of thousands, possibly millions of people. Anarchists understand the limitations of human nature. They have no faith in human beings who exercise power. Exercising that power on their behalf, they want to replace structures and institutions that concentrate power in the hands of one person or a small group, into structures that give all people affected by a decision the power to make that decision.
So who's naive? The person who believes that a highly centralised strusture controlled by a few people will deliver the goods, or a person who believes that power should not be concentrated into the hands of a few people because, they understand the frailties of human beings. The answer is obvious to whoever wants an answer. Anarchists want to break down heirarchy and centralised forms of power that allow a smaill minority to exercise power on behalf of the majority. They want to do this because they understand the very real limitations of huamn nature. That's why they want to abolish structures that allow one group to exercise power over another.
Those people that display a profound naivety about human nature are the very same people who dismiss anarchists as impractical dreamers. Think about it, who's naive and who's realistic? Is the person who's willing to allow power to be concentrated in a few hands hoping that their rulers will do the right thing by them naive? Or is the person who wants to stop society creating structures and institutions that concentrate power into the hands of a few rulers, naive?
Anarchists have a clear understanding about the frailties of human nature, that's why they don't want anybody to exercise power their behalf, and want to be involved in all decisions that affect them.
Q. What Is A Recallable Delegate?
A. The delegate is the building block af an anarchist community. People appoint or elect delegates to represent their opinions at regional and national meetings, a delegate's mandate is determined by the group they represent. At a regional or national meeting, delegates present the position of the people the represent. Once the delegates positions have been articulated, they discuss the problem at hand, examuine solutions that take into account the decisions made by the communities they represent and decide on a position that is acceptable to the delegates present.
The delegate then reports back to the people who have given them the mandate to act on their behalf. At this point the local meeting has a number of options, they may accept the delegates arguments and ratify the decision made at the regional or national meeting. They may decide not to accept the decision made at the regional or national meeting and ask the same delegate to return back to the regional or national meeting to explain why they have made such a decision or they may not be happy with the delegates performance and appoint or elect another delegate to represent their position at the next meeting.
If consensus cannot be reached at a regional or national delgates meeting, delegates have a number of choices. They can recommend to the local groups that they represent, that the decision be abondoned, as consensus cannot be reached. If the decision discussed does not challenge the principles of association that bind that society together, delegates holding both majority and minority opinions can go back to their local groups and ask them if they want to try implement the decisions made by both groups, as no compromise is possible.
In this situation the resources that have been allocated to implement the decision to be made, would be divided amongst both the majority and minority. Each group would recieve a percentage of the resources available that reflects the number of people holdng each position
Q. Will Violence Decrease in an Anarchist Society?
A. The State, through its disciplianry arm (police, paramilitary organisations and the military) maintains order by exercising the monopoly on violence that it holds. If order is not maintained byt the use of State sanctioned violence, the inequalities of power and wealth that exists between people in both capitalist and State capitalists could result in an explosion of violence in that community.
Anarchists believe that human beings are neither good nor bad, how they act in the majority of situations is determined by the circumstances they find themselves in. Each individual has the potential to act cooperatively or competitively, each person has the potential to steal or become a sexual predator. Whether they do so or not is to a large degree determined by the type of society that they live in. As individuals and groups have the potential to simultaneously do both a great deal of good and harm, anarchists tackle the problem of institutionalised violence by attempting to abolish and destroy stuctures and institutions which give people power over other people. Anarchists don't want to change human nature. They accept the frailties of human beings and understand if given the chance, human beings can act in a deplorable fashion. The history of the human race is littered with examples of the damage that is caused when individuals or small groups gain control of structures and institutions which allow them to impose their will on other people. Violence is not just a matter of physically attacking somebody, violence is manifested in many ways. Death from starvation and preventable disease in a world where others are dying from the diseases over consumption is as real as the deaths caused by a soldier firing into a crowd or unarmed protestors.
Violence will decrease in an anarchists community because people are capable of creating structures that ensure that people don't die from starvation or preventable diseases. The level of violence will decrease markedly because, institutions that concentrate power into the hands of a few will no longer exist. Although meglomaniacs will still exist, the damage they can cause will be limited to their immediate circle. Altough violence will continue to be an issue in an anarchist community, it will be a problem that will be contained within that community.
Q. What role does Inheritance play in an Anarchist Society?
A. It would be logical to think that in a society where all property is held in common, that the death of an individual would result in the return to the community of any property they held. Unfortunately realtity is a little it more difficult than theory and some property has inherent value that is obvious to those who are familiar with the importance of that article to the person who died.
A pair of knitted baby booties may be the only record a sibling may have of a brother who died in infancy, to that person, tho booties have a far greater value than the time and energy that was used to make them. Property in an anarchist society, like in any other society, may have inherent value that far outstrips its economic vlaue. Property in an anarchist society is divided into personal property and property that is held in common. Personal property is defined as thise everyday items that we accumulate over a lifetime that have specific value to us, photos, jewellery, clothes, furniture etc. Other assets that we use in an anarchist society are only ours while we use them, a house, car, boat etc. Its possible the use of these articles is already the subject of a roster system.
Individuals can, through a will bequeath their personal property to whoever they believe will get most value out of it, all other property used by the person who died will revert back to the common community pool. Altough the person may be able to indicate how they would like that property to be re-assigned, what eventually happens to the property will be determined by need, not by the individuals wishes.
Inheretance is one important mechanism by which power and wealth is kept in the hands of those who already weild power. Limiting inheretance rights in an anarchist community to immediate personal effects satisfies an individual's longing to retain material that reminds someone of somebody who has died. Ensuring the rest of the property used by that person returns back to the common pool allows that property to be utilised to satisfy community and individual need, not increase individual wealth.