A. Life expectancy is to a large degree related to adequete calorie intake, suitable acces to shelter, personal security, sanitation and immunisation. Developed Nations health pronlems are in scope and character different to health problems that are endemic in Third World Countries. The major health problems faced by the people in the third world could be eliminated almost overnight if the global economy was not controlled by the corporate sector. Health outcomes would dramatically improve in any Third World country that adopted an Anarchists economic system. Whether the new society survived or not would depend on the development of other anarchist communities that could assist them economically, and, if necessary, militarily. Corporate capitalism would attempt to destabilise such a society by fostering and supporting dissension within that community, imposing economic blockades, and if necessary, invading the new society.
Developed nations that adopt anarchist principles would find they face the same survival problems as Third World countries. If they survived, its possible that health outcomes could initially fall because the community faces both economic problems and possibly military intervention. If they overcame these problems and have acces to adequete resources, its quite likely that the major health problems caused by alienation and powerlessness that impact on a developed nations mental health today, would decrease as people would become involved in the life of the communities they live and work in. Health problems related to cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol and drug taking would decrease as State sanctioned monopolies that control production of cigarettes, alcohol and drugs would be broken.
The major health problems caused by over-eating, especially the over-eating of fat enriched take-away foods, would also be able to be tackled, as the fast food industries domination of eating would be challenged. Anarchism can improve health outcomes for people in both the developed and Third World. An anarchist society is based on principles that allow that society to tackle the underlying problems that shorten life expectancy and cause ill health. An anarchist society has the potential to improve both the physiological and mental health of its members
Q. Would an Anarchist Society be in a Better Position to Tackle the Escalating Environmental Problem the World Faces?
A. Environmental problems are caused by many more factors than an escalating population fighting for limited resources. The key to combating the current environmental problems facing the world are interlinked with the type of economic systems that have been adopted in different societies. The triumph of global corporate capitalism as the worlds dominant economic ideology is to a large degree the major cause of todays environmental crisis.
Capitalism, a method of production that places the exploitation of resources in the hands of smaller and smaller groups (whose prime responsibility is to generate profits for their major shareholders) is the single most important contributor to the current environmental crisis. Placing the responsibility for a communities well being in the hands of the corporate sector is tantamount to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Green Capitalism, the idea that capitalist forms of production can be used to tackle environmental problems is an absurdity.
Capitalist forms of production generate profits irrespective of the human, social and environmental problems they cause. Using capitalist productive processes to manage limited resources, drives up the price of resources and maximises corporate profits for the companies who control those resources. It does not solve the environmental problems caused by capitalism and limits access to scarce resources to those who can afford to but them.
Anarchism is a social and political philosophy that rejects State and private ownership of resources and, places that ownership in the hands of the community. As the satisfaction of human needs, not the generation of profits for profits sake, is one of anarchism's main philosophical planks, environmental and social concerns are taken into consideration when decisions are made about how resources are used and made. As everybody living in an anarchist community has access to the common wealth irrespective of the work they perform, anarchist communities would be able to cease forms of production that are environmentally harmful because individual livelihoods would not be effected by the closure of environmentally dangerous industries and forms of produciton. An anarchist society has both the underlying philosophy and the economic stuctures that would allow it to tackle environmental problems that cannot be successfully tackled in both Capitalist and Communist worlds.
Q. Anarchism can not work because human beings are self-centred and are only intersted in the welfare of themselves and their family and friends?
A. I agree 100% that human beings are self-centred and normally are gonly intersted in the welfare of their family and friends, that's the reason why they should find anarchist ideas attractive. The question facing individuals, family groups, affinity groups and communities is what is the best way my needs and the needs of those around me can be satisfied. Do I hitch my star to somebody who exercises power in the community so my fortunes are interlinked with theirs? Do I exploit my neighbours, grab what I can, keeping an eye out that I am not stabbed in the back later date? Or do I explore other options? An anarchist society is a society without rulers, the people involved in a decision, make that decision. It is structured in a way so that individuals can not grab power and use it to satisfy their needs and the needs of those around them by exploiting other people. Anarchists recognise the frailties of human nature, given the opportunity most people will exploit other people, that's why anarchists want to replace heirarchicial structures with, non-heirarchical structures.
It's no accident that anarchists irrespective of what strategic path they follow, are implacably opposed to the State. The State apparatus is the structure that gives a few individuals the power to exploit millions of other people. Individuals are neither inherently good or bad, how they behave or what they do is largely determined by the society that they live in. The more heirachal a society, the more power is concentrated in the hands of indiviiduals or a small minority. It's no accident that the worst human atrocities have occured in thiose societies where one person wields absolute power. The fewer checks and balances that exist in a society, the greater the possibilty that those who wield power will exploit those they control.
Whether it's sexual abuse of minors in the family structure, the persecution of minorities a community or the exploitation of a whole society, the conditions are the same. Someone is able to wield so much power, they find themselves in a position where they can exploit another human being. In such situations, its not unusual who wield power exploit that power. That's the very reason anarchists want to break down and replace heirarchical structures with non-heirarchical structures. The anarchist project is one that recognises the inherent individual weakness and wants to replace the current structures with structures that limit the damge a Pol Pot, Bush Junior, Hitler, Stalin, Howard and the myriad of other people who abuse the power they exercise, continue to cause.
Q. Would Freedom of Speech Exist in an Anarchist Society?
A. I was a little suprised to hear some Anarachists call for a ban on David Irvine's film that was to be shown at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival last week. I've always taken it for granted that a diversity of opinion should exist in an anarchist society. Altough Irvine's ideas are offensive, hurtful and a lie and he uses manipulation of historical facts to pedal racist propaganda and build a political movement based on those views, they should not be banned.
I have no problem with vigorously protesting against what he says, but I am concerned when people want to ban his dribble. All types of opinions should be able to be expressed in an anarchist society, some of these opinions will be dangerous and others will be offensive. Allowing these ideas to be expressed will subject those who express them to public scrutiny.
Banning them, drives them underground and gives impetus to the development of an underground movement that is not able to be scrutinised publicly. The public exchange of ideas puts those who put forward authoritarian, racist and sexist material, into the public limelight. Communities can then decide how to best tackle the situation and stop those who put forward these ideas from forming a political movement that can turn ideas into reality and destroy what an anarchist community has been able to achieve.
Banning people from publicly articulating their ideas, creates a situation where those who decide what can and can't be said, will be able to exercise power over the rest of the community and in other areas of their lives. Giving power to a minority, or even a majority to stop individuals or sections of the community from raising topics no matter how offensive or troublesome for debate, creates the conditions for the formation of an authoritarian community that has no time for the opinions of anybody else but those who control the levers of power.
Societies that allow freedom of speech, have a greater chance of tackling problems that occur within their communities than those who turn a deaf ear to what is happening within their ranks and try to solve social problems by stopping inconvenient, uncomfortable, offensive and even what may be considered to be dangerous discussion. Historially, those societies that use the pwer that's invested in them, are responsible for some of the most gruesome atrocities that have occured in history.