Ever since the unrest surrounding the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle in December 1999 the terms anarchy and anarchism have gotten a lot of press. The vast majority of this press has been extremely negative and it generally upholds the idea that anarchy equals chaos, violence, and destruction. Almost nothing has been said about what anarchists actually believe, and what most anarchists actually do. Instead a systematic campaign of slander and misinformation has reinforced the conception of anarchy as being something undesirable and impossible. Contrary to the ideas the media promotes, anarchy does not mean chaos and destruction; anarchism has a long and rich history of creative and progressive philosophy and practice; most of all anarchy is possible.

The people that control the very media outlets that slander anarchists are also those who are in control of society in general. They are the elite of society, the bosses. They constitute the richest class of human beings, those who have the power to exercise authority over others; in the workplace, at school, in the prison system, and in the media. These are the capitalists, those who control wealth and those who have the ability to obtain more wealth. Anarchists stand in opposition to this class of people, precisely because they are in control, while the majority of society is not. If we are to live in a truly free society, there mustn't be division between those who have power and those who do not. A truly free arrangement is one that eliminates the ability and tendency of one class to exploit another, and of any individual to oppress or dominate another human being. The type of society we live in, capitalism, is in direct conflict with the ideal of freedom from exploitation and oppression. To replace bosses and bossed, anarchists strive for freedom, for anarchy.

1. So what is anarchy? Some Classic Anarchist Ideas

Many people believe that the word anarchy means chaos. It is used quite often as a synonym for disorder and lawless confusion. In fact the word anarchy has nothing to do with chaos. It is derived from two Greek words, an-without and arkhos-ruler. So anarchy means a society without a ruler. The reason that 'chaos' and 'without a ruler' are confused is simple. Before it became a popular idea, the word democracy was used by European rulers to refer to chaos and disorder. The ruler(s) want to maintain their position as rulers and so spread the idea that society without a ruler (or with democracy) would be chaotic and undesirable. But some people have a different idea. The idea, validated by historical fact, is that rulers are what cause conflict, violence, chaos and destruction, not the other way around. This idea is held by the anarchists, and their philosophy is called anarchism.

Freedom

The absolute basic idea of anarchism is freedom. All worth, all potential for enjoyment of life, anarchists believe, stems from freedom. Loss of freedom, and the inability to exercise the fulfilment of the individual's human potential, is the condition of slavery. When one individual exerts force over another, there is the condition of authority. This force, by its very nature, is domination and control of one individual by another. So authority, domination, is the substitution of the will of one individual for that of another, someone higher up in a hierarchy. Because the principle of authority is in direct contrast with the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual, anarchists reject authority. Anarchists believe that no individual should dominate another, and that any rational organization of society would be in accordance with the principle of freedom and opposition to authority. Famous anarchist and linguist Noam Chomsky points out:

"Any form of Authority requires justification; it's not self justified. And the justification can rarely be given. Sometimes you can give it. I think you can give an argument that you shouldn't let a 3 year old run across the street, that's a form of authority that is justifiable. But there aren't many of them, and usually the effort to give justification fails. And when we try to face it, we find that the authority is illegitimate. Anytime you find a form of authority illegitimate, you ought to challenge it. It's something that conflicts with human rights and liberties. " 1

There is no inherent worth in authority, in almost all cases the exercise of authority is only beneficial to those who are (ab)using it. A free human being, and a free human society, strives to eliminate all unnecessary authority, and to bring about conditions which do have inherent worth, ie: freedom.

What, then, is the positive side of liberty? Mikhail Bakunin describes anarchist sentiment:

"I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow...I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being -- they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom." 2

Freedom means, for anarchists, the ability of the individual to exercise the fulfilment of their desires and to participate directly in the processes that shape their daily lives. Inherent in this freedom is the one restriction, to refrain from infringing on the freedom of others.

Therefore, as The Anarchist FAQ says, anarchists are not in favor of absolute liberty, "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]" 3

All the other tenets of anarchism can be said to tie in directly to freedom. Each idea complements the others, and is only possible when it exists alongside them. There are really no loose hinges in anarchist philosophy, because all the ideas stem from one united force within humanity, the human drive for freedom. From self-management to decentralized autonomy, all the practical applications of anarchist thought are examples of this natural drive.

Self-Management

The idea of self-management can be said to sum up the anarchists ideal of freedom, and it's application to society. Self-management is the idea that human beings, both deserving and capable of freedom, should organize their affairs voluntarily, without coercion, and that all processes and things that affect an individual should be under direct control of that individual. This means that all facets of society, from the workplace to education to government, should be placed in the hands of those people who are affected. So the workers should control the workplace, and the citizens should control civil society. There is no need for delegation of the individuals personal power, the positive force of freedom, or for anyone to be subservient in matters of the economy or government.

But that is not how our society is organized. Instead of emphasizing self-management, our society is based on hierarchy. It is a pyramid system of organization, one where the individual at the top holds the most power and those at the bottom hold the least. This way of organizing is the direct manifestation of authority, and of the idea that people should not be in control over their own affairs. In a hierarchy control is centralized at the top of the pyramid, and those at the base have little or no say in how society, and their own lives, are run.

Authority today takes to form of politicians, military leaders, and most importantly, bosses. We live in a society which is based on the difference in power between bosses an bossed. Our hierarchy is simply a complicated system of many different levels of bosses. Mikhail Bakunin, anarchist writer, had this to say about the hierarchical sort of society:

"Slavery may change its form or its name -- its essence remains the same. Its essence may be expressed in these words: to be a slave is to be forced to work for someone else, just as to be a master is to live on someone else's work. In antiquity, just as in Asia and in Africa today, as well as even in a part of America, slaves were, in all honesty, called slaves. In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs: nowadays they are called wage earners. The position of this latter group has a great deal more dignity attached to it, and it is less hard than that of slaves, but they are nonetheless forced, by hunger as well as by political and social institutions, to maintain other people in complete or relative idleness, through their own exceedingly hard labour. Consequently they are slaves." 4

Regardless of what the institutions we are currently living under call the situation we are living, most human beings still have minimal control over their own lives. Even while politicians tout the "victory of the free world," people are being degraded in conditions of absolute or circumstantial bondage, being forced into submission to a ruler, a boss or owner.

Cooperation and Mutual Aid

The alternative to this authoritarian organizing is cooperative organization. Cooperation and organization do not conflict with freedom and self management. On the contrary,

"far from creating authority, organisation 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." 5

To exercise authority is to force, through coercion, an action. Cooperation on the other hand, requires no coercion. It is a natural expression of freedom, coming together voluntarily to fulfill a common need. An authoritarian will say that it is necessary to coerce people into doing things in order for society to operate.

But authority is concerned only for its own welfare, in upholding and maintaining its power. It therefore fears any sort of arrangement which could organize society without authority. Is such an arrangement possible? "Of course," says the anarchist. Not only is it possible, it is one of the most important characteristics of the human race.

Mutual aid is the tendency for a species of beings to look out for itself. It is what causes fish to swim in schools, predators to teach their young to hunt, ants to live in colonies, chimpanzees to share fruit, and humans to live in society. Society is not simply a collection of random authorities struggling to get to the top, although many authoritarians would like to consider it that way. It exists because human beings need to help each other to survive. The basis of society is not competition. The assertion that it is defies logic. Society, the coming together of like beings, is based on the cooperation of individuals towards a common end, survival and prosperity. There would be no reason for society to exist if the default characteristic of humanity was competition. Cooperation in terms of the species is viewed as the defining factor of evolution, not competition. This idea was given voice in Peter Kropotkin's classic, Mutual Aid, and Alfie Kohn points out the same idea,

"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." [Kohn. No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 7]

Even in our own society, controlled for the most part by people who believe that competition is a "natural law," cooperation is the binding glue. The capitalist elite for example, who fiercely promote competition, protects its own through public subsidies of private corporations, and various other methods. Cooperation exists in everyday to such a large degree that is taken for granted. Even so, the principal of competition, and of power and wealth for those who win the competition, is stressed overwhelmingly. Divisiveness is propagated and encouraged by all aspects of popular culture which can be controlled by those with power, from the media to the education system.

Workers Control -Libertarian Socialism

In our authoritarian society, almost all things, from how we are educated, to how we work, are controlled in a way that limits or excludes liberty and individual creativity. One of the most visible, yet accepted, examples of authority and domination is the way the modern workplace is organized. Like society in general the workplace, whether it be a department store, a large factory or an office place, is organized from the top down. The boss has complete control over all matters concerning the workplace, and those who actually do the work have none. As stated previously, this is capitalism.

Capitalism emphasizes property rights. The proponents of capitalism claim that it also represents freedom and democracy, but nothing could be further from the truth. This has to do with the nature of property, and how it plays out on a social level. Property rights mean on paper that individuals have a right to own property. In capitalism this does not mean simply, the right to your personal belongings, things you need to survive and enjoy life, but also , as implied by the name, capital. Capital is property that is not personal. This includes things such as factories, corporations, land, farms, etc. etc. Another definition of capital is anything that is exists to provide goods and services for society. This is what is meant, generally by property rights, the right of individuals to own the means of production, and the right of individuals to employ labor.

The natural result of private property, though, is that when on person "owns" something, others cannot. So the individual who owns that factory, or that corporation, has a right to it, while the rest of society, including those who work in the factory, do not. This is the underlying assertion of capitalism, and means in practice that those who own property have rights. Those without property only have rights only in that they have a right to be used as laborers in the capitalist's factories, offices etc., and enough wealth to continue to work without starvation or unrest. This is what led Pierre Joseph Proudhon to exclaim "property is theft."

But capitalism is not only theft. Because in capitalist organization there are bosses and bossed, authority, there is a lack of freedom. Workers are compelled to work under bosses because if they do not, they will be unable to survive. Contrary to what is said by the promoters of capitalism, there is no reasonable social contract, because workers are coerced into work. In many places today, and in our own past, this take the form of physical violence. If you do not obey the dictates of capitalist organization, you will be killed. A country such as Colombia is a good example of this. Farmers have long been exploited by a top down system of work and wealth in Colombia, and when they raise their voices against injustice, violence from the corporate supported government is used against them. Tens of thousands of political murders have taken place in Colombia over the past eight years, most of poor farmers and unionists, and many perpetrated by government forces. [6] It is worthwhile to note that the US government, global promoter and benefactor of capitalism, considers Colombia to a model for all third world nations.

In our 'advanced' society, things have evolved so that it is politically impossible for the forces of capitalism to use overt force to ensure obedience. Along with using the media as a tool to influence the way people think, the capitalist system relies on a more basic instrument. It is not physical violence, but the violence of circumstance. Because of capitalism's absolute monopoly on society, people have little choice but to work FOR someone else, in an authoritarian arrangement. We must constantly work under the orders of someone else and survival is nearly impossible without sacrificing the human will for self-management and freedom.

The workplace today is oftentimes very similar to a military dictatorship. Instead of all individuals participating in the decisions regarding the running of the workplace, all decisions are made by the managers and bosses, who represent a tiny minority in the workplace and in society. The workplace is organized with one goal, to make a profit. While it is not necessarily more efficient to run a company this way, indeed having the people who do the work make decisions seems logical, it is the only way to ensure all wealth and profit flow back to the owner at the top of the pyramid. The wages are only necessary in the eyes of the capitalists because if the workers do not have enough money to survive, they can no longer labor for the company. Things such as the 8 hour work day and minimum wage had to be fought and won from the capitalists, and anarchists played no small role in these struggles. [7] The attitude that people only have a right to exist insomuch as they can make profit is widespread in modern society, with economists talking about things like "labor uncertainty" and "unstable wages" as being "good for the economy."[8] Of course "good," like in the workplace, means what is good for the bosses, and not for the bossed.

The worker in capitalist society must obey strict regulations regarding conduct and speech, and any slip results in a swift and severe reprimand from above. The bosses demand obedience from their workers, because, as in times of more overt slavery, an atmosphere of fear and subservience is necessary to maintain order in a situation which those bossed would not otherwise tolerate. Not only that, people are forced to work for wages to survive, and 'one of the defining conditions of slavery is to be bought and sold for a price.' One might argue that people are not bought and sold, that fluctuations in wages, (which are now, in terms of actual cost of living, either stagnating or decreasing generally [9]) and the labor market are only natural. But when the majority of people have just enough money to survive comfortably, and when deregulation of the economy is increasing career instability, workers are actually unable to make truly free decisions regarding where they will work.

This is called in sociology the Law of Vertical Mobility. The law is quite simple. Those with money have more ability to make money, and to move to desired occupations, than those without; and as one moves upward on the income scale it becomes easier to move further up [10]. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It must also be noted that when the economy is organized for the purpose of profit making, leading to centralization of capital in the hands of private corporations, human living conditions and quality of life suffer drastically. People work today because they need to survive. And Capitalist production,

"...mutilates the worker into a fragment of a human being, degrades him to become a mere appurtenance of the machine, make his work such a torment that its essential meaning is destroyed; estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process in very proportion to the extent to which science is incorporated into it as an independent power.." 11

There is no connection to work in our society, most of time people despise their jobs with a passion. Yet the workplace doesn't have to be organized this way. Anarchists seek to invert the situation so that people approach work, the dominant feature of their lives, with a passion. This can be achieved not by altering people's feelings towards work is, but by shifting the nature of work from something faceless and degrading, yet necessary, to something voluntary which fulfills the need for creativity and benefits both the worker and society as a whole.

Anarchists and socialists believe there is a human potential for a liberated existence. Famous Communist, Karl Marx said that socialists (including anarchists) work for a society in which "labor will become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life." 12 This means that people should be able to work because they enjoy doing what they do, not because society happens to be organized such a way that forces them to work to survive. And, writes anarchist Rudolph Rocker,

"People forgot that industry is not an end in itself, but should only be a means to ensure to man his material subsistence and to make accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is everything and man is nothing begins the realm of a ruthless economic despotism whose workings are no less disastrous than those of any political despotism. The two mutually augment one another, and they are fed from the same source." 13

These intrinsic characteristics of our profit oriented economy and society were evident from its onset, but even the early socialists could not have foreseen what turns consumer capitalism would take, and what spiritual and cultural decay it would propagate. These issues are spoken of in other articles (Modern Capitalism and Modern Anarchism).

The solution to this situation of disempowerment and alienation is of course, to eliminate the relationship of bosses and bossed, and to have those who work control the workplace. Despite a lot of posturing about property rights and "the entrepreneurial spirit" capitalism is essentially the theft from the majority of society the things which affect the majority of society. Further, it is the exploitation of the majority by the minority for the economic enrichment of that minority. Although our society is called democratic, this label is hardly appropriate when the place in which we spend the majority of our time is absolutely antithetical to democracy. The solution, it seems, is for the propertiless majority to form organization through which they will either gradually or immediately take control of the processes that affect them:

"In the first case [capitalism] the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case [free socialism] he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . 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." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 215-216]

Proudhon was a mutualist, meaning he believed society should be organized into free groups which work for the mutual benefit of all involved parties.

Anarchists often call themselves libertarian socialists, which means along with loving freedom, they believe that capitalism is extremely undesirable and that the workplace should be organized along the lines of cooperation, worker's control and equality. There is no concrete blueprint for an anarchist society, because anarchists believe that to dogmatically define the revolution is to stifle it's creative potential. However, there is a general idea of what sort of structures might take the place of the authoritarian ones we currently have.

Mikhail Bakunin outlined a basic vision of an anarchist society,

"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly (sic) in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal" and "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital may become the collective property of the whole of society and be utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and industrial [and intellectual] associations." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206 and p. 174]

We obviously do not live in anarchy right now. Anarchists see the transition from capitalism to anarchy, revolution, as most importantly a reflection of anarchist ideals in general. All organizations with the aim of liberating society from exploitation and oppression must be organized so that within the organization there exists none of the characteristics which are being struggled against; and so that simply the existence of the organization, it's vital essence, is a liberating experience.

Syndicalism and Socialism

"From the bottom up," implies that anarchism is directly democratic, not overseen by a body of parasitic commissars, masters or representatives, but a true expression of the human working majority. The free, voluntary association of working individuals in a syndicate, or revolutionary union, is considered by many anarchists to be the best application of anarchism in the transformation of society. This strain of anarchist practice is called Syndicalism.

Syndicalism and socialism play very important roles both in the means and the ends of anarchist work. On a practical level, syndicalism means that people organize themselves into libertarian (anti-hierarchical) unions with the purpose of creating libertarian socialism; which is an arrangement where there are no bosses or bossed, and those who work are in control of the apparatus of work. Socialism can be simplified to mean 'people being in control of all aspects of their daily lives.'

So what would an anarchist workplace, and society, look like? Instead of being a private corporation, the anarchist workplace is a public cooperative, or collective. Work is not organized for profit, instead for the benefit of the workers and society. Instead of an individual boss, or group of managers coordinating the affairs of the workplace, all the workers cooperate together to get the necessary tasks done. This does not mean that there will be no management, and no specific jobs for people. Anarchists recognize the obvious necessity of management in organization, but reject the principle of authoritarian management. So although a worker on the line is not going to have as much say in how the finished product looks as the engineer, both will have an equal input on the areas of the factory (or office etc.) that affect them. Any decision that affects everyone is made by everyone. In this way the anarchist method of organization empowers all ordinary individuals, and eliminates the degrading relationship of bosses and bossed.

But society is not just a collection of isolated factories, offices and other workplaces. How would the distribution of goods, the cooperation between industries be coordinated? As Bakunin said, the free federation moves from the bottom up, all the way to the international level. Geography is no match for anarchist organization. In a libertarian socialist economy the CEO of the corporation or the Minister of the Economy will not decree from above what will take place. Those involved in the process will work together democratically to decide what must be done. So at the local level, you have the anarchist workplace, which coordinates through spokespersons and delegates, with the federation of workplaces at the city level, upwards and so on. The various industries come together in assemblies and managerial collectives, with strict mandates from the rank and file, to organize what unity and coordination of production and distribution is necessary for the coherent functioning of society.

But even the congresses and assemblies of delegates have no binding authority. Social anarchists,

"are convinced that a Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 55]

It is this respect that libertarian socialism differs from the other anti-capitalist movement, State socialism (like that of the USSR) otherwise called Authoritarian Marxism. Anarchists believe that not only is capitalism exploitation, the necessary enforcer of the capitalist system, the State, is also inherently oppressive. This will be discussed in this next section.

Anti-Statism

How does capitalism and the capitalist class maintain its hold on society? What is stopping the workers from organizing to take control of the means of production and creating a libertarian cooperative society? The answer comes in the form of the State, historical gendarme of capitalism. If authority and coercion exist in the economy as capitalism, they exist in the coordination of all other aspects of society as statist government.

What is the State? Anarchists say the state represents the ultimate embodiment of oppressive authority. Regardless of the superficial characteristics, whether it be a tyrannical dictatorship or a so called democracy, anarchists believe the State rely on the violence and propaganda for domination. Mikhail Bakunin claims,

"The essential difference between a monarchy and a democratic republic is reduced to the following: In a monarchy, the bureaucratic world oppresses and plunders the people for the greater benefit of the privileged propertied classes as well as for its own benefit, and all that is done in the name of the monarch; in a republic, the same bureaucracy does exactly the same thing, but in the name of the will of the people." 14

The state, authoritarian government, and its supporters and beneficiaries will usually define it as something that exists for the well being of all citizens, indeed this view is taught in school from very early on.

There are two main arguments for the existence of the state. One is that government exists because,

"it prevented warfare by erecting firm barriers of defense. As we have seen, this is tommyrot: the Law of Government Size shows that the duration and severity of war has always increased with an increase in state power. Larger states, far from providing peace, merely provide larger wars, having more human and material resources to pour into them."

[Kirkpatrick Sale, "The 'Necessity' of the State," in Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), Reinventing Anarchy, Again ]

But looking through the wars and conflicts throughout history it is extremely clear to see that almost all of the time large scale conflict erupts because of the state and that the drive of the state to acquire more territory and power is precisely what causes war. The other justification of the existence of government is more common, it is called the "social contract." It is similar to the first, but is slightly different.

The social contract is an idea that has it's origins with Jean Jacques Rousseau. Very basically the social contract is the idea that the state came into existence because the majority of society desired it's existence to ensure proper functioning association between humans. It is a very anti-humanist idea which assumes that before the existence of the state humans could not possibly cooperate and that they must give up some of their freedoms to government in order for society, and progress, to occur. In reality, as mentioned, governments and their instruments have always been the most prolific authors of death and mass destruction. History invalidates the notion that states protect their citizens. Science and common sense invalidate the idea that cooperation is impossible without authority and government. (See Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. )

If the state does not exist to protect it's citizens, what does it do? The primary function of the state is to protect private property, and this has been the case since it inception. When the bourgeoisie (upper/middle classes) overthrew the old monarchies in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, they realized that to maintain their position of power, the formation of a powerful coercive entity would be necessary. Thus the role of the state is to repress the individual and the working class as a whole in the interests of the capitalist (bourgeois) class and its own interests. This means that "the State organisation . . .is the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses." Little wonder, then, that Kropotkin argued that "in the struggle between the individual and the State, anarchism . . . takes the side of the individual as against the State, of society against the authority which oppresses it." While the state is a "superstructure in the interests of capitalism," it is a "power which was created for the purpose of welding together the interests of the landlord, the judge, the warrior, and the priest" and, we must add, cannot be considered purely as being a tool for the capitalist/landlord class. The state structure ("the judge, the warrior" etc.) has interests of its own. [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170 and pp. 192-3] 15

It is important to understand, also, that the so called democratic state is no better, and no more democratic, than naked authoritarianism. When democracy was becoming a popular idea among the upper classes of bourgeois society, it's proponents were careful not to blur the line between what can technically be called democracy and real power of people over their own lives. At the constitutional convention of 1787 James Madison, principle framer of the American constitution, made very clear that the "prime responsibility of government is to protect the minority of opulent against the majority." He warned against "the danger of the leveling spirit among the growing numbers of people labor underneath all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." [16] So the American state, and all states, are founded on the principle of the protection of the elite minority against the wishes of majority. The state is indeed a protective institution. It protects capitalism from democracy.

What is called democracy, what is promoted so vigorously in all Western media, is really a very watered down form of class rule, oligarchy, masquerading as popular control. The premise is that is the population believes they have control over society, they are less likely to attempt to change the exploitative way in which it is organized. But it is, upon inspection, quite easy to see through the charade. Democracy is historically defined as power in the hands of the people, that is, all the people. But in today's society most power is in the hand's of a very few individuals. The populace votes every four years to determine who will rule over them, but even these candidates are only shallowly independent of the general whims of the ruling class. Chomsky points out,

"Candidates say 'vote for me, and I will do so-and-so for you.' Few believe them, but more important, a different process is unthinkable: that in their unions, political clubs, and other popular organizations people should formulate their own plans and projects and put forth candidates to represent them. Even more unthinkable is that the general public should have a voice in decisions about investment, production, the character of work, and other basic aspects of life. The minimal conditions for functioning democracy have been removed far beyond thought, a remarkable victory of the doctrinal system." 17

Furthermore, in our system of "representational democracy" a few people are chosen to decide the matters that affect everyone else. In Canada there is approximately one representative for every 100,000 people. 18

This is in no way 'power of the people.' Further still, candidates that are elected are financed and supported by the private institutions and corporations of capitalism. Since there are no measures whatsoever taken to ensure a representative listen to the demands of their constituents (with such absurd numbers of them, how could they?) they will most often act in complete accordance with the wishes of the elite who put them in power.

Now some "socialists", even ones who recognize the purpose of the state to repress the majority of society, believe that the key to the liberation of the working class is through the strengthening of the state. The believe that by taking control of the means of production away from the capitalist class and placing it in the hands of an all powerful state, the working people will somehow be in control of their destinies. In practice, and as demonstrated by the examples of the USSR, China and North Korea, this philosophy does nothing to lessen the exploitation of the majority. Under "state socialism" the only difference for most people is that the boss who is stealing from them is not a corporate manager, it is a statist manager. As well, the needs of state controlled economy dictate the formation of a gigantic bureaucratic morass. The bureaucrats and commissars in a state socialist society end up forming a new elite class, the bureaucratic class. The name is different, but the reality for working people is the same. The state in either a capitalist society or a so called socialist society equals oppression and enslavement.

Since socialism means "people in control of their own lives" anarchists view state control over society as something entirely incompatible with socialism. The anarchist conception of socialism is one of autonomy, decentralization and direct democracy. In place of a wholly undemocratic state apparatus, which through it's armies, courts, and police consistently upholds domination and exploitation, anarchists propose the free union. People coming together in order to achieve the common end, like in the anarchist workplace, of organizing society. As in the economy, things are organized from the bottom up, with local federations moving all the way up to the international political unit. This organization is not based around authority, like almost all existing political institutions are, it is a truly democratic union.

Democracy is something that must be exercised, and anarchist democracy is synonymous with participatory democracy. On a very small level, people would meet in their neighborhoods to decide through consensus on the issues that concern them. Neighborhood and community assemblies and councils would be political units involving perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 people. These assemblies would be based on direct, "town-meeting"-style democracy. Moving upward, you have the direct democratic confederation of communities. The essential feature of this, and any large scale anarchist organization, is the strictly mandated spokesperson. Instead of a corporate backed bureaucrat who is going to ignore them anyway, the people would elect a regular member of the community to go to a congress of communities. At these meetings issues which pertained to the whole of society would be discussed and decided upon. There is no fear of the majority overriding the will of the minority, as can be the case in some varieties of democracy. Because anarchist democracy uses consensus and compromise instead of majority rule, a more libertarian and agreeable decision is always reached. If two parties cannot come to agreement, anarchists would prefer that each simply not work together, rather than have one group impose it's will upon another.

In this way unjust authority is eliminated from the political and economic process, and an expanded capacity for creative individuality and freedom is formed.

Revolution

Revolutionary anarchism is simply the recognition of the fact that the ruling class is now going to willingly give up its power, and that a free society cannot be given by the bosses, it must be won from them. Revolution is where anarchism moves from the realm of theory and into the realm of practicality, the actual creation of a better world. It is both the means and the ends, for in anarchism there is no end to revolution, no Utopia. Instead of believing that a perfect society can ever be reached, anarchists realize that a more realistic is the gradual 'working towards perfection.' Noam Chomsky says,

"Anarchism is a tendency in the history of human thought and action which seeks to identify coercive, authoritarian, and hierarchic structures of all kinds and to challenge their legitimacy -- and if they cannot justify their legitimacy, which is quite commonly the case, to work to undermine them and expand the scope of freedom." 19

This fits in with the anarchist philosophy of freedom and authority. If there is an exploitative or oppressive institutions, anarchists see it as their calling to abolish it.

There are a few ideas of how a revolution might unfold. It is often thought that revolution always implies violence, but this is not the case. Because working people, the bossed, constitute the vast majority of society, whether in the office place or the factory, it is they who form the most potentially powerful segment of society. The only thing stopping the working class from simply taking over is ignorance of situation, which is fostered by the elite, and of the possibilities for liberation.

The main stream of revolutionary methodology, which relates back to the concept of syndicalism mentioned before, is revolutionary unionism. This doesn't mean only labor unions, and certainly not the reformist bureaucratic ones common today, but in general unions of people of any sort, working towards freedom. Not only should the workers take control of the workplace, and their lives, they can. The workers do not need to violently seize the industries when they in practice already control them. All that needs to be done is the to raise the awareness and organization of the people with the intent of eliminating class society.

The revolution is conceived by anarcho-syndicalists as taking place at the point when the level of discontent meets the level of anarchist education and organization currently taking place. As has been the case in the examples of long lasting anarchist popular revolutions, Ukraine 1917-21, and Spain 1936-39 [20], popular organizations that work for revolution are organized on the same directly democratic basis as the anarchist union or workplace. This differs importantly from the Marxist idea of revolution. In Marxism, and in the Marxist dominated revolutions of the past, a revolutionary vanguard of elitist intellectuals took it upon themselves to violently take control over the state, and attempt "socialism from above." Anarchists see this position as fundamentally similar to the capitalist way of approaching politics. They both center around the idea that regular working people do not have a right or the ability to take matters into their own hands.

And they do. The ideas of freedom and self-management are implemented immediately as revolution takes place, and there are no false hope of "the withering away of the state." For the anarchist, revolution implies a radical change in all aspects of society, a shift from authoritarian relationships to libertarian relationships. To demonstrate the opinion of one of the most prominent syndicalists, Errico Malatesta, we will quote at length his Life and Ideas.

"The Revolution is the creation of new living institutions, new groupings, new social relationships; it is the destruction of privileges and monopolies; it is the new spirit of justice, of brotherhood, of freedom which must renew the whole of social life, raise the moral level and the material conditions of the masses by calling on them to provide, through their direct and conscious action, for their own futures. Revolution is the organisation of all public services by those who in them in their own interest as well as the public's; Revolution is the destruction of all of coercive ties; it is the autonomy of groups, of communes, of regions; Revolution is the free federation brought about by a desire for brotherhood, by individual and collective interests, by the needs of production and defence; Revolution is the constitution of innumerable free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes of all kinds that exist among the people; Revolution is the forming and disbanding of thousands of representative, district, communal, regional, national bodies which, without having any legislative power, serve to make known and to co-ordinate the desires and interests of people near and far and which act through information, advice and example. Revolution is freedom proved in the crucible of facts -- and lasts so long as freedom lasts. . ." [Life and Ideas, p. 153]

Because it relies on authority and the state, and because it rejects the immediacy of the struggle against exploitation, anarchists reject the reformist approach to the transformation of society. There is no way for the state to willingly participate in expanding freedom, which would be it's demise. There is no way that capitalists willingly give up their position as the ruling elite, and any concessions that can be won from them are minor. This does not mean that anarchists reject all small gains. Anarchists recognize the need to win small concessions from the bosses , such as fair working conditions or laws against child labor, and have long struggled to these ends. Anarchists today are providing a large part of the growing anti-capitalist impetus. [21]

Along with the struggle of working people to take back the various social and economic mechanisms that belong to them, anarchists value other forms of positive revolutionary creation. This takes the form of community housing collectives, food to the homeless programs, community learning centers and various other community oriented projects. This constructive work is seen the building of a concrete alternative to the capitalist system, and it complements the syndicalist method well. Anarchist cooperatives, or anti-authoritarian cooperatives that don't happen to use the term anarchist, are popping up all over the place. Along with providing service and building the spirit of social transformation, anarchists hope that these groups will one day form the basis of a Shadow Economy, a working decentralized alternative to consumer capitalism. In whatever endeavor, anarchists always look at daily work being only part of the larger goal, and never loose sight of the vision of a wholly democratic, libertarian political arrangement.

Whatever the means used to achieve the end, anarchists all strive for the same thing. As has been clearly seen, this end has nothing to do with chaos and destruction, in fact anarchists work for true social order, order not based on the threat of violence. Other works discuss the rich vibrant history of anarchism, and the vast potential for new and dynamic anarchist construction. The spirit of anarchy, as demonstrated by the excellency and scope of anarchist thought on the nature of society and freedom, remains a powerful force for the liberation of the human race. In every daily struggle, every aspect of anarchist philosophy there is a distinct appreciation of the things which make humanity beautiful. Anarchists are working to liberate the desire of the humanity.