A. The paradox of working in a capitalist society is the number of workers who work in destructive industries and who are forced to use dubious work practices who are willing to fight tooth and nail to retain their jobs. It's important those anarchists and activists who jump up and down about how destructive these jobs are and who accuse the workers involved in these industries of immoral and unethical behaviour, realise that the differences between working people meeting their day to day financial commitments and poverty in a capitalist society, is six weeks pay. Workers sell their labour in a capitalist society. They work for the communities they live in, in an anarchist community. Workers in a capitalist society work to generate a profit, irrespective of the human and social costs. Workers in an anarchist society work to satisfy human needs, not needs that are manufactured to generate a profit. An individual's ability to survive in an anarchist society is related to the health of the community they live in. Individual workers livelihoods are not related to profits generated. They are related to the social, cultural and economic health of the community they live in. There would be no financial imperative in an anarchist society for workers to continue to work in industries that are environmental and socially destructive. Individual workers would be free to move to more socially productive areas of work within the community, without having to worry about losing their jobs and having to sell what they have acquired through a lifetime of work, in order to survive. The individual's relationship with the community encourages the individual to work in an ethical and moral manner in an anarchist society. Socially destructive forms of production would disappear overnight and workers could transfer to more productive industries. They would be able to decrease the amount of time they need to work because work is oriented towards satisfying human need, not generate a profit for the sake of generating a profit. The hundreds of millions of people in capitalist societies that are involved in socially and environmental destructive work, would be able to abandon their destructive work practices overnight and refocus their attention towards satisfying the human needs of the communities they lived in, if they lived in an anarchist society.
Q. CAN ANARCHISTS BEAT THE STATE AT ITS OWN GAME?
A. I'm afraid not. The cornerstone of the State's authority rests on its monopoly on violence. The more authoritarian the State, the greater role violence plays in its efforts to retain power. Any activists who believes that you can blow up the social relationships that exist between people only has to look at how the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1989 and how the United States is faring in Iraq a year after it 'liberated' the people of Iraq. The State thrives on the threat of terrorism, the more indiscriminate the outrage, the greater the power the State is able to exercise over the people under its control. The greater the threat, the greater police powers people are willing to accept. The State's Achilles heel is directly related to the relationship that exists between the people and the State. The more alienated and disillusioned people are with the State apparatus, the greater the resistance to those who exercise power. The current situation in Iraq highlights that although the Iraqi people have been invaded by the coalition of the willing, a significant proportion of the people do not accept the invasion and are resisting the occupying force because they do not accept their legitimacy. The situation in Iraq is diametrically opposed to what is happening in the US, Britain and Australia. The fear generated by the possibility of a terrorist outrage has been exploited by the State to increase the power it is able to exercise over its citizens. The people in these three countries have almost universally accepted this increase in the State power. Their identification with the State apparatus has allowed parliament to strip away common law rights citizens have enjoyed for centuries. Anarchists can never hope to beat the State at its own game. Activists need to think laterally and pursue strategies that increase the distance between the State and its citizens. Trying to beat the State at its own game drives people into the arms of the State. Alienating the very people you are trying to influence is both counter-productive and stupid.
Q. WOULD PERSONAL PROPERTY EXIST IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY?
A. Of course it would, many people mistakenly believe that when anarchists talk about holding property in common, that everything is held in common. The creation of a society where people can satisfy their needs and contribute according to their abilities breaks down the economic power that people who have access to wealth are able to wield. It does not result in the creation of a society where people don't have a right to hold, use and enjoy personal property. When anarchists talk about holding property in common, they're talking about the community, not the State, the corporate sector or individuals owning the means of production, distribution and exchange. Use is the single most important consideration in determining the relationship between property and an individual in an anarchist community. As long as somebody is able to use that property, it belongs to them, if they are not able to use it, then that property will be put back into the common pool. Who is then able to use it will be determined by need. You can only live in one house, use one bed and wear one set of clothes at one time. When somebody dies or tires of where they are living and wants to move, what they are using will then be placed in a common pool. Property that the individual uses, clothes, furniture, jewerly and the 101 other things we tend to accumulate over a lifetime, will be able to be distributed to whoever the individual wants to distribute them to. The common ownership of property envisaged by anarchists is very similar to the attitude taken by many indigenous cultures to the land. Access to the fruits of the land is the birthright of those people living in that particular location, not just a few people who have by some means inherited or acquired ownership of that land. Private property is theft because it robs other members in the community of the right to use what in essence belongs to all of us. The exclusive possession of the means of production, distribution and exchange by a minority creates the condition that produces rulers. The struggle to hold wealth in common and use that wealth for the common good is fundamental to the struggle to create an anarchist community. Allowing individual ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange to continue, inevitably leads to the creation of a ruling class that is able to exercise power over others because of its control of the means by which communities create wealth, survive and prosper.
Q. WHAT ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANARCHISM AND COMMUNISM?
A. The role of the State, the role of the revolutionary party and the movement for radical egalitarian change are three of the fundamental differences between anarchism and communism. Communists have blamed the degeneration of �communist� societies into State capitalist societies (the State owns the means of production, distribution and exchange) on individuals within the communist movement. Anarchists see the degeneration of the communist State into State capitalism as a logical consequence of trying to create an egalitarian community by using the State apparatus. Communists believe that a number of transitional States need to be created before the State eventually withers away. Anarchists believe that transitional States create more transitional States and that these circumstances the State will not wither away. Anarchists have always said that the State must be abolished not reformed.
Anarchists don�t want to seize the State and use the State apparatus to impose their will on the people. They want to see the State replaced by a federation of community and workplace councils. They want to decentralise not centralise power in a central authority. They don�t see themselves as a revolutionary vanguard that will, through the ballot box or through direct action, seize the State apparatus and impose their political program on the people. Anarchists believe that the revolutionary party is a part of the problem, not the solution to the problem. This attitude is reflected in the attitude anarchists have to single issue and social movements. Members of a revolutionary party see those involved in such activities as potential recruits. Anarchists work alongside these people, outlining their ideas trying to democratise the movement, encouraging people to make their own decisions. They want people to stay active in these movements, not abandon them and join this or that political party. Although anarchist groups may belong to larger federations, their primary role is to promote dissent, encourage people to organise and set up alternatives to current structures and institutions so people can build the nucleus of the new society in the ashes of the old.
Hierarchy plays a central role in the communist movement, but a minimal role in the anarchist movement. Although some anarchists may, because of their past experiences or expertises, assume leadership roles, their position in the movement is dependant on other people approving that role. They can at any time lose the influence they have in that movement. In a revolutionary party, the hierarchical nature of the organisation puts people in positions of real authority. The decisions they make are difficult to challenge because power in those organisations resides in those who exercise a leadership role.
The differences between anarchists and communists are real. Tens of thousands of anarchists have died at the hands of communist parties that believed their organisations reflected the will of the people and used the State apparatus to impose their political and ideological program on tens of million of people. The presence of a movement that spoke about libertarian communism and that attempted to transfer power from the State to the Soviet (council), posed a direct threat to a communist movement that supported the central role of the State in revolutionary politics.
Q. IS ANARCHISM MAJORITY RULE?
A. Anarchism, like any other political or social philosophy, is underpinned by a set of principles. An anarchist society is a society without rulers. In order to have the best chance of achieving this goal in an anarchist society, people need to have the opportunity of becoming involved in the decision making processes in that community and need to have access to the common wealth to make decisions they have made a reality. Direct democracy is a mechanism by which people can make decisions within an anarchist society. It�s also a mechanism that people can use to make decisions in a socialist or capitalist society.
The fundamental difference between direct democracy in an anarchist society and direct democracy in a socialist or capitalist society is that wealth is held in the hands of the community not the State or the corporate sector. People can make all the decisions they want to, but if they don�t have access to the resources to make those decisions a reality, the power they are able to exercise is illusory. Democracy - rule of the people by the people for the people, is not necessarily majority rule. Anarchists recognise both majority and minority rights. Direct democracy is a mechanism that can be used to determine who supports what.
What decisions can and cannot be made in an anarchist society is determined by the principles of association that define that society. No majority decision can strip the rights people enjoy and the rights people are able to exercise as a result of these principles. A decision to replace the principles that define an anarchist community with other principles of association would spell the end of that community. If a minority feels strongly enough about its decision and that decision falls within the principles of association that define that community, then both the majority and the minority in an anarchist society would have the right to pursue the decision. Neither a majority nor a minority have the right to make decisions that strip away rights and principles that members of an anarchist community are able to exercise as a result of the principles of association that anarchist community is based on.
Both a majority and a minority in an anarchist society have the power to pursue decisions they have made, if those decisions acknowledge the principles of association that define that community. Direct democratic processes can be used to determine what percentage support what decision and what percentage of the resources that have been allocated to pursue that decision are given to the majority and minority to carry out decisions they have made. The percentage of resources that is allocated to each group depends on the number of people that a support a particular viewpoint.