A. Most people believe that the only thing that stands between them and barbarism is the State. They think that the collapse of the State will be invariably followed by disorder and mayhem. Anarchists accept that the State requires a monopoly on the use of force to function efficiently because force is required to maintain order in a society where inequalities in power and wealth exist. The collapse or disintegration of the State can result in barbarism or order.
Whether order or barbarism triumphs are dependent on what type of society rises from the ashes of the old society. Barbarism will occur if groups or factions attempt to gain a monopoly on the use of force and use that monopoly to impose their will on a subjugated population. The disorder and chaos which normally occurs when a State collapses is a direct result of different groups and factions attempting to gain a monopoly on the use of force. Order will prevail in such a situation when one group is able to exercise a monopoly on the use of force. �Failed States� occur when no one group is strong enough to exert a monopoly on the use of force and violence.
The collapse of the State does not invariably lead to chaos. Whether chaos occurs is dependent on the reasons the State has collapsed and the type of opposition that caused the State�s collapse. The greater the number of social, cultural and political movements that are attempting to replace the inequalities that exist within the State apparatus with egalitarian social, cultural and political structures, the greater the chance the collapse of the State will result in the establishment of a society where wealth and power is held in the hands of the community not the State or the corporate sector. Order will be established as a result of the new egalitarian relationships that exist within the community, not because a minority is able to exercise a monopoly on the use of force through their domination of economic, cultural, social and political life, but because the establishment of an egalitarian community makes the need for a State redundant. The peaceful harmony that occurs as a result of the replacement of the State by an egalitarian society stands in sharp contrast to the fear, suffering and disquiet that occurs when the power vacuum created by the collapse of the State is filled by a new group that is able to impose its will on society through its new found monopoly on the use of force.
#
REFORMS?
Talk about reforms to some anarchists and they�ll tell you �you�ll be showered with reforms when the State disintegrates�. Unfortunately reality seems to be a little different. The State can react in 2 ways when confronted with opposition, it can pull the iron fist out of the velvet glove and try to smash its opposition or it can, if faced with the prospect of overwhelming opposition, be forced to take a backseat. Opposition to the State can take place in a number of ways, it can, as we have seen, be carried out by small groups of people who use terror to indiscriminately target the population as a whole, it can be carried out by small groups of people who use terror to attack symbolic targets or it can be carried out by people who are attempting to create a mass movement that challenges the State power.
The State relishes the prospect of crossing swords with small groups that use indiscriminate or targeted terror. When the bombs went off in London last week, the G8 leaders were in their element, the agenda shifted to a topic that was dear to their hearts - terror. Without drawing breath, they talked about the pivotal role the State plays in protecting people against the terrorists. They keep telling people, all the State needs is just a little more power to protect people against the �subhuman, evil� terrorists. If there isn�t a terrorist threat, the State needs to create one to justify its monopoly on the use of violence. Just cast your mind back to the S11 protests in Melbourne Australia in 2000. A relatively peaceful protest that didn�t result in one broken window was portrayed as the end of civilisation and police were given carte blanche to use whatever force was necessary to break up the S11 protest in a flurry of baton charges and horses hooves. If there isn�t a peaceful protest movement to blame, the State pulls out their very own joker - the great provocateur, to create disquiet and fear in the public mind. The State and the terrorist are 2 sides of the same coin. They need each other to prosper and survive.
What the State finds difficult to cope with are activists who work within the community, using issues to highlight the powerlessness we all experience, people who go quietly about the business of creating an awareness of the situation people face, and who attempt to create organisations that accelerate the struggle to provide an alternative to the hierarchical society we live in. Governments and the State have a great deal of difficulty in dealing with groups and organisations that push for reforms that strengthen the hand of the people at the expense of the power of the State, the corporate world and governments, that have long since abrogated their responsibilities to the people who elected them into office and who continue to support them. That�s why the struggle for reforms that extend people�s liberties and rights is a fundamental part of the anarchist struggle.
Q. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIVATE, STATE AND COMMUNITY PROPERTY?
A. Most people are familiar with the term private property but have little understanding about the terms State and community property. State property doesn�t, as most people believe, belong to the public. State property is government property. How that property is used and whether that property is sold or given away to the private sector is determined by the government of the day. The privatisation of State assets over the past 20 years has been carried out in countries where all property is owned by the State and in countries where some property is owned by the State, by governments who claim they have the power to sell that property because they hold the reins of power. At no time have any of these governments put the question about whether public assets should be sold directly to the people they govern in a referendum to determine the fate of public property.
State and private property is not owned by the community that uses it, it is owned by people who use their ownership of that property to personally enrich themselves. Anarchists want to abolish both State and private property and replace it with community property. Community property is owned by the people who derive a common benefit from that property, it is neither the property of the individual or the State. It is held in common and used for the common good, not individual or government gain. Community property is not sold on the open market, it is held in common, and use or need determines who uses it and when they use it. Community property cannot be inherited, it is passed on in perpetuity to whoever uses it, once an individual no longer needs that property, it is passed on to someone who needs it.
A simple way of looking at the difference between private, State and community property is to look at the question of accommodation. Individuals can own thousands of homes in a capitalist society; the State owns all the homes in a State capitalist (communist) society; they can decide who uses those homes, how long they can use them for and how much they will pay to use that accommodation. If they decide that no one is able to use those homes, even if there is a shortage of accommodation, no one can legally use that accommodation. In an anarchist society, accommodation is owned by the community as a whole, who uses what, is determined by need, no one can stop people using empty accommodation in that community, if they need a roof over their heads.
