A. Technology isn't value free; what types of technological innovations are developed in any community is directly linked to the economic system in that community. Capitalist societies tend to develop technological solutions that generate profits for those who invest in the development of those technological innovations. Community, social and environmental costs take a back seat to the economic imperative to generate a financial profit. Once infrastructure is developed for a particular form of technology in a capitalist society, it is difficult if not impossible, to change direction as so many people's livelihoods and lives are tied up in that industry.
An anarchist society has an economic base that allows it to choose to develop forms of technology that take into account community, social and environmental factors. It does not need to produce products for production's sake as the satisfaction of human needs, not the creation of profit for profit's sake, is the economic fuel that drives an anarchist economy. An anarchist society has the added economic advantage of having people's livelihoods tied to the health of the society they live in. Their livelihoods is not tied to the type of work a person does, what type of industry they work in and where they live. An individual's economic wealth is linked to their membership of the community they are involved in. This gives an anarchist community a flexibility that does not exist in a capitalist society that allows it to rapidly adopt new technology and rapidly scale down old technologies without suffering the major social dislocations that occur if major technological changes are introduced into a capitalist society.
Whether a particular industry closes down or expands, does not have the same impact it has on an individual in an anarchist society as it does in a capitalist society. A simple example of the differences between the two economies is highlighted by the decision made by timber workers around Australia who are logging old growth forests. They have thrown in their lot with the Coalition government to save their jobs and livelihoods. In an anarchist society they would not have to worry about how they would make a living, as their income is linked to their citizenship, not the type of work they do.
ANARCHISM A HISTORICAL ANACHRONISM?
A. Anarchist principles may be appropriate in a small village but they have no place in a 21st century city is one of the more common comments people make when you talk about anarchist decision making processes to them. Size, as in many other fields of human endeavour doesn't matter, when you discuss how an anarchist society functions. Delegation is the mechanism by which the potential tyranny of size is mastered. What at first may seem a cumbersome and unwieldy form of organisation, is in essence a highly efficient and productive one.
People are more likely to participate in processes that they control, than just following orders. What may initially attract people to hierarchical methods of organisation soon loses its gloss. The more participation people are able to exercise in the decision making process, the more likely they will do the necessary work to make decisions made, a reality. People who are told what to do, will normally resist doing what they are told if they have no input into the process. Literacy and instant communication have made the role of a delegate a more accessible one. Delegates with limited mandates coordinate decisions, they don't make them. They can negotiate a compromise, but that compromise cannot be put into place until it is ratified by the people the delegate speaks for.
The more involvement in the decision making process, the more likely it is that people will understand why certain decisions need to be made. Leaving the decision making process in the hands of a minority generates concern and contempt among the majority. Anarchist principles are far from anachronistic; they may hold the key to survival on a planet faced with the twin horrors of a rapidly expanding population and limited resources. The experiences and talents of as many people as possible need to be utilised to find solutions to what may at first seem to be insoluble problems.
Anarchist methods of organisation provide a possible practical pathway to tackle problems that face us as individuals, family groups, members of a community and a nation State. That is why anarchism is still a possible potent force in the 21st century.
Q. WILL SUBSTANCE ABUSE BE A PROBLEM IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY?
A. Substance abuse will not be as big a problem in an anarchist society as it is in the communities we currently live in. Drug use can currently be divided into legal and illegal drug use. Some substances, like tobacco and alcohol that are legally available, cause a great deal of harm in the community. Others that have been declared illegal also cause harm in the community, but much of this harm is due to the illegality of the drug, not the drug itself. Alcohol and tobacco have such a devastating effect on the community because it is marketed by corporations that use all the means at their disposal to increase the number of people using their products. The cost for the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco are normally picked up by the community, not the corporations that market them and make a profit from their sale.
The problems caused by illegal drug use are compounded by the criminal justice system. Users become pawns in the hands of supplies and people with drug problems are treated as criminals, not with health problems. The problems caused by substance abuse would decrease in an anarchist society for two reasons.
The financial imperative to market substances to make a profit from their use, would no longer apply to the sale of these products. This would mean production of these substances would be localised and controlled by local communities, not by large corporations. This would decrease the supply of both 'legal' and 'illegal' drugs. People would be living in communities that would be aware of the problems associated with the use of specific substances. Users who develop problems as a result of their abuse of particular substances would be seen as people with a health problem not viewed as criminals.
Removing the profit motive from the production, distribution and use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs would decrease the push to get as many people as possible to consume these products. Although people would continue to use these substances, it's quite likely fewer people would consume drugs and those who decide to consume them, would use less than are currently used and therefore face fewer problems than people currently face.
#
Q. WHY WOULD ANYONE BOTHER TO PARTICIPATE IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY?
A. If we accept the underlying assumption that individual participation is the lifeblood of an anarchist community, we need to ask ourselves why people would bother to participate in the affairs of their community.
Anarchists aren't motivated by guilt, race, religion, nationality or geographical location. They don't act accordingly to some moral code that is being handed down to them in some musty old book or stone tablets. Anarchists are motivated by their own needs. What anarchists accept is that everybody has needs and the most efficient and satisfactory way of satisfying individual need is through collective effort. My welfare depends on your welfare, our fates are intrinsically linked, we can squabble and compete for resources or we can agree to cooperate and share our common heritage.
Members of an anarchist society understand that their individual needs can only be satisfied through collective action, which is why they are more likely to participate in the day affair of the communities they live in, than someone who lives in a capitalist or community society. They know that if they don't make the time to participate, power will shift into the hands of an unaccountable minority who will use their new found power to impose their will on the rest of the community. People in an anarchist society understand that if wealth is to be used for the common good, not just the good of a minority within their community, they need to be involved in the decision making processes within that society.
Leaving it to someone else is not an option that most members of an anarchist community are willing to do. They understand that their individual welfare and the welfare of their families and friends are intrinsically tied up with the level of their participation in a community's day to day life. That is why I think most members of an anarchist society would be keen to participate in the life of the communities they live and work in.