A. Traditionally, anarchists have not used the country's institutions to attack the credibility of the State. When Bakunin 'recanted' his 'evil ways' and appealed directly to the Tsar to release him from the hellhole he was going to die in, many in the anarchist community expressed doubts about his tactics. Direct action doesn't always deliver the goods. Although millions around the world agitated to have Sacco and Vanzetti released, they were still executed.
The anarchist movement, although resilient, is politically weak. Expecting activists who face the wrath of the State to rely on direct action to free them or protect them is wishful thinking. Although we believe the institutions we have to deal with are structured to maintain the status quo, enough checks and balances exist in some situations to make it possible to launch an institutional defence. Legal quangos tribunals and courts exist because of past struggles. Checks and balances exist because people have been able to extract concessions and reforms by challenging the State and corporate sector.
The anarchist movement is interested in both defending and extending the freedoms we currently enjoy. We should use all the means that are available to us to pursue these goals. To rely only on direct action is to ignore other options available to us. To avail ourselves of institutional safeguards and structures does not mean we have abandoned our principles. Using these safeguards means we are astute enough to use the structures that are available to both survive and prosper.
Martyrdom holds few attractions for anarchists. Anarchism is a life affirming ideology. Refusing to use structures that are available to us to defend ourselves because it may compromise some dearly held ideological principle may give the individual personal satisfaction but it won't protect and extend those freedoms we currently enjoy in the communities we live and work in.
Q. ARE ALL STATES THE SAME?
A. Although every State has the infrastructure and potential to assume absolute power over its citizens, not all States are the same. The amount of power those who control the State apparatus are able to exert, depends on checks and balances that exist and the power that people are able to exert on the State apparatus. When the Fallangists launched a military coup in Spain in 1936, the coup was defeated because people took to the streets and took up arms against those who attempted to usurp power.
An anarchist living in Australia faces a different set of problems than an anarchist living in North Korea or Saudi Arabia. The fewer checks and balances that exist, the greater the power the State is able to exert. As conditions change, the types of activity that can be conducted openly changes. The greater the amount of freedom, the greater the scope to organise and build organisations and structures that can act as alternatives to the State. In times of crisis, organisations that have been operating legally may have to go underground to survive.
Once an organisation is driven underground, its ability to influence what's going on around it is severely limited. That's why it's important that anarchists fight tooth and nail to protect and extend those few liberties that we currently enjoy. Allowing the State to remove checks and balances that exist gives them the power to use the State apparatus to silence them.
The fate of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia during World War One is a salient reminder of what happens to a dynamic movement for radical social change when those checks and balances are removed and an open functioning social movement is driven underground.
#
Q. THE LEFT SHOULD WORK TOGETHER?
A. Left? Work together? It's extraordinary how people in the 21st century still hang onto concepts that long ceased to have any relevance. People still talk about the Left as some type of homogenous movement. The Left has never been a homogenous movement. It has encompassed reformers as well as revolutionaries, authoritarians as well as non-authoritarians. Although anarchists, socialists and communists all talk about creating an egalitarian community through radical social change, they differ markedly in the role that they believe the State plays in that transformation. Socialists and communists believe that capturing State power can bring about radical social change. Socialists tend to believe that the electoral process can be used to capture State power, while communists tend to use extraordinary means to seize State power.
Anarchists do not believe that radical egalitarian change can occur while the State exists. The communist experience has shown that although communists talk about 'the withering away of the State' as the ultimate goal of the communist movement, this cannot occur while the State apparatus (irrespective of whose hands it's in) continues to exist. Although the Left may be able to work together on particular issues, it cannot work together in the struggle to create an egalitarian community because the authoritarian and non-authoritarian elements within that movement have different goals. One groups wants to capture State power and use that power to impose its will on people, while the other group wants to abolish the State and replace it with structures that allows the will of the people to be expressed.
Historically, communists have had a better understanding of the differences between the Left than anarchists have had. Whenever the communist movement has seized power, Russia, Cuba, Albania, Eastern Europe, China and in revolutionary Spain during the Civil War, the anarchist movement had to fight for its survival. Communists have always understood that the anarchist movement stands in the way of the communists exercising absolute power, that's why anarchists have been arrested, imprisoned and executed in their thousands by communist movements during the revolutionary struggles of the past.
The gulf that has existed and continues to exist between reformers, revolutionaries, authoritarians and non-authoritarians in the Left makes it difficult if not impossible for the Left to ever work together to create a voluntary egalitarian society.
#
Q. ONLY ANARCHISTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY?
A. Garbage. Not everybody living in an anarchist society will be an anarchist. Many people living in an anarchist community may hold radically different points of view. Although they hold different points of view, they will be able to fully participate in the life of the community they live and share in the wealth produced by that society. What they won't be able to do is impose their will on other people unless the principles of association that determine what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in an anarchist community are rejected by a significant proportion of that community. If that happens, that community ceases to function as an anarchist society. The difference between an anarchist society and a non anarchist society is that structures exist in a non anarchist society that allow a minority to impose their will on the majority. It's no accident that the two principles of association an anarchist society is based on equal access to power and wealth results in the replacements of hierarchical structures by non hierarchical structures. Anarchist attempts to replace both the State and the corporate sector with a federation of workplace and community councils is based on the idea that hierarchical structures provide mechanisms by which a minority can impose their will on the majority. The greater the concentration of power and wealth, the easier it is for fewer and fewer people to impose their will on thousands if not millions of people.
Anarchism isn't about changing human nature or hammering square blocks into round holes, it's about replacing hierarchical structures that concentrate power and wealth with non hierarchical structures that decentralises the focus of power and give everybody the opportunity to share in the wealth produced by the society they live in. Whether people call themselves anarchists or believe in anarchist ideas while living in an anarchist society is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether they accept and work within the structures that have been established that guarantee that everybody in an anarchist society has the same rights and responsibilities as everybody else.
#
Q. WHY ANARCHISM?
A. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with God, King and country. So, if you've already sold your soul to one of the above, further reading may cause personal anguish. Anarchism is a philosophy that uses reason and argument to promote social relationships and interactions that give people the opportunity to create structures and institutions that allow them to successfully live in a community that does not have rulers.
Anarchists have no faith in rulers because they understand the limitations of individual human beings. They're not willing to have the course of their lives determined by the vagaries of human nature. Yes, I know I still haven't answered the question 'why anarchism'? Anarchists, like all other human beings, pursue an agenda where the interests of the 'self' are paramount in their lives.
People with a religious or spiritual viewpoint follow the dictates of their religious gurus or rulers because it will give them enlightenment, eternal life or maybe just a good feeling about their place in the universe. Mammon followers pull out all stops to make a quid so they can enjoy the material comforts, power and illusionary security that money brings. So where does that leave anarchists? Anarchists want to create a society without rulers so they can enjoy material and personal comfort in a secure environment in this life not a nebulous next life. They want to be able to take care of their need for food and shelter as well as develop the inherent potential they have as human beings. To do this, they need to live in a society where the interests of the individual reflect the interests of the community they live in. A society where people are involved in the decision making processes and wealth is held in common. An anarchist society is the best way of ensuring individual access to the necessities of life, personal security and individual development.
#
