A. People tend to talk about delegates and representatives as interchangeable terms. Delegates and representatives are as interchangeable as chalk and cheese. Although they may have some superficial similarities, they don't taste the same when you sink your teeth into them. A good way to understand the difference is by comparing the roles delegates and representatives play with the role cheques play in commercial transactions. Cheques? Yes, cheques.
The mandate given to a representative is similar to the role a blank cheque plays in a commercial transaction. The representative has the power to write whatever amount they like on a blank cheque. Their mandate is an extensive one. They have the power to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent irrespective of the wishes of the people who elected them. They have been given the power to write whatever figure they like on a signed blank cheque.
A delegate's mandate is much more limited than a representative's mandate. The cheque that a delegate has been given has been signed and the amount has been filled in by the people the delegate is working on behalf of. A delegate does not have the authority to work on projects outside of the specific mandate they have been given. Delegates coordinate decisions with other delegates they don't make decisions on behalf of the people they are acting for.
The difference between a representative and a delegate reflects the difference between representative and direct democracy. Representatives are given a signed blank cheque. They have the authority to fill in any amount they want to fill in on the cheque. A delegate is given a signed blank cheque with a specific figure written on the cheque. Representative democracy is based on blind faith. Direct democracy is based on the idea of giving people the authority to carry out specific decisions. Using the analogy of a signed blank cheque and a signed cheque that has a specific amount written on it is a good way of explaining to people the difference between a representative and a delegate.
#
Q. WHAT WOULD AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY DO ABOUT THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING?
A. It's fashionable in a capitalist society to think that the modification of individual behaviour will lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions. Individual changes that are not accompanied by major economic and structural modifications will not produce the necessary gases to decrease the threat of global warming.
Increased greenhouse emissions are a direct consequence of an economic system that must produce ever-increasing profits to stave off the possibility of an economic catastrophe. The wage system in a capitalist society ties in workers to an economic system that will have profound consequences on the very people who keep that system going. Pressure to keep current economic relationships going comes from owners, workers and investors. Without access to a wage or investment dividends or the profits derived from a business venture, individuals living in a capitalist society find it very difficult to survive let alone prosper.
The solution to the greenhouse problem is directly linked with the type of economic system that is promoted within a community and the relationship that evolves between the individual and society as a consequence of that economic system. Anarchist economics are based on two principles that break the nexus between individual and community wealth that exists in a capitalist society. Anarchist economics is based on the idea that economic activity should satisfy real human needs, not manufactured needs.
Individuals within an anarchist community share in the wealth of that community because they are members of that society not because of what work they do or how many shares they own or what businesses and properties they own. Ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange is held common. Everybody is a shareholder, everybody shares in the wealth produced.
In such an economic climate, it's relatively easy to turn that community's attention to the problem of greenhouse emissions. Increasing emissions can be halted and revised because the economic conditions exist that allows both a community and individuals to modify productive processes and their personal behaviour to address the problem of increasing greenhouse emissions.
Economic activity in an anarchist society is geared to create an environment where personal health and security is directly related to the health of society as a whole. In such a community, problems like global warming can be identified, tackled and solved.
#
Q. PEOPLE DON'T APPRECIATE ANYTHING THAT IS FREE?
A. One of the major objections that's raised when you mention the idea that non-personal property will be held in common in an anarchist society, is 'that people don't appreciate anything that's free, they won't look after it because they don't own it'. They like to point out the abysmal condition of much of Australia's public transport system is directly related to the fact that nobody in particular owns it. If nobody owns it, people believe nobody will be willing to take responsibility for it.
It's true that public property is not viewed in the same manner that private property is viewed in a capitalist society. Nobody tends to take responsibility for public property because people don't believe it belongs to them. Public property in a capitalist society may be able to be utilised by everyone in that community, but that doesn't mean it belongs to the community. The community does not own it, it's owned and managed by the Federal, State or local governments. People pay for it through the taxation system, but apart from the services they receive, they do not receive a direct tangible benefit if that property is sold. The way people living in a capitalist society treat public services and public property is directly linked to the fact that they don't own it or directly profits from it.
People's attitude to public property in an anarchist society would be different because they would directly control and benefit from that property. They would be able to determine how it's utilised and whether they need to expand particular services. Public property would be viewed as their personal property because they would control as well as utilise it. In such circumstances, it's highly unlikely that people would damage or not look after public infrastructure.
Destroying or damaging public property in an anarchist society would be regarded as aberrant behaviour by a significant proportion of the community. Children growing up in such an environment would soon learn that damaging public property is akin to fouling their own nest.
#
Q. Would everybody living in an anarchist society be involved in every decision?
A. For some reason people seem to have the idea that if they lived in a society where decisions were made using direct democratic principles, they would be spending all their time going to meetings. A direct democratic society is based on the principle that the people involved in a decision have the right to be involved in the making of that decision.
One of the most important decisions people living in an anarchist society need to make is what proportion of their resources will be allocated to provide particular services. Health, education, water, defence, environment are some of the areas that the community as a whole needs to make a decision about. Once the community makes these decisions, the people that provide these services make decisions about how the resources allocated will be used to provide the necessary services.
Anarchism doesn't revolve around reinventing the wheel, burning everything to the ground and starting again. It's about creating decision making mechanisms that ensure that the interests of the people as a whole take precedence over the interests of a minority or the interests of those who own the means of production, distribution and exchange.
The best way to do this is to create structures and implement these decisions through the election or appointment of delegates with limited mandates, who have the authority to carry out these decisions. Although the people providing health, education, environment and many other important services will put a case to the community as a whole about why they need certain resources to carry out those services, society as a whole will make the decision about the amount of resources that are allocated to each service.
Direct democracy is one mechanism by which people at a national, regional, community and street level can make decisions in an anarchist community. The guiding principles in an anarchist society (that wealth should be held in common and used for the common good and that the people involved in a decision should make that decision) provides the necessary framework within an anarchist society that helps to create institutions and structures that allow everyone, irrespective of race, colour, religion, sexual preference, age and gender, to be a part of that community.
Direct democracy is a mechanism by which decisions can be made by a large number of people. It can be used to make decisions in anarchist as well as non-anarchist communities. Problems arise in communities where the means of production, distribution and exchange are not held in common because the people who monopolise the ownership of resources can use their monopoly to push decisions in directions that suit their interests.
That's why anarchists have always stated that the will of the people is best reflected in communities where wealth is held in common and used for the common good.
