A. Of course it would, the problem isn't one of reinventing the wheel. The technology is available to anyone who cares to use it. The problem is one of needs and resources. If a need exists and people within a number of federations agree that the project will be allocated so it can be carried out, the problem arises when a single federation has particular needs but doesn't have access to resources to satisfy these needs. In these situations, surrounding federations will be asked for help to overcome the problems that the federation faces. It's highly unlikely that these federations that are asked for assistance will refuse. This time, it's their neighbour that has a problem, next time it may be their turn.
Mutual aid plays a very important role in the relationship that exists between federations. Mutual aid acts as the bond that allows federations to attack problems collectively. It's no one's interest to hang onto excess surpluses or to deny other federations' access to much needed resources. Denying surrounding federations the right to access needed resources would soon lead to conflict between groups. It's no exaggeration to say that an anarchist society could not survive if the federations that make up that society did not practice mutual aid. Mutual aid is the glue that keeps the disparate parts together. Mutual aid is neither a moral or ethical decision, it's the pathway to survival.
Even in the most authoritarian and hierarchical communities, mutual aid plays a significant role in the lives of people within those communities. It's quite possible that once a decision has been made to carry out a major infrastructure project, the time taken to complete that project will be much shorter than a similar project in a capitalist society. This will occur because the community has been involved in the decision making process and understands that their active participation and support will help to shorten the length of the project.
#
Q. WOULD A ROLE EXIST FOR ELITE SPORTS PEOPLE IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY?
A. Many anarchists make the mistake of thinking that competition wont exist in an anarchist society. Although anarchists promote cooperation as an integral component of an anarchist society, there is still a significant role for competitive behaviour in an anarchist community. Competition is not an inherently destructive behaviour, it becomes destructive when a minority or an individual are the sole beneficiaries of that competitive behaviour. Two federations competing about who can produce the greatest surplus or whose football team is the best team, helps to both promote group morale and defuse tensions that may for a variety of reasons exist between different anarchist groups and federations.
Everybody living in an anarchist community is able to share what is produced in that community because theyre a member of that community. Its not inconceivable that people who may have a natural talent in playing different sports may decide to develop that potential. Its possible that competitions would exist, within and between anarchist communities in particular sports. The difference between competitive sport among elite athletes in capitalist, communist an anarchist societies, is that no matter how good an individual or a team was, they would not benefit to a greater share of the communitys wealth because of their sporting abilities.
People would devote their time to such activities because they find them to be both enjoyable and a challenge. Its unlikely that many members of an anarchist community would become full time elite sports people. Its more likely, as there are no specific financial rewards for those people who are good at a particular sporting activity, that most people would no be willing to put the effort required into becoming an elite athlete. Most people living in an anarchist community would combine sport, both cooperative and competitive, with productive work and other interests and pursuits.
Anarchism is not about directing people into worthwhile activities, its about giving people the opportunity to develop to their fullest potential. If that means that individuals within an anarchist community want to develop specific sporting skills, they would be free to pursue those activities. If their activities dont impinge on other peoples freedoms and liberties, there is nothing stopping an individual trying to become the fastest runner, the most accomplished gymnast or the best football player in their community.
Q. WOULD EVERYONE BEHAVE ALTRUISTICALLY IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY?
A. Of course not. The confusion amongst anarchists as well as non anarchists about the role of altruisms in an anarchist society is a major stumbling block in attempts by activists to convince people to consider anarchism as a serious political philosophy. Anarchism is principally based on self interest. Humans are neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad. How they behave is determined by their need for food, shelter, company and security. Their self interest revolves around their need to satisfy these basic human needs.
Anarchists believe that both individual and community self interest are best met through cooperative not competitive behaviour. Anarchist communities are structured in a manner that does not allow the individual or a minority within that community to impose their will through force on that community. This does not mean it can�t happen, what it does mean is that institutional structures based on hierarchy that allow rulers to impose their will on millions of people, do not exist in an anarchist society.
Anarchist resistance against the State and hierarchical institutions is based on their fear that hierarchy provides the mechanisms that allows rulers to put the self interest of themselves, their families, their friends and their political allies above the self interest of the rest of the community. Anarchists have no faith in humans doing the right thing by those around them, that�s why they don�t support the creation of institutions and structures that give other people both the right and power to impose their will on the communities they rule. Altruism-the regard for others as a principle of action is the preserve of those who believe in the ridiculous idea that if they allow themselves to be ruled, those who rule them will do the right thing by them.
Individuals and groups within an anarchist community who attempt to put the satisfaction of their individual needs before the satisfaction of the community�s needs as a whole, will soon find they will face serious sanctions within that community. The survival of an anarchist community is not based on individuals behaving altruistically within that community, it�s based on creating structures and institutions within that community that do not allow individual self interest to override the self interest of the community as a whole.
#
Q. IS THERE AN ANARCHIST LIFESTYLE?
A. I�m afraid not. Some anarchists seem to think that anarchism is a lifestyle, not a set of principle. They believe that anarchists, who have chosen not to pursue the lifestyle they�ve chosen, are not �real� anarchists. Wearing black, living in a collective, refusing to accept government money, squatting, forming a co-operative, pooling resources, having multiple partners, living as a nuclear family are decisions which can be taken by both anarchists and non anarchist alike.
Anarchism is not linked to a particular lifestyle. It�s about trying to create structures, organisations, institutions and framework that do not allow individuals and groups to impose their will on other people. There is not one anarchist lifestyle, there are many non-authoritarian non-hierarchical lifestyles that can be chosen by anarchists, and each is as significant as the next.
Attempting to create a universal anarchist lifestyle is both counterproductive and alienating. No such thing has ever existed or will exist. The strength of both anarchism and anarchists is dependent on activists understanding that many different non-hierarchical lifestyles can exist simultaneously. What somebody wears or doesn�t wear, whether they live alone, in a nuclear family collective or commune is not important.
What is important is that they accept the idea that they want to create and live in a society without rulers. What path they choose is unimportant as long as the path they take does not allow them to exercise authority over the people.
The exercise of power, not a universal lifestyle, is the central issue facing anarchists in the 21st century.
