A. The delegate is the building block of an anarchist community. People appoint or elect delegates to represent their opinions at regional and national meetings, a delegate's mandate is determined by the group they represent. The delegate doesn�t have the power to make decisions on behalf of the group that they represent. At a regional or national meeting, delegates present the position of the people they represent. Once the delegate�s positions have been articulated, they discuss the problem at hand, examine solutions that take into account the decisions made by the communities they represent and decide on a position that is acceptable to the delegates present. The delegate then reports back to the people who have given them the mandate to act on their behalf. At this point the local meeting has a number of options, they may accept the delegate's arguments and ratify the decision made at the regional or national meeting. They may decide not to accept the decision made at the regional or national meeting and ask the same delegate to return back to the regional or national meeting to explain why they have made such a decision or they may not be happy with the delegate's performance and appoint or elect another delegate to represent their position at the next meeting. If consensus cannot be reached at a regional or national delegate's meeting, delegates have a number of choices. They can recommend to the local groups that they represent, that the decision be abandoned, as consensus cannot be reached. If the decision discussed does not challenge the principles of association that bind that society together, delegates holding both majority and minority opinions can go back to their local groups and ask them if they want to try to implement the decisions made by both groups, as no compromise is possible. In this situation the resources that have been allocated to implement the decision to be made, would be divided amongst both the majority and the minority. Each group would receive a percentage of the resources available that reflects the number of people holding each position.
Q. WOULD EVERYBODY LIVING IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY BE AN ANARCHIST?
A. No! People with different political, social and cultural practices would live in an anarchist society. As members of that community, they have both the power to take part in the decision making processes within that community and the right to share in what is produced by that society. They also have the right to openly campaign for the rejection of anarchist principles and the adoption of other principles of association. They don�t have the right to forcibly impose their views on those who live in that community. The strength of an anarchist community lays in its ability to create environment and structures that promote individual security and which gives everybody in that community the potential to develop themselves to their fullest potential. Its survival ultimately depends on people voluntarily participating in the day to day running of that society. People with different philosophical viewpoints within that community would soon find they would be holding marginal positions as long as that society functioned successfully. In such a community few would want to go back to the situation where their everyday affairs were ruled by the whims of people who were able to exercise power over them. The situation could change in times of crisis, especially times when the structures and institutions that have been established do not meet the needs of people in that community. In such situations, people who are articulating and promoting different ideas may find a receptive audience. As anarchist communities are open communities, they need to guard both against sabotage and people within that community using force to coerce people to follow them. In these situations, the community is able to activate predetermined mechanisms to stop individuals and groups within their community from sabotaging their society or using force to impose their will on the members of that community. Q. How would an anarchist community deal with a serious internal challenge? A. Society is a dynamic, ever changing organism. What may be appropriate in one instance may not be appropriate in another. It's probable that elements within an anarchist society will want to change the principles of associating that bind that community together. As with all organisations that are based on voluntary principles, anarchism sinks or swims around its ability to deliver what it promises. Debate, arguments and confrontation is a constant feature of a free society. Anarchists would deal with each challenge as it arose, arguing their case publicly. Any attempt by a minority within an anarchist community to impose their will on the community by force would be resisted by force. If a significant proportion of the community lose faith in anarchist methods of organisation, that community would cease to be an anarchist community. The anarchists within that community could leave or continue to function as a minority within a wider community. Processes would exist within an anarchist community that allows people to embrace other forms of organisation if they voluntarily choose to do so. A small anarchist community would face much more difficulties than a larger one, as they would be prone to pressures from outside groups. Anarchists are not just going to sit back and let all they've struggled for, disappear overnight. They will not tolerate outside forces trying to undermine them from within. They will resist attempts to destroy them through physical force or by the application of an embargo on their community. Whether they survive or not, whether they are able to resist both internal and external challenges, is related to the type of society they have created. If they have been able to create a free society that meets people's needs, where people are actively involved in the affairs of their community, it's highly unlikely that internal opposition will be a significant problem. Who would want to go back to wage slavery when they've experienced life in an anarchist community? Who would want to give power back to rulers when they've been able to successfully organise their own affairs with their fellow citizens. Internal challenges will only be a threat if the community has been under so much external pressures that life has become unbearable. In such a situation, it's likely that people would give up the power to manage their own lives in order to survive. Whether anarchist communities continue to survive ultimately rests on the strength of that community. The greater the participation in the life of the community and the greater access people have to the common wealth, the stronger that community is to both internal and external challenges. Whether an anarchist society is able to resist these challenges, is directly related to the degree power has been devolved and wealth shared within that society.
Q. ANARCHISTS DON'T VOTE!!
A. What a load of garbage. Anarchists vote and vote and vote and vote. Anarchists problems don't lay with the act of indicating their opinion through a ballot, their problems lay with how the voting process is used. Anarchists want to make decisions about how they live and what types of communities they live in, they don't want rulers or representatives to make those decisions for them. Their concerns about voting do not revolve about the process, but revolve about what they are voting for. Representative democracy is democracy in name only. Every 3 to 4 years people are forced by law in Australia to cast a ballot to elect a representative to local, State or the Federal level of government. Participation in the electoral process is limited to giving an individual an open cheque to make decisions for you for the next 3 to 4 years. Anarchists are not willing to give anybody a blank cheque to make decisions on their behalf. They want to make the decisions themselves. That's why they have consistently rejected voting in parliamentary elections. Voting is a useful method by which to gauge opinions within a group. What role voting has in the decision making process is different in different situations. Anarchists attempt to make decisions via a consensus process. If consensus is not possible and a decision must be made, resources allocated to carry out a particular decision will be distributed according to the number of people who hold a particular viewpoint. Both minority and majority viewpoints are catered for within the anarchist decision making process. Voting gives a clear indication of how many people hold a particular opinion. The criticism that should be levelled at anarchists is not that they reject voting, the problem with anarchists is that they resort to the ballot far too often.
