Everything you wanted to know about Anarchism but were afraid to ask

INTRODUCTION
ELEMENTARY ANARCHISM
SOME COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANARCHISM
ANARCHISM IN ACTION
ORGANISING IN THE WORKPLACE
'NATIONAL' ISSUES
LOCAL ACTION AND ORGANISATION
SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION
CONCLUSION
FURTHER READING

[http://www.radical.org.uk/anarchism/] This classic statement of anarchism was written by a diverse group of anarchists in Cardiff around 1980 and it is an interesting historical record of the optimism of mainstream anarchist thought at that time.

Terry Phillips

INTRODUCTION

There is probably more rubbish talked about anarchism than any other
political idea. Actually, it has nothing to do with a belief in chaos,
death and destruction. Anarchists do not normally carry bombs, nor do
they ascribe any virtue to beating up old ladies.

It is no accident that the sinister image of the mad anarchist is so
accepted. The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types,
use every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable
state of carnage and chaos. We can expect little else from power-mongers
who would have no power to monger if we had our way. They have to
believe that authority and obedience are essential in order to justify
their own crimes to themselves. The TV, press and films all preach
obedience, and when anarchy is mentioned at all, it is presented as
mindless destruction.

The alleged necessity of authority is so firmly planted in the average
mind that anarchy, which means simply 'no government' is almost
unthinkable to most people. The same people, on the other hand, will
admit that rules, regulations, taxes, officiousness and abuse of power
(to name but a few) are irritating to say the least. These things are
usually thought to be worth suffering in silence because the alternative
- no power, no authority, everybody doing what they pleased - would be
horrible. It would be anarchy.

Yet there are a limitless range of possible societies without the State.
Not all of them would be unpleasant to live in. Quite the contrary! Any
kind of anarchist society would at least be spared the horrible
distortions the State produces. The 'negative' side of anarchism
- abolition of the State - has to be balanced against what replaces it
- a society of freedom and free co-operation.

Various sorts of anarchists have differing ideas on exactly how society
ought to be organised. They all agree that the State must be replaced by
a society without classes and without force. It is because of this
belief in freedom that we are reluctant to put forward a rigid
blueprint. We offer only possible models backed up by evidence drawn
from life. Actually, there has already been an anarchist society and it
took nothing less than mass murder to stop it.

Another common misunderstanding from those who know slightly more about
it, is that anarchism is a nice daydream, a beautiful but impractical
idea. In fact, the anarchist movement has a long history and it arose
not in the heads of ivory tower philosophers, but directly from the
practical struggle for survival of masses of ordinary, downtrodden
people. It has always been intensely practical in its concerns and its
ways of doing things. The movement has come quite close to success a few
times. If it is really so hopelessly impractical, then why is the State
so determined to stamp it out?

ELEMENTARY ANARCHISM

Very few people seem to understand anarchism, even though it is a very
simple, straightforward idea. It can be expressed basically as running
our own lives instead of being pushed around.

There is nothing complicated or threatening about anarchism, except the
fearsome arguments it can get you into. Such as the one about the chaos
there would be if everyone did just what they wanted. But we have chaos
already don't we? Millions are out of work, whilst others do too much
boring, repetitive labour. People starve at the same time as food is
being dumped into the sea to keep prices up. Our air is choked by the
fumes from cars that contain only one person. The list of crazy, chaotic
things that happen is endless.

Even the 'good' things that the State does are actually harmful. The
Health Service, for example, patches us up just like an industrial
repair shop which in a sense it is. It serves to make us dependent on
the State and, worst of all, it buys us off cheaply. It prevents us from
creating the genuine, self-managed Health Service we need, geared to our
needs not theirs.

Authorities by their very nature can only interfere and impose things.
Surely, ordinary people can figure out some way of coping, without
planners knocking down their houses to build yet more empty office
blocks? It is a basic anarchist principle that only people who live in
an area have the right to decide what happens there.

All this chaos, we believe, arises from authority and the State. Without
the ruling class and its need to keep us in bondage, there would be no
State. Without the State we would be in a position to organise freely
for our own ends. Surely we couldn't make a worse mess than we are stuck
with already? Free organisation could provide a much greater
orderliness than a society that concentrates on the systematic
robbery and suppression of the majority of its members.

SOME COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANARCHISM

We are often asked how an anarchist society would deal with, for
instance, murderers. Who would stop them without the police?

Most murders are crimes of passion and therefore unpreventable by police
or anyone else. Hopefully, however, in a saner, less frustrating society
such 'crimes' would be less common.

Our rulers claim to be protecting us from each other. Actually they are
more interested in protecting themselves and 'their' property from us.

If we, as members of a local community, owned and shared all resources
it would become absurd to steal. An important motive for crime would be
abolished.

These local communities would need to develop some means of dealing with
individuals who harmed others. Instead of a few thousand professional
police there would be 51 million in the 'United Kingdom' alone.
Ultimately, our only protection is each other.

Prisons fail to improve or reform anyone. Local people aware of each
others' circumstances would be able to apply more suitable solutions, in
keeping with the needs of the victim and the offender. The present penal
system, on the other hand, creates criminal behaviour. Long term
prisoners are often rendered incapable of surviving outside an
institution that makes all their decisions for them. How is locking
people up with others of an anti-social turn of mind (the worst of whom
are the screws) supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable
behaviour? Of course it does just the opposite. The majority of
prisoners re-offend.

Another question anarchists have had thrown at them for years is: "But
who would do all the dirty and unpleasant jobs?". We imagine each
community would devise its own rota system. What is so impossible about
that?

Then there's the question: "But what about those who refuse to work?".
Well, social pressure can be applied. People could, for example, be
'sent to Coventry', i.e. ignored. In drastic cases they could be
expelled from the community.

But people need to work. People have a definite need for creative
activity. Notice how many people spend their time working on cars or
motor bikes, in gardening, making clothes, creating music. These are all
creative activities that can be enjoyable. They are usually thought of
as hobbies rather than work, since we're brought up to think of work as
a torment to be endured.

In this society of course, work is a torment. Naturally, we hate it.
This does not mean that we are naturally lazy, it means that we resent
being treated like machines, compelled to do mostly meaningless work for
someone else's benefit. Work does not have to be like that - and if it
were controlled by the people who had to do it, it certainly would not
be.

Of course some jobs just have to be done, and there are few methods in
sight of making collecting rubbish a fun occupation. Everybody would
have to take a share and everybody would have to see to it that nobody
got away with shirking their responsibilities.

A further point worth making is that unemployment is only a problem
created by capitalism. In a sensible world there would be no
unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week, because they
would only produce things that were needed. If we were to get rid of the
parasitic ruling class, we would be free of most of the economic
pressure to work.

If you still need to be convinced that an anarchist society could solve
the problem of people failing to meet their responsibilities, then
imagine yourself being compelled to face a meeting of the whole
community you live in and being publicly discussed as a problem. Ugh!

Yet another common objection is: "Well, perhaps it would work on
a peasant village scale, but how can you run a complex industrial
society without the authority of managers?". Well, in the first place,
we believe that society needs to be broken down to smaller-scale units
as much as possible, so as to make them comprehensible to small groups
of ordinary people. It is a noticeable fact of organisation, as well as
a basic principle of anarchist theory, that small groups of people can
work efficiently together, and co-ordinate with other such groups;
whereas large formless groups are gullible and easily dominated.
Expanding this point it is interesting to note that recently the famous
'economies of scale' that justify steel works, for example, covering
many square miles, have been increasingly called into question. Beyond
a certain point factories, farms, administrative systems and so on,
actually get much less efficient as they get larger.

As much as is reasonably possible should be produced and consumed
locally. Some facilities, however, would have to be dealt with on
a regional or even larger scale. There is no insoluble problem about
this, in fact solutions were found by the Spanish working class in the
thirties. The Barcelona Bus Company doubled services, made generous
contributions to the City Entertainments Collective and produced guns
for the front in the bus workshops. All this was achieved with a smaller
workforce, as many had left to fight the fascists. This amazing
increase in efficiency, despite the war and serious shortages of
essential supplies, is not surprising on reflection after all, who
can best run a bus company? Obviously bus workers.

All the Barcelona workers were organised into syndicates - groups of
workers in the same enterprise, sub-divided into work groups. Each group
made its own day-to-day decisions and appointed a delegate to represent
their views on wider issues concerning the whole factory, or even the
whole region. Each of the delegates was instructed in what to say by
their workmates and the task of being a delegate was frequently rotated.
Delegates could be changed at short notice if it was felt they were
getting out of line (the principle of recallability). These show the
basic anarchist principles of free federation in practice. By adding
more levels of delegation it is possible to cope with organising
activity on any scale, without anyone giving up their freedom to work as
they choose. This idea of federalism is illustrated again in a later
section called 'Local action and organisation'.

Let's move on to another objection - "Wouldn't a society without a State
have no defence from attack by foreign states?".

Well, it must be said that having a State hasn't prevented us from being
taken over by the US Empire. In fact 'our own' armed forces are used
against us as an army of occupation. The State does not defend us. It
uses us as cannon fodder to defend our rulers, who, if the truth be
untangled, are our real enemies.

Returning to the question, a classic anarchist answer is to arm the
people. Anarchist militias in Spain very nearly won the civil war
despite shortages of weapons, treachery by the Communists and
intervention by Germany and Italy. Where they made their mistake was in
allowing themselves to be integrated into an army run by statists. An
armed population would be difficult to subdue.

But yes, we could be destroyed. We believe that the real nuclear threat
is from 'our side'. The American rulers would probably exterminate us
all rather than willingly allow us our freedom.

Against the threat of destruction our best defence is the revolutionary
movement in other countries. Put another way, our best defence against
the Russian nuclear bomb is the current movement of the Polish workers.
This may well spread to the rest of the Soviet Empire. Conversely their
best hope of not being vaporised is that we might succeed in abolishing
'our' bomb. (CND has not yet realised that banning the megadeath weapons
means banning the State!)

It is instructive how the Russian revolution was saved from wholesale
British intervention by a series of mutinies and 'blackings' by British
workers.

True security would be guaranteed if we could develop our international
contacts to the point where we can be sure that the workers in each
'enemy' country will not allow their rulers to attack us.

The last few pages have been a very brief introduction to the way
anarchists think. There are plenty more ideas and details to be found in
various books on the subject. But basically you understand anarchism by
living it, becoming involved with other anarchists and working on
projects, so this is the theme around which the majority of this little
book is written - anarchist actions.

ANARCHISM IN ACTION

If you have followed this pamphlet so far, you should have a fairly
reasonable idea of what an anarchist society is. The problem is how to
get from here to there.

Within anarchism there are many different but related ideas. There are
complete systems of anarchist political theory going by names like
federalism, mutualism, individualism, syndicalism, anarchist-communism,
anarcha-feminism, situationism, and so on.

The arguments between different brands of anarchism have been going on
for a long time and are too involved for an introductory pamphlet.

However, if we think in terms of what anarchism says needs to be done
now, it turns out that there is considerable agreement between brands.
Each strand emphasises the importance of action in a particular area of
life.

If you begin to put the ideas of the following pages into practice, you
will start to work out your own version of anarchism. By doing this you
will be adding a new member to a movement that always needs new members,
particularly ones who have thought things through. Try your ideas out on
your friends, read more on anarchism, talk with other anarchists!

Be an independent thinker. There is no other sort.

ORGANISING IN THE WORKPLACE

Traditionally, anarchists believe that the main problem with the world
is that it is divided into masters and 'wage slaves'. If we could get
rid of the bosses and run industry ourselves, for the benefit of our own
needs not theirs, it would clearly make a big improvement and would
transform every area of life.

There are, however, some anarchists who believe the working class is so
used to being enslaved that some other route to revolution will have to
be found.

An anarchist at work, however, will usually at least try to get his or
her workmates to organise themselves. We try to spread the simple idea
that by sticking together we resist being pushed around. This is best
done by talking to workmates, becoming accepted and trusted by them,
rather than by high pressure preaching. Solidarity can best be learned
through action.

Anarchists try to be ready for strikes when they happen. Usually the
most important task in such situations is to undermine the power of the
official union line and get people working together directly rather than
through the 'proper channels'. The point of anarchism is to seize
control of our own lives, not to hand it over to an official for a sell
out. As it happens such direct action is the tried and tested way of
winning industrial battles. Unity is strength.

To the anarchist, strikes for more small changes, demarcation disputes,
and so on, are not especially revolutionary. To us, the only real point
in such actions is that in the course of them people may begin to learn
how to organise for themselves and gain confidence in their collective
power. Eventually this experience could prove useful and begin to allow
workers effectively to challenge the industrial power structure and
build towards complete workers' control of production.

We have a long history to draw on and many useful techniques that have
worked elsewhere. There are ideas like slowing down till we reckon we
are working at a rate appropriate to the wage. Or 'good work' strikes,
taking care to do a good job irrespective of the time it takes. Such
actions only make sense if taken by a group of people in a united
fashion. They are examples of direct action. We don't ask the bosses, we
tell them. By contrast the indirect (so-called democratic) method is to
wait five years and put a cross opposite the name of a labour
politician, who turns out to be in the same freemason's lodge as the
opposition candidate.

We would hope that self-organisation among workers will once again (as
at other times in recent history) reach the point where they are
prepared to act together and confront the State in its entirety. If the
next time around there is adequate experience, organisation, preparation
and awareness, it will be possible to dispose of the State and bosses
and move towards an anarchist society and an anarchist world.

There are a variety of ways differing anarchists believe this could come
about. Some anarchists support the idea of building giant unions
controlled from the bottom up, rather than the usual top down structure.
This syndicalism is a clear strategy for revolution which has been shown
effective in the past. The union ideally includes all the workers in
each place and aims to develop self-organisation to the point where the
workers can easily take over the factories. Strikes can, where
necessary, be backed up by solidarity action from other workers.

Eventually, enough workers will have joined and become active for
a general strike. The State is paralysed and can do nothing if it cannot
trust the army to kill its own relatives. The general strike may be
a general take-over by the people, or develop into one. At this point
the work of building Utopia can begin.

Some anarchists reject aspects of this plan. They doubt the wisdom of
forming unions at all, even if decentralised. They worry that a layer of
professional leaders will develop. There is also the danger of getting
lost in the swamp of everyday compromise over petty issues.

In any case this difference in approach does not prevent working
together. In the 'United Kingdom' (joke phrase) the existing
Labour-mafia controlled unions have already got it all sewn up. The
prospects for forming anarchist unions are obviously dismal.

In these circumstances, it seems that the way forward is to try to
promote links between workers that by-pass the mafia controlled union
HQ's which try to monopolise information so as to maintain control. Any
action such as flying pickets, which puts control in the hands of
strikers themselves, should be encouraged.

It would be useful if anarchists working in the same industry were in
contact. Where contacts do not already exist, a conference is a good
starting-off point.

'NATIONAL' ISSUES

Large Scale Campaigns

Anarchists usually make a poor showing in influencing large scale
campaigns. This is partly because the christians, liberals, trotskyists,
and so on, who generally manage to control them, often make them so
lifeless, ineffectual and generally wet that no self-respecting
anarchist will go near them.

In fact we see the leaderships of these groups as an important part of
the system, whose function is to control protest by steering it
harmlessly into 'proper' channels.

An example of this process at work was the attempt by 'Friends of the
Earth' to contest the public inquiry into the Windscale nuclear
reprocessing plant. The result was that a good deal of energy and money
was directed into an entirely useless argument between rival experts.
The illusion was fostered that the government is fair and reasonable and
has a right to make this kind of decision. The verdict was of course
a foregone conclusion and the go-ahead was given. The net effect was to
misdirect and defuse protest about the nuclear power programme.

On the other hand, many anarchists believe that it is a good idea to get
involved with campaigns such as CND, the Anti-Nazi League, animal
liberation, and so on. This is because there is some prospect that
joining one of these campaigns may be the first step for some people in
becoming anarchists. An anarchist's presence might help this process.
Also, campaigns which bring important issues to public attention provide
opportunities to show how particular evils relate to oppression in
general and the need for revolution. In some cases it is worth urging
anarchists to join such organisations in order to prevent domination by
the more noxious political types. Sometimes it is actually possible to
introduce anarchist methods of organising and direct action tactics.

For example, an anarchist involved in CND would try to point out the
relationship between nuclear weapons, nuclear power, militarism, the
State and class society. We would point out the futility of asking the
State to behave nicely and would recommend instead asking the workers
who build the bombs and the aircraft, and so on, to do something more
useful instead. We would also do our best to prevent our old enemy the
Labour Party from taming the anti-missile movement and then quietly
burying it, as they did in the early sixties.

We would also try to spread more decentralised methods of organisation,
based on small groups federating with each other. This would have the
advantages of greater flexibility, giving each member more chance of
being fully involved, and of preventing a ruling clique from developing.

Few anarchists would claim that a movement like CND is likely to bring
about the revolution, or even to get anywhere near banning nuclear
weapons. The best we can reasonably hope for is that it will cause
increasing numbers of people to think about how this society really
works.

Interpersonal Relationships

As we have said earlier, there is a concern for the rights of the
individual running through anarchism. There is no point in all our
activities and theorising if it is not eventually going to make life
better for individuals like you and me.

Unlike marxists and other fake socialists, we believe in at least trying
to live out our principles in everyday life. If you believe in equality
you should treat people as equals as far as you can. An anarchist would
be less likely to forgive Marx's ill treatment of his servants and his
wife than a marxist would!

The ways people treat each other add up to make society as a whole. In
an insane society like this one, people treat each other badly.

Sadly, though, the hippies were wrong. It is not 'all in your head'.
Individual solutions like dropping acid and living in the country turn
out to be not solutions at all, but simply escapism. Before the
revolution it is not possible simply to choose to live as though you
were free. Society will not let you.

Before the revolution it is up to us to behave as if we were reasonable
human beings in a reasonable world as far as possible. It is difficult,
but not impossible, with a little help from your friends, to grow to
something more than the state of infantile dependence this society tries
to keep us in.

The Authoritarian Family

A common myth, both in fascism and in everyday anti-humanism, is the
'sanctity' of the family and the 'holy' institution of motherhood.

Many women today are fighting against being pushed into the role of
mothers and nothing else, and against the everyday domination of women
and children by men, which is what the family is really all about.

The reality of family life is quite different from the sentimental
ideal. Wife battering, rape and child abuse are not accidental or
isolated events - they are a result of conditioning in the family and by
the media.

Until we have freedom and equality in our daily lives we will have no
freedom or equality at all, nor will we want it sincerely.

You have only to look at the 'master and slave' content of any porn
magazine to see that sexual repression leads to domination and
submission. If power is more important than fulfilment in your sexual
life, then it will be more important in the rest of your life also.

Support free love. If it's not free, it's not love.

Right wing people talk a great deal about sex and what they call 'sexual
morality' and 'purity'. Even 'racial purity' is a largely sexual idea.
It is based on fear of the sexuality of 'inferior races', feared because
it threatens their own sexual control and power.

Racists ask: "Would you let your daughter marry one of them?". Who are
you to say what 'your' daughter should do with her own sex life anyway?

Anarchists generally do not hold with conventional marriage. They do not
accept that it is any business of the church or the State what people do
with their sexual relationships. True emotional security for both
children and adults is less likely to be found in a legally enforceable
and artificially 'permanent' tie between two people of either sex, than
it is in a wider network of relationships that may or may not have
a sexual component.

Many anarchists have seen living in communes as an important way in
which to change society. But living in the same house as nine other
people is not in itself the key to the ideal future. The important thing
is to change our attitudes: to become more open and generous and less
competitive and afraid of each other. The important thing is to have
plenty of real friends rather than hiding in the family nest. We can do
this as workmates and neighbours as well as home sharers.

Forming communes now, or trying to, is riddled with problems. Communes
at the moment frequently fail either through isolation, or through
squabbles within the group, or for a variety of other reasons. People
brought up in this society do not easily develop more open, generous and
honest relationships. Most anarchists settle for being just a little
less isolationist than most. We just do the best we can, and realise
there is no such thing as perfection in an oppressive society. There are
no anarchist saints.

Changing Everyday Life

Unless we can help people, including ourselves, to become less dominated
by fear, anxiety and insecurity, there is little point in expecting them
to behave sensibly and to start building a free, creative society.
Authoritarian ideas and unreasoning hatred of scapegoats such as blacks
and homosexuals are part of a mass mental illness.

Fortunately, there are forces operating in the direction of greater
mental health, and anarchists should do what they can to assist these
forces and movements.

Of these, the clearest example is the radical psychotherapy movement.
Broadly speaking, groups within this movement try to move away from the
old idea of the expert psychiatrist who solves the 'patient's' problems,
towards an approach in which people, with assistance, help themselves.
Unfortunately this has been taken over by the neurotic middle classes.
Fees for encounter groups are too much for the likes of you and me, and
encounter groups based around the problems of industrial management are
hardly the way to a new society.

There are self-help therapy groups, though, which show some promise and
may well catch on. The most successful seem to be those with a specific
membership, such as depressives, or women's groups, and so on. We are
against people trying to adjust to impossible situations and want them
to learn to assert and express themselves.

As much of the psychological mess the human race has got itself into
revolves around the unjust relationships between the sexes, anarchists
put a lot of hope in the development of the women's movement. Not that
all feminists are revolutionaries. The National Organisation of Women,
for example, was delighted to allow women to person nuclear missile
control rooms. Nevertheless, there is a strong anarchist strand to
the women's movement, in the emphasis on small leaderless groups,
self-help and the importance of women coming to terms with each
other's feelings. Challenging male domination should logically lead
on to challenging all domination.

The women's movement also illustrates another promising development
- the tendency to organise in small groups and collectives. Where these
work well they provide much needed support and a sense of worth to the
individuals involved. Other movements, such as parts of the gay
movement, claimants unions, squatters, self-help health groups, and so
on, are good for the same reason. This way of organising tends to help
the development of sanity.

Anything that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves
and examine their relationship with the rest of the world should be
encouraged. Eventually we can hope that attitudes will change enough to
allow people to have the confidence to take back power over their own
lives.

LOCAL ACTION AND ORGANISATION

Direct action can be used to change the conditions of houses, streets,
schools, hospitals, and other amenities. Such reforms have, in
themselves, little to contribute towards building an anarchist society,
but making people aware of the potential of direct action is important.
At best such actions foster feelings of community spirit and promote
self organisation. They raise political consciousness. At worst they
lead to feelings of hopelessness and complete disillusionment with the
human race. These feelings may drag you to political suicide. Such
'has-beens' are to be seen in many Labour Party gatherings.

What sort of actions are we talking about? Well if you're short of
a house, then consider squatting. It by-passes the authorities in charge
of housing and challenges property relations. It effectively
demonstrates the disgrace of empty houses side by side with
homelessness. Unfortunately, popular prejudice hinders squatting from
obtaining the wider support necessary for real change.

The community life of the street can be improved by festivals, street
theatre, and so on. Of course this sort of thing can have its drawbacks
too, unless you're the sort of anarchist that's into Lady Di and her
mates!

Anarchists have participated in and often dreamt up all sorts of
self-help schemes. These include making better use of land, labour
swapping schemes, consumer product sharing schemes. Again these
encourage independence and demonstrate that alternative forms of
economic exchange are viable. Beware paid community workers wishing to
professionalise the idea and destroy its real benefits by making it part
of the system.

Another common area of anarchist activity is getting involved in local
campaigns. These may be useful in developing organisation and awareness
and can have the virtue of making people think about political issues.
A campaign against the closure of a local hospital, for instance, raises
questions about who controls the hospitals and for whose benefit?
Unfortunately, people are often led astray by their illusions about
'democracy' and politicians, and wind up getting fobbed off or conned.
This can result in disillusionment and apathy. The role of the anarchist
is to try and make sure that it results instead in anger at the
authorities and promotes direct action.

It is often difficult to find a balance between getting involved in
immediate reforms (hence encouraging a false belief in the State as
a benevolent force) and examining the long term implications of what you
do. If you let your feelings run riot you will end up in reformism,
desperate to remove the squalor you discover in society. This is
understandable, but works against removing the roots of the squalor.

To improve the system is to strengthen it and thus in the long run
increase human misery.

When local conditions become atrocious, riots break out. Chief Constable
Oxford of Liverpool recently described local riots in Brixton,
Liverpool, and so on, as "organised anarchy". It seems unlikely,
however, that they stemmed from anything but pure frustration. Sporadic
rioting is not a particularly revolutionary activity in itself. If it
had been organised, it would have been insurrection, which is
a different story. How, then, do anarchists organise?

Individuals join small anarchist groups in order to co-ordinate their
actions with others not to be told what to do. The entire group
discusses a particular action, but only those in favour will perform it.
This contrasts completely with trotskyist groups in which each
individual member must follow the party line.

Disagreement on an important issue, or lack of shared action, simply
means that a new grouping will come into being. In various parts of the
country, groups have formed larger federations to co-ordinate the
actions of these small groups (in a non-authoritarian way, of course).

This model of organisation has already become common in other strands of
political activity, like women's groups and some community groups. If
anarchism grows, one would expect to see an increase in this way of
organising.

Groups of people in a street, or perhaps at a particular workplace, can
organise in this way to take the decisions that affect them. They can
send delegates to larger meetings, taking this task in turn, instructing
the delegate what to say, kicking him/her out if s/he gets power hungry.
A utopian idea? It is already working now on a small scale (for example
in the CND). What's so difficult about it? All we need is a total
revolution in everyday consciousness! In this way, a non-authoritarian
system of organising all aspects of our lives from the cradle to the
grave could emerge. It would be a federalist type of anarchist society.

Anarchists see it as vital to educate people for a new society. Some
would go so far as to say that it is all we can reasonably do. To
attempt a revolution as a tiny minority is just not on and with the best
of intentions could lead only to a new slavery. A genuine revolution can
only be made if the great majority of people want it and actively
participate in creating the new world. Naturally, it would stand a much
better chance if the people had first organised, prepared and thought
about the issues and problems. This means that one of our top priorities
is to spread our ideas as far as possible.

Preaching, however, is best avoided. We do not want mere followers. An
even worse danger is that we may begin to hand out our ideas as a dogma.
Finally, we do not want to talk at people, but with them.

This last point is important. It is probably the surest sign of the
degenerate state of modern society that communications are becoming
increasingly impersonal, standardised and one way. Millions of people
watch the same TV programmes and read the same newspapers. As a result
their own conversations are standardised. Communications have become
a commodity to be consumed, 'sounds' to be bought on plastic tapes. All
modern communications media have two things in common: you have to pay
for them, and there is no way of participating, you listen or watch,
nothing else is required of you.

Our belief in freedom leads us to demand freedom of speech and freedom
of the press. This may seem odd, as these were old nineteenth century
liberal rallying cries. The liberals now seem fairly satisfied that we
have these precious freedoms already.

What they mean, of course, is that they have these freedoms. Ordinary
mortals, to say nothing of 'dangerous extremists' like ourselves, do
not. We can say what we like (almost), but not on prime viewing time; we
can write anything we like, but won't be able to distribute it through
W H Smith's. Unless everyone has a reasonably good chance of actually
being heard, then freedom of speech means nothing and they are quite
happy to give it to us.

A recent Spanish coup attempt is said to have failed because the fascist
officers had an old fashioned view of political power and seized the
parliament building. Next time they will know better. They will seize
the radio stations.

Journalists, print workers, writers, technicians and actors may have to
play a vital part in the struggle for a new society. They have it in
their power to tell the truth. The cruddy 'product' that they obediently
continue to churn out ought to have shamed them all into resigning by
now. Agitation within the communications industry, for workers' control
of content, is a matter of urgency.

Because communications are so tightly controlled by a very small clique
who know very well the importance of their power, we are hardly likely
to stand much chance of getting our views known through the existing set
up. We need to find some other way of spreading our ideas until such
time as the people get around to seizing control.

We have been forced out on to the fringes of society. We. are obliged to
create our own media in order to express ourselves. Naturally, it is all
on a small scale and we reach only a few people with each leaflet,
magazine or whatever. We can only hope that all the little things we do
will add up. After all, a thousand leaflets are not wasted if they
convince one new anarchist.

Spreading the word is important, and an impressive range of different
approaches have been tried at one time or another. Here we list some of
the things anarchists do or can do to get their ideas across.

THE PRINTED WORD -- The anarchist movement has produced a constant
stream of articles, newspapers, magazines, books and leaflets throughout
its history. Some reached impressive numbers. Many were read only by
a few and are now forever forgotten.

The effort has not been completely wasted. We always need more and
better-written anarchist material. People who are ready for ideas must
be given as many chances as possible to find them.

Leaflets, often quickly run off on a duplicator for a special event, are
the simplest and cheapest possibility. Wording should be simple and to
the point. Good graphics, including photographs, can be done on an
electric stencil at a slightly higher cost.

Cheap pamphlets on particular topics are best whipped out of the pocket
at an appropriate point in a conversation. This one, for instance, is
designed for those who insist on trotting out the old hoary objections
to anarchism such as "what about murderers?" (see Some common arguments
against anarchism above.)

Magazines and newspapers fall into two categories: those aimed at, or of
interest only to, other anarchists, arid those aimed at reaching the
uncommitted multitude. We seem to have plenty of magazines for
anarchists but a shortage of agitational ones. There are a few, good,
local anarchist papers: in addition many anarchists work on 'community'
papers dealing with local issues.

Book publishing and distribution is also an important part of the
movement. Order anarchist books at your local library. There are also
plenty of anarchist books yet to be written. We need more works of
anarchist theory, more analyses of present society and strategy for
change. There is also scope in fiction or poetry. Writing a book is not
as daunting as it might first seem. Many of the people who do write
books are complete idiots.

STREET THEATRE -- This method of communicating is perhaps not used
enough by anarchists. Writing and rehearsing plays can be a useful
practice in getting a group working together. The proper legal approach
is to apply for planning permission (be sure to have a harmless sounding
name). On the other hand, the 'Santa Claus Army' who invaded the toy
departments of Amsterdam stores and gave away toys to the kids were also
indulging in street theatre, though of a less legal kind. Some kind of
semi-theatrical event to make people think is a good alternative to the
usual boring old demo.

PUBLIC MEETINGS -- At one time anarchist meetings drew crowds of thirty
or forty thousand. Public meetings have declined as mass entertainment
has developed. Fifty is a pretty good number these days. Choose a theme,
sort out speakers, book a hall and advertise it well. It may be a lot of
effort, but it does sometimes produce new members, or at least some
interest. People will take you more seriously.

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA -- This vague title is meant to cover unorthodox means
of communication from badges or spray painting to video. Small messages
to the mass consciousness can be written on toilet walls or sprayed in
six-foot letters down the sides of motorways. Video is cheap(ish) and
everybody by now must know of some way of borrowing or hiring cameras.
Anarchists have run successful pirate radio stations and there is no
need to rule out dance or mime or a thousand other possible ways of
getting a message across. Use your imagination.

Although we are kept out of the mass communications market, we can still
find ways of reaching out with our ideas. The struggle to make means of
expression available to the people at large is one of the most vital
parts of the struggle for freedom. By imaginatively pioneering new means
of communication that are easily available, we are not only spreading
our views but helping others to express themselves. Finally, the way in
which an idea is communicated may be at least as important as the idea
itself. If it allows or encourages participation so that people can stop
being merely an 'audience' and start expressing themselves, it is
a direct challenge to the system of power which needs us docile.

MUSIC -- Rebellious or revolutionary music has a much longer history
than the fashion-conscious youth of today, or even the ageing hippies of
yesterday, may realise. Believe it or not many operas turn around
essentially revolutionary themes! In the eighteen-thirties, possession
of a musical instrument was illegal for the lower orders. This was
because wandering musicians were becoming alarmingly successful at
stirring up discontent.

Many anarchists choose to get involved in music as a way of
communicating with people. It is a useful sort of activity for
anarchists to do, and of course it can be fun. Sadly, much current
anarchist music is neither anarchist nor music, but some of it is good
and some very good. It's all a matter of personal taste anyway.

Music has the power to appeal to emotions directly. It is possible to
communicate in a more basic way. It is also possible to use it to
hypnotise and manipulate people, something which we would hope to avoid
doing.

Again, what we need to do is make music available to people, encourage
them to have a go and bring out their creativity. Some anarchists feel
that for this reason, high technology expensive electric music should be
avoided. On the other hand, the possibilities of home taping and easily
produced cassettes are quite exciting.

We need to create new ways of making and sharing music that by-pass the
music industry. Let them howl about loss of copyright when their tapes
are illegally copied. They've had things their own way too long.

ART -- Paintings in galleries have been described as 'museum art'. What
is meant by this is that they are objects to be admired and bought and
sold. They separate art from life and from people at large. Art as
a saleable item is the best that this system can offer. Art as an
activity it could neither understand nor allow.

There is a crying need to release the creative abilities of 'ordinary'
people. This we can at least attempt to do when talking to people. We
can find ways to work for the movement and enjoy ourselves at the same
time. By using our own creativity, we can hope to reach the hidden parts
of people that other ideas cannot reach.

Spreading the word, or 'propaganda', has to be a major part of any
anarchist strategy. Above all else an anarchist revolution requires that
people know what they are doing and why. Nobody can be forced into
freedom: it must be chosen and taken, or it is not really freedom. Our
task is harder than that of the door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses. It is
not enough for us to tell people what to think -- they must think for
themselves, or they are not really anarchists.

SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION

Although we distrust schools, anarchists place great faith in the power
of education. One of the major sources of hope for a better world is
that the next generation, given help, might grow up less neurotic than
the last. Some would go so far as to say that educating children for
freedom is the only real hope of eventually bringing about an anarchist
society.

Schools are mainly concerned with sorting and grading children for their
future roles in the social hierarchy -- and ensuring that they accept
the need for competition, hierarchy and respect for authority. Such
a system demands that the majority of children - and adults - are made
to feel inferior. Anarchists believe that academic examinations are
a meaningless measure of a person's potential for playing a useful role
in society. The cult of the professional expert is designed to shatter
our confidence in our own abilities and judgement.

Anarchists are opposed to corporal punishment or any form of compulsion
in education. Attendance at all classes should be voluntary. Compulsion
destroys the natural enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding. Real
education is the opposite of compulsory schooling, where the main
lessons are fear and respect for authority. We need to equip our
children with critical minds to understand the world, to see what
changes are necessary to make it a better place for everyone, and to be
able to bring about the necessary changes.

Anarchists are opposed to any religious indoctrination in schools. Fear
and superstition have no place in an ethical education. Religious
'education' should be abolished and replaced by the discussion of moral
and philosophical questions based on concern and respect for others.

It is crazy to think that education merely consists of spending eleven
years or so of our lives in schools cut off from the real world outside.
It would be much healthier for our education to be integrated with the
everyday work and life of society. In this way everyone's particular
skills would be properly recognised by society and used for the
education of others. We need to break down the divisions between work,
play and education. Education should be available throughout our lives,
rather than being arbitrarily confined to that part of our lives spent
in schools. We are all potential learners and teachers, passing on and
acquiring skills and understanding as we go through life.

Anarchists are generally agreed that the complete liberation of
education is dependent on the creation of an anarchist society. However,
this has not stopped anarchists from trying to create freer environments
for children to grow and learn, here and now. Some anarchists have
educated their children at home. Others have worked together with
other parents and children rather than remain in isolated family
units. In the last three decades several free schools have been
established based on anarchist principles, and they have performed
a valuable service in demonstrating in practical ways that
alternatives exist. However, they have faced constant financial
problems and all the other problems which come from trying to live
freely in an unfree society.

Some anarchists, and others who share their views on education, have
concluded that for the foreseeable future most children will be in State
schools and, therefore, have tried to change existing State schools as
teachers or parents.

Although by the nineteen-sixties the educational establishment had
accepted libertarian methods at A S Neill's Summerhill School for the
fee-paying children of wealthy parents, they were horrified at the
prospect of similar methods being adopted in State schools for working
class children. The most successful attempts, those at Risinghill School
and William Tyndale School in London, were eventually stopped by the
local education authority and the teachers were thrown out of their
jobs.

The lesson for those who try again in the future is that it is essential
to break down the isolation of schools from the community, so that
parents will understand and actively support what anarchists are trying
to do in schools.

CONCLUSION

For more detailed consideration of anarchist theory, we have provided
a booklist for further reading. We have listed areas of activity and
outlined the anarchist approach. We have made no attempt to indicate
which types of activity are most likely to lead to a non-authoritarian
future. This kind of judgement requires careful consideration of the
nature of society and strategy for change. We hope that you will
eventually form your own conclusions. Anarchists make up their own
minds.

If you are interested, read more, talk to your local anarchists, think
things through. There is a lot to be getting on with.

Can you think of a good excuse for not being an anarchist? Right, then
get on with it!

PKB