#title For A Future Made By Us All
#subtitle Questions and answers about anarchism
#author Rebel City London
#date 21-07-2023
#source Retrieved on 10-09-2025 from [[https://rebelcitylondon.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/rebel-city-intro-to-anarchism-booklet-fafmbuaqaaaa-online-version.pdf][rebelcitylondon.wordpress.com]]
#lang en
#topics FAQ, introductory, revolution
#pubdate 2025-09-21T17:27:27
#notes Also available as a pdf with images at [[https://rebelcitylondon.wordpress.com/for-a-future-made-by-us-all-rebel-city-booklet/]]
*** 1. Introduction
This booklet has been put together
by Rebel City, a London-based
anarchist group.
We publish newsletters and pamphlets on community
organisation and anarchism and we visit schools and colleges to talk to young people about our ideas.
During discussions with students many questions arise so we
decided to compile a booklet answering some of those questions. Answers have been contributed by many different
people and will, we hope, provide a straightforward but varied account of how we can create a better society by organising ourselves according to anarchist principles.
The booklet is divided into three sections. The first, “What is anarchism?” describes the basic ideas of anarchism and how they differ from other systems. The second section, “What would an anarchist society look like?” shows how those principles might be applied in different parts of society.
The third section is titled “How do we get from here to there?”. This is a question for everybody — How do we start organising ourselves now, so that we can truly create a better world?
We have included a glossary of words mentioned in the text and highlighted in **bold** throughout the
booklet.
*** 2. The state we are in
Before we talk about anarchism,
let’s look where we are at the
moment. In the UK, and most of
the world, we have huge levels of
poverty. Millions die from illnesses
which are curable with medicines
that cost pennies while others have
multiple yachts and homes that are
eye-wateringly expensive.
Throughout the world racism
and sexism is widespread. Large
numbers of people are killed or
attacked because of their colour,
sex, sexuality or gender. In the UK
millions are forced to use food
banks and worldwide millions die
from starvation. At the same time
food rots in the ground because it’s
better for big businesses’ profits
to let it rot rather than feed people
dying due to lack of food. People
in the UK are choosing between
heating or eating (and sometimes
can’t afford either). Over 30% of
the world’s population suffered
food insecurity in 2020 and it’s
getting worse (World Economic
Forum [[https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/world-hunger-undernourished-food-security/][www.weforum.org]])
We are destroying the environment,
yet multinational corporations dig
up more and more of our natural
resources to make more and
more products we don’t need.
We pump tons of pollution into
the environment causing global
warming and destroying our
children’s and our own health. Our
healthcare and education systems
are in ruins due to lack of funds.
Yet the super-rich spend billions
launching rockets into space so
they can have a better holiday than
the rest of us.
**Capitalism** and **state run
socialism** are failing the vast
majority of us to the point where
they destroy our health and kill
millions of us. We believe this
is just wrong. It benefits a very
tiny minority while billions of us
struggle.
How is this right? Why do we put
up with it? Are billions of us being
conned into accepting poverty
as something we feel we can’t
change?
The present system is corrupt,
built for the wealthy and downright
wrong. There is a better system.
And we feel that’s anarchism
** What is anarchism?
*** 3. So what is anarchism?
We are all brought up and
educated in a society of bosses,
profits, landlords and the division
between rich and poor. This is
**capitalism**. We know how the
system works, know our place in
society and what’s expected of us.
But what about anarchism? How
would an anarchist society work?
Anarchists believe society should
be based on three principles:
freedom, equality, and **solidarity**
(supporting each other). To develop
fully, anarchists believe that people
must be free. Genuine freedom
can only be achieved in societies
based on voluntary association
rather than force, and in societies
where everyone is equal. No real
freedom can exist in societies
divided by **class** and with gross
inequalities in power, wealth, and
privilege.
Solidarity and **mutual aid**, are
where we support each other
when needed, without asking for
anything in return. It also means
treating everyone as equals
and creating relationships and
structures that support freedom
for all.
Structures will be **accountable**.
This means having to answer
for your actions and decisions
to others connected to you –
workmates, neighbours, etc.
Decisions flow from the bottom up,
skills, resources and information
are shared, and tasks are rotated.
In an anarchist society people
won’t be bullied into doing anything
by threats or be forced to work by
fear of poverty.
*** 4. But isn’t anarchism all about chaos and disorder?
No! This is a common error
when we talk to people about
anarchism. And one the **state**
and the media deliberately use to
make anarchism less appealing to
people.
Anarchists reject the state, power,
superiority and **hierarchy** and
would argue that the world is
already in chaos and disorder
because of the systems put in
place by the state and those with
power.
Look at the world we live in: for
hundreds of years, half of the
population have been living in
poverty. Even though there is more
than enough for everyone, people
have starved to death, become
homeless, lacked life-saving
medicines, endured racism and
fought wars for the benefit of the
rich and powerful.
Today we face climate change
extinction, a real threat
brought about by the greed and
incompetence of our so called
leaders. If all this isn’t chaos and
disorder, what is?
Anarchists would replace the
harmful systems in place today
with **collective** organising.
Everybody will have an opportunity
to discuss and be part of the
decision making process on
anything that is important to them.
How does this work? Read on
for some ideas how anarchism
can lead to a more equal society,
where we share the world’s wealth
and resources to make a more
harmonious world.
*** 5. So Anarchists believe in democracy?
If by democracy you mean the
present set up, sometimes referred
to as **representative democracy**,
then no. Here, you’re allowed to
vote every four or five years for a
narrow selection of candidates
who are meant to represent you.
In fact politicians mainly represent
the ruling class and they’re totally
un**accountable** and regularly break
their election promises.
If you mean direct democracy,
then yes. Here, assemblies, which
everyone can go to, decide on
their collective view including
actions that should be taken.
These assemblies send people
(delegates) to put that view across
at larger assemblies.
So decisions are made “bottom
up” (from the people) not “top
down” (from elected politicians).
Delegates are not in a position of
power as we feel power corrupts.
If a delegate doesn’t represent
your assembly correctly, they can
be instantly **recalled** (replaced by
someone else there and then).
In an anarchist society all decisions
would be made as close as
possible to those most affected, so
we would see local neighbourhood
and workplace assemblies as the
place where the main decisions
are made. These would then come
together with neighbouring areas
and workplaces over a larger
area so everyone truly has a say
in the decision making. So you
would regularly go to your local
assembly where you would discuss
everything from bin collection to
huge global issues. You would also
sometimes go to other assemblies
to tell them what your assembly
had decided.
*** 6. What is self-organisation/non-hierarchical organisation and why is it important to anarchism?
Present society seems to think we
need leaders and rulers, but this
is a lie promoted by those same
leaders and rulers.
Self and **non-hierarchical**
organising is where there is no
leader, president or manager type
role and no lesser roles either.
Instead, members of a group,
organisation or **collective** (a
group of people working together)
all have an equal say in how the
group is run, what the aims are
and how to reach them. Self-
organisation can be applied to all
sorts of groups: e.g. a local food
co-op, where a group of people get
together and buy food in bulk and
share it between them, or workers
kicking out their bosses and
running their factories themselves.
Even though there might be
specialist roles, no one’s role is
more important than any other,
as every job is essential for the
group to run properly. Many non-
hierarchical organisations try to
rotate roles so that people only
remain in place for a fixed time
before handing the role over to someone else. This means
many people develop the skills,
knowledge and experience to
keep things running smoothly. And
it’s one way to prevent anyone
becoming irreplaceable. Once
someone — or some group — is more
important than anyone else you’re
on the way from leaders to rulers,
and back to the oppression and
exploitation we want to end.
Discussions about how the
group operates are decided in an
**assembly** or group meeting where
everybody involved is welcome
and has an equal say. Decisions
are usually made by **consensus**
so everyone has a fair say in how things are run and the workload
is shared. It also means that
the people doing the work have
a say in how the organisation
is managed and encourages
collective responsibility and
ownership of the outcome.
With controversial or urgent issues,
different groups may have different
guidelines that allow them to make
decisions without full consensus.
But these guidelines would be
made at the beginning and with
everyone’s agreement. This way
everyone in a group or workplace
has a say in how these issues will
be decided well in advance of them
arising.
For more information and a real
world example look up [[https://www.workerscontrol.net/authors/workers-control-fralib-brand-elephant][www.workerscontrol.net]]
*** 7. What have anarchists done for society?
In times of conflict, anarchists put
their ideas into practice. They take
part in creating and defending
workers’ struggles which include
factory and land occupations. They
also help supply food, housing,
health care and other necessities.
Looking back in history, anarchists
were hugely active in the **Paris
Commune** Uprisings in 1871;
Revolutions in **Russia** in 1905 and
1917, Germany and Hungary in
1918, **Spain** in 1936 and Hungary
in 1956.
Three explicitly anarchist events
were:
— **Ukraine** 1917 to 1921, with land
occupations and redistribution,
and peasant-run soviets.
— **Manchuria’s Anarchist zone**
1929–31, in what is now North East
China, had shops where everything
was free, worker and peasant
**cooperatives**. Schools were set up
throughout their territories, along
with Regional **assemblies**.
— **Spain 1936**, workers ran
factories, transport and food
distribution particularly in
Catalonia. In the countryside
peasants took over and organised
the land and shared what they produced **collectively**, passing
their surplus on to the cities. All
these offer glimpses of what a new
society could look like.
Today, things like **housing
and workers’ co-ops** are good
examples of direct democracy.
Those living together or workers
in a workplace are the ones who
make all the decisions.
**Non-hierarchical** decision making
has come out of anarchist ways of
organising and is where everyone
is equally involved in making the
decisions. These practices are now
all in common use. Anarchists have
also explored how and when it’s
better to use **consensus decision
making** (where everyone needs
to agree before a decision can be made) rather than simple majority
voting.
Wherever and however working
people have fought for themselves,
anarchists have supported them,
without taking over or trying to
lead.
*** 8. What’s the difference between anarchism and socialism?
Anarchism, **socialism** and
**communism** are similar in many
ways. In fact, originally there was
no difference between them.
They all grew out of the workers’
movement of the late 19th
century which aimed to create a
society different from the existing
**capitalism**. The aim was to build a society in which everything would
be held in common and everyone
equal, sharing out the products of
their labour.
Differences developed in the late
19th and early 20th centuries
leading to different political
views. One was **authoritarian
socialism/communism** and the
other **libertarian communism/
socialism**, the latter often referred
to simply as anarchism.
Anarchists believe revolution
will happen when people come
together and organise society for
the benefit of all. This will totally
change society to one where we all
have what we need and
will destroy capitalism
in the process. People
are perfectly capable
of organising society
themselves, without
leaders.
Authoritarian socialists
and communists believe
change is only possible
with the right leadership —
namely them!
** What would an anarchist society look like?
*** 9. How would anarchists organise locally, nationally, globally to get things done?
As mentioned in section 6,
anarchists’ preferred ways of
organising are **self-organisation**
or n**on-hierarchical** organising.
Another term we sometimes use
is **participatory democracy**. We
have also mentioned **consensus
decision making** before. In all of
these, everyone affected has a
fair say and decisions are made by
everyone involved.
As for actually organising, one way
could be as follows: each street
or estate has an **assembly** which
makes decisions for that street or
estate. A number of these near
each other then come together and
make decisions for a wider area.
Not everyone could, or would want
to go, so each street/estate selects
a **delegate** to represent them.
Each area also selects a delegate
for a larger area meeting (these
meetings could use electronic
communication tools if face to face
isn’t practical), and so on until
you are at (what we presently call)
national or international levels.
Likewise, each workplace, shop,
community centre or group, would
also make decisions affecting
them. Let’s take a community
centre. The workers here would
make decisions on how it’s
run. They would also meet with
other community centres locally,
and possibly nationally and
internationally. They would also
meet with other workplaces, shops,
and street assemblies, to see what
they needed from the community
centre, and vice versa.
This sort of happens today – it’s
just the ruling class making these
decisions and we don’t have a say.
There are many other ways we
could organise in an anarchist
society. The above is just one
possible example.
*** 10. Oh! So there wouldn’t be countries then?
Indeed not!
Borders are just lines drawn on the
world map to separate countries
and throughout history these
change depending on who’s in
power. Borders have changed many
times as one leader grabs land
from another, generally by force.
These borders are often cruel, as
families and whole communities
get split up and separated into
different countries.
Borders are useful for those in
power as separate rulers make
laws to oppress ordinary people
inside “their country”. It’s also
useful for the rulers as they
convince ordinary people to
support them, claiming we are all
part of the same “country”. This
breeds **nationalism** as we are
conned to believe we are different
and superior to people from
another country. Often this leads to
conflict and war.
We are not saying there shouldn’t
be different languages, customs
and traditions that we all grew
up with. In fact, without borders
and separate countries, it will be
easier for people to decide how
they want to mix and with whom.
Also without leaders and countries,
people would be able to keep their local traditions – unlike in many
parts of the world today where
local languages and customs are
banned and the nation’s rules are
imposed on you.
We have one planet, and
anarchists don’t agree it should
be divided up into small bits
and that you can only live where
you are told. Anarchists believe
people should be able to move
freely throughout the world and
live wherever they want to without
countries and their borders.
You should also be able to love and
live with whoever you want to, This
is often impossible when you have
countries, as you generally have
to live in your “own” country and
abide by its rules.
*** 11. Will people/communities be able to keep national or cultural identities and customs?
Anarchists don’t agree with
national identities or borders as
we feel this leads to conflict, power
relationships and divides us all
along false lines. After all, most
nations were created by wars, land
grabs and lines drawn on maps at
international conferences by the
rich and powerful for their own
benefit. “I am British” (for example)
doesn’t really mean much to us
and in the present climate leaves
many people feeling like they don’t
belong. Why would anyone want
that?
Under anarchism, with national
borders a thing of the past, we
would expect people to travel
and set up home anywhere in the
world they wished. We would hope
everyone would see themselves
as part of the “human race” not
British, Cuban, Nigerian or any other nationality.
Cultural identities and customs
can be different. These are
something we have all grown up
with over generations and keep
histories alive. As long as they are
not oppressive and don’t exploit
anyone, we see no reason why
these shouldn’t continue.
But at the end of the day it would
be for every area to decide what
they want for themselves. However,
if they imposed oppressive
customs, we expect people would
just leave and move to an area
where they felt they fitted in
better, or stay and argue why the
oppressive customs need to stop.
*** 12. How do you run large industries like power and food distribution without bosses?
Although it doesn’t seem like it,
most of the time large industries
are run by workers anyway, in that
we do most of the work. It’s just
that presently the bosses’ jobs are
seen as more important. And they
get paid massively more. Those
at the top get all the credit when
in fact hundreds of people make
the organisation work smoothly.
Hospitals, local authorities,
transport and, yes, power
industries and food distribution are
run best when the workers are in
control. Bosses can actually make
things worse as they think more
about profits for themselves than
what’s good for society.
One way power production and
distribution could be organised
is that each workplace has its
own **factory committees/groups**,
where everyone there is involved in
the decision making. Local people,
who don’t work in the factory,
might also have a say on behalf of the local community on some
issues. The workers might then
come together with other factories
on a larger scale, but still fairly
local area, to decide on the needs
of that area.
These local groups could then
join together nationally (and
internationally) to manage
production, supply and distribution.
This would ensure each area had
enough of what was needed.
There would be people chosen by
their workmates who would work
with people in similar factories
in all the other areas. But there
would also be people who work
with other types of industry and
local community organisations
in the local area, so supply and
distribution could be organised
properly locally as well.
Let’s remember – we actually do
all this now. All we are suggesting
is we just do it without some boss
breathing down our necks.
*** 13. How would people be housed?
Presently, many of us live in homes
that are too small, or in a terrible
state of repair. Most of us worry
about how we’ll pay our rent or
mortgage and if we might lose
our home. Thousands of us are
homeless or living in temporary
housing. Meanwhile landlords
are using this as a get rich quick
scheme. Some people have second
or even third homes. Houses
are left empty as an investment
or rented out as holiday lets or
Airbnbs for even greater profits.
In an anarchist society all housing
would be used for homes, not for
making money. Everyone would
have a good quality, warm, secure
home with enough space for all
their family.
In the short term, we could start by
taking the empty homes, second
homes, holiday homes and Airbnbs
and giving them to people who need them. We could take the
huge mansions some people have
and use them for large families
or **housing co-ops** (where people
organise their housing needs
collectively).
Longer term, housing would be
communally owned. Every estate or
street could have its own **assembly**
where everyone living there has a
say in how housing is shared out.
Maybe all the streets in an area
would meet to support each other
and plan on a bigger scale for
repairs and new house building.
There could be a website where we
swap homes if we want to live in a
different area or need a different
size home.
These are just some ideas.
There are so many better ways to
organise housing than the corrupt
system we have now, where profit
comes before people’s needs.
How would you make sure
everyone had a good home?
*** 14. How would an effective healthcare system be run under anarchism?
In an anarchist society looking
after ourselves and each other
would form the basis of our society.
People generally want to learn
skills which allow them to feed and
shelter themselves and look after
their own health, and an anarchist
society would facilitate this.
Democratic community health
**collectives** (a group of people
working together) including trained
doctors and nurses could share
medical knowledge and nursing
skills throughout the community.
Everyone could learn first aid and
how to treat some illnesses and
injuries themselves, and safely
use accessible resources (such
as herbs and medicines), as part
of their education and ongoing
workplace training.
Good health is also based on good
nutrition. Communities would
be producing food not for profit
but to provide themselves with
healthy, sustainable diets, and this
would likely result in a reduction
in many preventable conditions
such as diabetes, heart disease
and dental problems. Many
conditions associated with poverty
and deprivation would be greatly
reduced.
Communities would decide what
medical facilities, research and
training to use resources on,
depending on their local needs.
When people are well-informed
they can decide with their medical
collectives what treatments are
best for them. With community
training and support, good
nutrition, improved social fabric,
and less pollution, mental and
physical health would improve.
*** 15. But how would you deal with people in mental health crises who may be a danger to themselves or others? Would treatment be compulsory?
Yes, a community might decide
that compulsory treatment be
allowed, but it would be taken
much more seriously and be much
more transparent.
How would you like to be treated
if you were having a mental health
crisis and people around you were
afraid you might harm yourself or
them? Would you be prepared to
temporarily give up some of your
freedom? To get the support and
care you require to recover from
these urges to behave in a harmful
way?
Or would you want to be allowed
to harm yourself or others? Would
you expect to be held responsible
for your behaviour if no-one tried to
stop or support you?
And if you were temporarily
restricting someone’s else’s
freedom (either by physical
restraint or heavy medication)
how could you do this in an
accountable and fair way?
How do we ensure that this
restriction of freedom does not in
itself become harmful?
People who harm others or
themselves are often ashamed
after the event. This shame
can actually compound existing
mental health concerns, thereby
potentially leading to more harmful
behaviour. So it’s in our mutual
interest to support people as much
as possible to prevent harmful acts
and help them recover afterwards.
This means acting in **solidarity**
with the person and trying to
understand what led to the
mental health crisis and working
together to create circumstances
where the person can thrive.
It’s important to remember — the
person experiencing the crisis
may also teach us things about
the circumstances in which they,
and us, are living as mental health
crises don’t come out of nowhere.
*** 16. How would you deal with antisocial behaviour, bullying and crime to keep people safe?
If you think of a time you wanted
to, or did, behave antisocially, what
stopped you? And if you think of
a time someone was behaving
antisocially towards you, what
would have made you feel safe?
Whether it’s in this society or an
anarchist one, if we collectively
decide that it is okay to temporarily
limit a person’s freedom so
they can’t continue behaving
antisocially, what ensures the
**accountability** of the people doing
the limiting? If it was you whose
freedom was being limited, what
would make you feel it was fair?
And what kind of support should
we provide to the person who has
suffered?
To deal with antisocial behaviour
there are many ideas for
**‘alternative’ justice**, where
everyone affected by the antisocial
behaviour works together to
address it. With **restorative
justice**, alleged offenders have to
admit their guilt and try to make
up for it. **Transformative justice**
aims to change society as a whole
as well as the individuals involved.
It tries to find out why the person
was victimised, provides support to
them, and demands the offender
work to change themselves. This
ties in with the idea of ‘circles of
support’, where people who have
behaved in antisocial ways by
committing acts of violence receive
intense support AND are expected
to develop the skills to address any
urges to commit such acts again.
Different communities in an
anarchist society might well try
out varying versions of these — or
experiment with others!
*** 17 What about murderers, rapists and paedophiles?
To solve a problem, it helps to
know the cause. What causes
people to murder, rape, or abuse
children?
Many studies show the greater
the economic inequality the
more violent a society. Childhood
neglect, abuse, poverty and
deprivation can contribute to
aggressive behaviour. So can
substance abuse, physical and
psychological trauma and mental
health issues. ( tinyurl.com/
yc3bkvxs )
A society run on anarchist
principles, without economic
inequalities, would likely have
much lower levels of violence.
Lifelong accessible education,
including psychological support
and emotional education from an
early age, voluntary employment
according to interest and ability,
and decent collective responsibility
for childhood nurturing, proper
care for people with mental health
issues, and community support for those tackling drug and alcohol
issues; all of these would address
many of the causes of violent
crime.
Rape and sexual aggression arise
from the need to dominate and
have power over those weaker
or more vulnerable. Perpetrators
often witnessed or experienced
abuse themselves and repeat
the abuse. Everyone having an
equal voice, and control over
their lives and their bodies, can
prevent people being controlled
and abused. Rehabilitation and
psychological support for offenders
and survivors helps break cycles of
abuse.
Even when we address the
economic and social inequalities,
there may still be individuals who
are a danger to others. We don’t
have all the answers and in future,
communities may need to try
different approaches. Sometimes
dangerous people may need to be
supported in ways where they can’t
harm others. However, we believe
that most violent crimes are due
to inequality, deprivation or social,
medical or psychological issues.
Once those have been addressed,
as they would in an anarchist
society, the likelihood is that
persistently violent or dangerous
people would be a rarity.
*** 18. So you would get rid of prisons and the police then? How would that work?
Anarchists feel a future society
would be much better without
them.
The best police do is to arrest
someone after the event, they
rarely stop it. They are also not
much of a deterrent to illegal
activities. We are being conned
by the police, state and corporate
media into thinking they are a vital
part of our communities.
Many people in prison are there
for crimes of poverty (theft,
shoplifting, drugs, etc.).
The police, prisons and courts are
arms of the state, and are there
to keep the state safe. They are
generally used AGAINST ordinary
people – not for them. They
have been likened to an ‘army of
occupation’. And even when they
seem to help us (like catching a
murderer) it’s because the state
needs us to believe in them – it’s
not for our benefit.
An anarchist society wouldn’t
have money or poverty so the vast
majority of crime will disappear.
With strong communities
supporting each other, people
won’t feel alienated, will know
others around them and be less
likely to harm and rob each other.
When a dispute breaks out, local
communities would get involved
before it got serious. All those
involved, and members of the
community, would discuss their
issues together and try and come
to an agreement they all find
acceptable. Everything will be
open, transparent and controlled
by us all.
People who might be a danger to
others could be supported in their
own homes or maybe a community
house. The aim would be to give
them the help and support they
need to bring them back into
general society as soon as they are
no longer a threat, with ongoing
support where necessary.
*** 19. How do we distribute resources fairly?
In present day **capitalist** society,
**scarcity** is often deliberate to
benefit the **ruling class**. Some
examples are leaving ‘excess’
crops unharvested, or leaving
food stocks in storage, or actually
destroying them, to keep profits
high.
When people think of rationing
they often think about during
World War 2 when the amount of
many goods including food was
restricted. However, rationing
still exists now. It’s just done by
pricing, as large numbers of us
can’t afford enough food, heating,
adequate housing or other things
we need. Under capitalism a very
small minority live very well and
the world’s majority live in varying
degrees of poverty.
The basis for resource distribution
in a future anarchist society is
“fairness”. Anarchists believe
“from each according to their
abilities [ i.e. work], to each
according to their needs”. We
don’t mean everyone has the
same amount of food, heating,
etc. It’s that everyone has what
they need to stay fit and healthy
and have an enjoyable life. This
will vary depending on whether
they are a child, adult, elderly,
have a disability, are sick/healthy,
pregnant etc.
For example, who decides what
food a person needs, and how
much? Each of us, as part of the
community, will have an equal
say in what is produced and how,
and in deciding how resources (peoples’ labour etc.) are used to
produce the food that each of us
needs. When resources are scarce
it’s crucial all of us are part of
deciding how to ration them fairly.
This avoids resentment about
why some people have more, as
we were all part of the decision
making process.
*** 20. Would there be money in an anarchist society?
No. Money allows people to hoard
resources as individual wealth.
The gap between rich and poor
then grows ever wider, which
causes resentment and divisions
in society. It leads to worry and
stress, for those without money,
which is not good for our well-being
and is just downright unfair and
unjust.
People then want more and more
money and confuse what they want
with what they actually need.
For instance, there is a cure for
African Sleeping sickness. The
same drug gets rid of female facial
hair. When the **capitalist** market
is faced with saving millions of
Africans from a deadly disease
or removing female facial hair, it
chooses whichever produces most
profit/money (removing female
facial hair). So, thousands die for
the sake of profit.
In today’s society a small
percentage of people have vast
amounts of wealth while more than
half the world’s population live in
poverty. We have enough resources
in this world to satisfy everyone’s
needs. Yet those with money have
all the luxuries life offers, while at
the other end of the scale people
world-wide with little money are
barely surviving.
As well as actively getting rid of
money, in an anarchist society
there will be no need for it either.
We will collectively decide what we
all need and then freely produce
it between us all. Everything will
then be freely available, so we all
take what we need to live. Or, if
there isn’t enough of something we
will share or decide who is in most
need of it. These are much fairer
ways to distribute our resources
than those with most money
getting first choice.
Anarchists believe ‘from each
according to ability, to each
according to need’. This basically
means we all contribute what we
can and we all use the resources
we each need.
*** 21. Without money, how would we trade and exchange goods and services?
Present **capitalist** society pushes
us to buy things we don’t need, so
capitalists can make more money
from us. As an example, we don’t
need a new phone every year,
but most of us buy one. Under
anarchism, what we produce would
be about what we really need
**collectively**. This is not to suggest
that life will be basic and without
luxuries.
Presently, “trade” means selling
something to someone else to
make a profit/money. With no
money in an anarchist society a
lot of “trading” would stop. Things
like Britain transporting and selling
lamb to Australia and Australia
then selling
lamb to Britain is
environmentally
and morally
wrong. People
will decide what
they need and
produce these
things locally —
so goods aren’t
transported
around the world.
Further, many
things are just
not needed in an
anarchist society.
So huge amounts
of “trade”
would just stop
happening.
If we did need to exchange goods
between different areas, there
are many ways this could be done
under anarchism. Three examples
are:
— Some communities will produce
more than they need and give the
extra to communities who need it.
And likewise get what they need
from different communities who
have extra.
— It may be that there would be
limited amounts of “barter”,
where you give us something (say
food) and we give you something
in return (say help mending your
computers).
— It could be decided
democratically in local assemblies
where everyone gets an equal say
so everyone gets what they need.
— Exchanging goods and services
such as food, homes, health care,
everything — between communities
would be decided by delegates
of all the relevant communities
coming together.
This would happen at a local
level but also national level and if
needed international level.
*** 22. Without money, what would motivate people to work, or encourage creativity and innovation?
So much of our lives now involves
money. It almost feels like without
it, human activity would stop
altogether! But really, money is
just one way of managing and
controlling the things we do.
Humans existed a long while
before money was even thought
of. And, before money, people still
worked, created art, came up with
new ideas, built homes, exchanged
goods and provided what people
needed to live. In today’s society
many of us volunteer, support
others and do community based
work. Two of many examples are
lifeboat volunteers and foodbanks.
Anarchists believe it would be the
same in an anarchist society – but
on a much bigger scale.
Anarchism would get rid of tedious
money-making jobs. We would
decide the work we did and how
and when it happened. We would
be free to be creative, to innovate
and to plan together. Without
having to make and protect the
wealth of others, we would have
time to be creative and reflective.
Rather than being motivated by
money, we would be motivated by
supporting each other and knowing
our labours benefit us all. Getting
a fair share of our efforts, rather
than a boss taking all the profits,
means people would be motivated.
With no money, everything we
needed would also be free — we
just all need to spend a bit of time
helping to produce it. Unchained
from making money for bosses and
shareholders, imagine what we
could create, invent and achieve?
Many things we do as humans
are organised without anyone
making us or any direct financial
motivation. In a society that was
free and fun, we wouldn’t need
to be pushed or bribed, we would
just do what needed doing simply
because it needed doing.
*** 23. Would people be able to have property?
In present society, when we think
of property we think of two kinds.
One is the workplace the boss
owns, the houses the landlord
owns, the estates landowners
own. The other is whatever we
own individually for our personal
use — from music to computers to
clothes. Down to your toothbrush!
In an anarchist society the first lot
would belong to the community,
and would be used however that
community thought best. In effect
they would, in an anarchist society,
become communal, **collective** or
shared property.
What about stuff for our personal
use? Anything society had enough
of could be held individually. Rarer
items could be kept in a communal
space or there could be a register
of who had them so others could
use them.
In the society we imagine, people
wouldn’t be competing for
resources (including property and
other material things). We would
expect people to work together
and share out what people need.
(No buying and selling!). Indeed,
the aim is to reach a time when
everyone is able to take what they
need!
We don’t think that people should
have more than they reasonably
need. With housing for example,
when the children have left home
and someone has a huge house
just for themselves, they could
swap with a larger household who
need more space.
But, what if they like the
extra space and don’t want to
“downsize”? We’re not saying
there’d be no conflicts of interest
in an anarchist society. But these
would be worked through with
everyone in that community, group
or area. And different communities
and groups may collectively agree
different solutions to solving these
problems!
*** 24. What would stop individuals/groups taking or hoarding resources?
Resources are hoarded because
people believe there isn’t enough
to go around. Panic buying in the
early days of the Covid pandemic
was an example. Some people
thought there would be shortages
of supplies so they rushed around
supermarkets buying up things
like toilet paper to last months!
Once people realised there
wasn’t going to be a shortage
the hoarding behaviour stopped.
However, most people didn’t act
like this. Many did the opposite
and set up **mutual aid** support
groups that made sure those less
able, or ill, were supported.
An anarchist society would
be based on the principles
of **solidarity** and mutual aid.
People’s natural tendencies would
be to care for and have empathy
with others. Also, there shouldn’t
be a need to hoard because of the
worry that there will be shortages.
Under **capitalism**, many resources
are used to produce things that we
don’t need such as weapons and
a ridiculous array of unnecessary
consumer goods. In an anarchist
society, generally there would be
enough resources available if we
produce what we really need for
everyone to live good quality lives.
*** 25. What if no one wanted to do unpleasant tasks?
Unpopular jobs will still need to be
done. Who does them will have to
be worked out by each community.
No-one should be forced into doing
them.
People might do these jobs
because they enjoy doing them and
they want to help the community
they live in. In a limited way,
this presently happens, where
**capitalists** can’t make a profit from
it. For example, people regularly
volunteer to do miserable tasks
like cleaning beaches after oil
spills from ships or dangerous jobs
like mine clearing in war zones.
Unpleasant jobs could also be
shared on a rota system. Or, if
some people volunteered to do
them because others didn’t want
to, then the volunteers could be
exempt from other activities if they
wished, or have more time off for
doing this work.
Technology could play a part
too by allowing jobs to become
automated. We are already seeing
this in today’s society. Unlike
automation in capitalist society,
workers themselves could use
automation to assist them, or
choose to fully automate particular
jobs.
These are just a few thoughts and
ideas. There are many more.
*** 26. So what about people who don’t want to work at all?
Given that work is voluntary in an
anarchist society – nobody would
be forced to work if they didn’t
want to.
Many anarchists believe that a
lot of what we see as laziness is
just people being forced into work
that doesn’t suit their interests or
abilities and is designed to make profit for someone else. These
anarchists believe that people who
are unwilling to work, or not very
able, should still have access to
everything they need to maintain
themselves. Most people want to
cooperate and want the respect
and admiration of others. It is
these wants that would persuade
those unwilling to work to think
again and start contributing to the
community that supports them.
Even in **capitalist** societies most
people come forward willingly to
help each other out in the event of
a disaster. In 2005 after hurricane
Katrina local people set up the
Common Ground Health Clinic.
They provided care and medical
assistance to each other, while the
American government left people
in New Orleans to die. This is just
one example.
Other anarchists have already
had enough of the capitalist elite
consuming but not producing, and
don’t want to support another
group of freeloaders. Such
anarchists argue that there should
be no compulsion to work, but also
no duty to provide for people who don’t want to contribute. In this scenario, the community wouldn’t
continue to feed, clothe and house
people who are able to contribute
but refuse to. However, such
people wouldn’t be denied access
to the means of making a living for
themselves, they just might not be
supported by the community.
Work, being voluntary in an
anarchist society, would include
much more than the narrowly
defined paid employment we think
of today. For example, housework
and childcare are work. Of course,
people who can’t work, like
children, the sick and the elderly
wouldn’t be expected to work (but
could if they wanted to) but would
be valued and supported by the
community.
*** 27. What about people who aren’t able to speak for themselves, because of age, illness or disability?
There are presently a number
of people who ‘can’t speak for
themselves’, and the same would
be true in an anarchist society:
very young children, some elderly
people, people who are non-verbal,
people with severe disabilities,
very sick people including those in
a coma. Usually, there are ways in
which we can support these people
having their say in how we run
things together, and in having their
needs met.
Those who are carers (whether
family, nurses, health workers and
others in their community) will
know the person as an individual,
what they need, and how they
communicate. There will be a
‘care plan’ worked out by everyone
involved which explains how to
support each person to have their views heard and this will be
regularly reviewed and updated.
Where communication is
impossible or extremely difficult
(e.g. someone in a coma), family
and carers can advocate for the
person, drawing on their care plan
and their knowledge of the person
as an individual.
In present society, carers generally
try and do this in the face of
all kinds of obstructions. In an
anarchist society their community
would be actively wanting to
support and help these processes
happen.
There could also be huge advances
in medicine and technology in
the future that give us ways of
communicating that we can’t even
imagine at the moment.
*** 28. What about identity politics? What if different groups feel their rights are in conflict? How would conflict and discord be dealt with?
Presently people are often
discriminated against because of
their **identities** (sexuality, race,
religion, gender and others). In any
future society, anyone facing such
discrimination should be supported
and encouraged to stand up
for themselves, and know they
have everyone else’s support. An
anarchist society would encourage
and celebrate differences.
Presently, different identities
or groups are frequently played
off against each other – often
claiming one is more important
than the other — even though both
are discriminated against. Both
discriminated groups need support.
Any “infighting” between groups
is great for the rich and powerful.
And, the rich and powerful often
encourage this infighting, so we
fight each other, rather than them.
Sometimes conflicts between
different oppressed groups get
overheated to the point of being
nearly unresolvable. But often, over
time, these conflicts reduce and
cool down and hopefully allowing
us to work through our differences.
This is often when we see there is
a greater enemy (the state, police,
media, judges, etc.). Presently,
even anarchists sometimes get
caught up in these differences.
Conflicts will still happen in an
anarchist society. So we need
to work on recognising and
minimising them all the time. One
example that comes from the
recent uprising in Rojava (Kurdish
controlled part of Syria), is the
practice of ‘Tekmil’. In Tekmil
those being challenged listen to
the comments without response.
In return these concerns are
only aired once — to avoid ‘mob
mentality’.
As we have said before in this
booklet, we anarchists don’t have
all the answers. But as we progress
together, we will learn from both
our successes and mistakes. We
will adapt our ways of dealing with
problems and conflict and become
better at dealing with all the
difficult situations that arise.
*** 29. Do anarchists believe in free speech?
Anarchists are working for a society
based on people freely organising
themselves, where working
together is key. But anarchists
don’t imagine an end point, rather
a continuous evolution. Nor do we
imagine that all conflicts of interest
or opinion will disappear in an
anarchist society. It can only work
if there’s a constant free exchange
of opinions and ideas and also a
willingness to learn from collective
mistakes!
So ideally speech should be free. However, in our current society we have dominant voices that
often want to use their freedom of
speech to abuse people or groups
who have much less opportunity to
reply.
Until everyone has an equal
opportunity to be heard, speech
isn’t equal, and until it’s equal it
also can’t be free.
Some would still defend free
speech in the here and now
because “sticks and stones may
break my bones, but words can
never hurt me”! They would also
argue if people are prevented from
expressing their views, then open
discussion is impossible. But most
anarchists would disagree.
In extreme cases, like present day
**fascists** promoting hate speech
and race violence, most anarchists
would agree that this needs to be
challenged, and with **direct action**
if needed.
But where you draw this line is a
difficult decision. It’s also a difficult
discussion, and although it’s one
anarchists won’t shy away from,
it will be a continual discussion
and opinions may vary. It’s how
we deal with these differing views
that is important. Communities will
need to continually look at their
approaches to this.
So a wide range of views, but one
thing all anarchists agree with is
never to ask the **state** to control or
ban speech — we need to deal with
it from the bottom up.
*** 30. Would religion have a place in an anarchist society?
Most anarchists don’t have
religious beliefs. Indeed, the very
idea of a god as the ultimate
authority is a total contradiction
to most anarchists. Anarchism
is about people moving towards
freedom and organising together.
Religion is about submitting to the
will of the relevant god — doing what
you’re told.
Anarchists are not planning to
lock anyone up for having religious
beliefs, or packing them off to
be “re-educated”. Nor are they
planning to give religions special
rights or powers. Religion would be
seen as a matter for the individual.
Presently, most churches or
religions have self appointed
“leaders” who claim to speak for
their whole community or religion.
And these religious leaders do their
best to force their members to do
what they claim their particular
god, priest or master says is right,
without questioning. As long as this
doesn’t happen – and everyone
is free to worship (or not worship) any god they want to – anarchists
would say we should each choose
what we do or don’t believe in.
However, it does seem strange to
us that anyone would want to let
a god or gods, priest, master or
anyone else tell them what to do or
think on the one hand while being
free to make their own choices on
the other.
*** 31. Would children and young people have a say in deciding how society is run?
In short, yes. In an anarchist society,
children and young people would
absolutely have a say in how society
is run, with their input into society
being valued equally to everyone
else’s.
Arguably schools presently function,
in part, to teach the dominant “rules”
of society, reproduce inequality
and maintain present **hierarchies**,
through, for example, standardised
testing that dramatically favours
the already privileged. Education
is a really important part of
keeping the current system going
by teaching young people all the
expectations and ideas needed to
keep making new generations of
good little **capitalists**. Despite this
**authoritarian** education system
many teenagers have historically
participated in society by raising
their voices and resisting the system
through various forms of protest.
In an anarchist society, the views
of its younger members would be
equally important as those of adults.
Everyone would work together
to organise a society in which all
views were taken into consideration
and acted upon. For example, we
could develop communal forms
of education that do not attempt
to indoctrinate our children and
teenagers. Instead, education
would exist as **non-hierarchical**
spaces where children and young
people voluntarily attend as free
thinkers, with their ideas on how
to re imagine society being taken
seriously. Knowledge would no
longer be received by young
people from adults, but would be
mutually exchanged between both,
uncovering new knowledge in the
process.
This means treating children and
teenagers not as adults (and
expecting them to take on all
those responsibilities), but as
equal members of society whose
contributions and perspectives are
valued specifically because they
are young. This is just one of the
ways in which we could imagine
children and young people having
a say in how society is run.
*** 32. How would education work?
We wouldn’t have the present
**authoritarian**, top down schooling
that prepares us to be good
workers for the benefit of the rich
and **capitalism**. We suggest people
would want to learn practical skills,
critical thinking, problem solving,
and social skills as much as Latin,
science or algebra.
Education would have some
general guidelines. It should be
broad, lifelong, **non-hierarchical**,
diverse, person centred, and
voluntary.
People learn at different levels, so
it would seem unlikely everyone
in a class would be the same age.
This would be encouraged to break
down generational divides but also
so we can learn anything at any
time in our lives.
The idea you learn “x” at age “y”
to do job “z” years later seems
strange to us. Anarchists think
many people would dip in and out
of education (and work as well)
throughout their lives. Others may
have a specific interest and decide
they want to learn more about that
subject for years, which is also fine.
We don’t agree with a **hierarchy**
of subject matter. Maths isn’t
more important than (say) art or
humanities or brick laying.
An anarchist society would tend to
create an economy with more small
and medium sized workplaces,
which would be more connected to
local communities and ecosystems.
We would see workplaces, homes
and communal spaces moving over
to green sources of energy much
faster than presently.
There would probably be limited
exams, tests or qualifications
with people assessed only where
necessary. But, these qualifications
would never be the end of learning
— just milestones on a journey.
It’s likely some specialist education
and training would still be needed for some people, for example,
surgeons, gas fitters etc. But this
would be open to anyone. Some
education may need dedicated
buildings and equipment. But
generally anarchists feel education
doesn’t have to be in a building
specifically set aside for “learning”.
But if the community decided it
did, who attended and when would
be decided between those running
the session and those attending.
Those leading it would commit to
be there but anyone could attend
as many of the sessions as they
wished.
*** 33. How would you deal with the climate and environmental crises?
An anarchist society would tend to
create an economy with more small
and medium sized workplaces,
which would be more connected to
local communities and ecosystems.
We would see workplaces, homes
and communal spaces moving over
to green sources of energy much
faster than presently.
**Decentralisation** (doing things
locally) would mean people can
more easily see, understand and
so genuinely control technology.
No longer would there be a need
to under or over-produce, as
production would be for people’s
needs not corporate greed.
Alongside this, **collective decision
making** within communities should
lead to better ecological solutions
being chosen.
The end of consumerism and
the money system would mean
the disappearance of all those
industries like advertising which
contribute towards the destruction
of the environment and try to make
us buy more things we don’t need.
Under anarchism this would lead to
the end of over-production and the
removal of unnecessary products
(like fifty different types of washing
powder).
We would also build things to
last. Present society builds things
that purposely break, wear out
too soon or can’t be repaired.
Computers and mobile phones
are obvious (but by no means the
only) examples. This is done so
**capitalism** can sell us more stuff
and make more profits. But it
means a massive waste of natural
resources and goods get thrown
away. Plus, all the power needed
to produce them and the huge
number of hours used. Hours we
could spend doing productive work,
or just relaxing.
Present society relies hugely on
private motor vehicles and the
use of road, sea and air haulage
to transport goods around the
world. Under anarchism we would
vastly increase public transport
and environmentally sustainable
ways of getting people and goods
around. We would also produce
goods more locally.
All homes would be effectively
insulated and we would move
from using fossil fuels to more
environmental energies like solar,
wind and water power.
*** 34. Would anarchists ban scientific research and technology development?
Scientific knowledge is knowledge
of the physical world based on
evidence from observation rather
than on opinion, faith or wishful
thinking. We need to understand
how physical processes work so
we can feed and shelter ourselves,
prevent disease and tackle climate
change.
When scientific knowledge is
developed in secret, for the
purposes of making profit or
gaining power, we often get
technologies which harm us
rather than improve our lives.
For example, the drive for profit
and control means that artificial
intelligence is being developed
by governments, the military, and
private companies, for weaponry,
surveillance, or to manipulate
us to buy products or support
certain causes. Our own devices,
identities and data are used,
without our knowledge or consent, and we have less and less control
over the technology which affects
us.
In an anarchist society, science,
like everything else, would be
supported by the agreement of
the whole community, on the basis
that it provides public benefit. It
would be open source (without
secrecy or ownership of ideas and
freely available to all) allowing
the community to monitor its
ethics, risks and benefits. Science
would be an activity carried out in
workplaces and education. Private
labs in competition with each other
wouldn’t exist. Without the drive
for profit, the scientific community
could concentrate on sustainable
food production, energy and
transport, healthcare and more.
Advances could be shared to solve
global problems. For example,
manufacturing instructions for a
new vaccines would be available
so that the vaccine could be made anywhere, not just by one company
selling it at inflated prices,
unaffordable to poor communities.
Just imagine how much further
we could get using open source
science in our communities. We
could design systems for efficient
democratic decision making, fair
distribution of resources, and really
start tackling global challenges
together.
*** 35. Would we still have nuclear families in an anarchist society?
The simple answer is “yes, if
people want to live that way”. A
**nuclear family** traditionally refers
to a husband, wife and children.
One principle anarchists agree on
is everyone should be allowed to
do what they want as long as it
doesn’t harm others.
Everyone should be able to live in
the way that suits them best. With
the “family” this can be extended
families living together; groups
of people bringing up children
together; people deciding they
don’t want children; same sex
couples with or without kids. Or
any other combination that works
for those individuals — including
the nuclear family.
But, it would need to work for
everyone within that “family”.
Often in present society the
nuclear family works for the
father but may not be good for the
mother or the children. If it works
properly for all involved, then go for it. If it doesn’t, all those involved
can discuss ways of making it an
enjoyable way of living for all of
them. Society would support them
to try to make it work better. If it
still doesn’t work, those involved
should feel confident to look at
different ways of living.
Likewise, if any other “family” set
up needed support they should
get it. If their way of living wasn’t
working for all of them, they should
all be able to try different ways.
People would live in whatever
way they wanted so they are safe,
happy and encouraged to think
for themselves. And none of us
should judge how other people live,
or judge them if they try loads of
different ways of living.
Hopefully in an anarchist society all
of us will be mixing with a range of
other people, getting experiences
and knowledge from a number of
places – not from just within one
particular arrangement.
*** 36. Would drugs be allowed? What about alcohol and tobacco?
In an anarchist society we would
expect the number of people
using drugs (including alcohol and
tobacco) to reduce as time went
on, as people wouldn’t have such
difficult lives. There would also
be less reason to make a habit
of it. So they would be mainly for
relaxation.
Even so, drugs may affect the
user’s health, and could have
impacts on other members of
society. Does that give “the
community” the right to ban them?
Most anarchists would stress the
individual’s ownership of their
own body. A **dictatorship** of public opinion is still a dictatorship! It would be up to each community to
discuss and agree on the broader
question of the balance between
the individual and the community.
In an anarchist society we would
ask who would produce these
items? Coca growers in Latin
America, opium growers in
Afghanistan and monks brewing
the Buckfast wine favoured by
many alcoholics do it because
it gives them the best income.
Heroin and cocaine are no different
from fish fingers, veggie burgers
— or weapons — in that respect.
Kenyan coffee growers switched
to crops they could eat when the
bottom dropped out of the market
— and were much healthier! We
suspect far less would be produced
as communities started growing/
producing more useful crops for
themselves.
Perhaps individuals would brew/
grow their own favourites. Maybe
the broader society would decide
to do it collectively? This would be
part of the wider question of what,
in an anarchist society, we would
decide to produce.
*** 37. Would media/social media be regulated?
At present, most major media
companies want to make money
(through advertising revenue or
selling user data). They also want
to spread ideas (frequently to
gain some political influence) by
drawing in more and more people.
Also, as long as there are things
to be outraged about, media
outlets will exploit our emotional
responses to them. So we need to be mindful about allowing
ourselves to be exploited.
**Capitalist** society is based
on competition, image, and
selfishness. Social media is an
exaggerated version of that.
We believe that in a future
anarchist society people would be
respectful of others. Guidelines,
agreed collectively by each
community, should be in place
so that all of us know what is
considered appropriate or not.
As for the technology itself, it
is difficult to know how that will
change in the future.
We’d like to think people’s ability
to connect globally will finally fulfil
its promise as a force for good, and
encourage other people to consider
a different form of society.
*** 38. What will happen to fashion, art, music, culture, entertainment, fun?
> “If I can’t dance, it’s not my
revolution”
Emma Goldman, anarchist, 1869 — 1940
It will continue as it always has,
evolving with the times and the
tastes of the people who are
creating it. People will have more
time to explore their creative side
and produce whatever weird and
wonderful works their imagination
allows.
It wouldn’t be like it is in today’s
**capitalist** society where artists’
works are pushed upon us by
others who will benefit financially
from their success.
There are many talented people
out there today whose work is
never recognised and often lost as
a result. Many carry on because
they have a passion for what they
are creating and enjoy it, even
though they can’t make a living
out of it.
People want to entertain and be
entertained. We all like different
things and this adds to the
richness of life. We will never have
a shortage of amazing art.
We think an anarchist society will
enable more individuals to enjoy
being creative in a huge variety of
ways. Isn’t this the point of it all?
Living and doing what you love,
and for many, that’s some form of
creative activity.
** How do we get from here to there?
*** 39. But don’t we need political parties and leaders to be able to make changes?
We do not need political parties
and leaders to make a better
society — they are standing in our
way!
The way present society is
organised makes it easy to assume
we can’t make changes without
getting governments to pass laws
or provide the money for something
to happen. For example, people
campaigning against laws banning
abortion or homosexuality decided
to focus on getting political parties
in government to change the laws.
Instead we could have focussed on
making the bans unworkable, as
queer and trans people did in the
US’s legendary **Stonewall riot**.
As the Covid epidemic spread,
workers took action to protect
themselves, without waiting for
politicians. The rapid spread
of **mutual aid** support groups
throughout the country also
showed people were organising to protect themselves. Ordinary people reacted long before
politicians did. When society is
organised in an anarchist way we
will make the changes we need
directly.
In the meantime, there are many
examples of people taking direct
control and making changes. Two
are; after the Tottenham riots
(2011), and the Grenfell Tower
fire (2017). In both cases local
people **self-organised** to provide
**solidarity**, support and mutual aid
to those in need. There are many
other examples we could use as
well.
The movement for community food
growing has increased massively
in recent years, as people take
over land to provide what they
need. Self-organisation of workers
is also often directly responsible
for change. NHS staff were the
ones who coped with Covid and
organised a successful vaccine
roll-out despite mismanagement
by government. After Word War 2,
mass **direct action** by those who
had sacrificed so much in the war
brought improvements to working
people’s lives. One example was
returning soldiers occupying empty
army bases for places to live. Such
actions were part of the general
movement that led to social
housing and other improvements.
*** 40. Shouldn’t reform what we have rather than changing everything?
It all depends what you actually
want to change!
If you just want more middle
class jobs and the things that
you can buy for yourself then you
don’t want revolution. You want a
chance to be better off than most
people in the world, to join those
that exploit you. At a certain point
hopefully you’ll realise you’re on a
losing ticket. A system that’s built
on some people getting rich at the
expense of the majority can’t easily
be turned into one where we all
aim to cooperate and everyone can
get what they need.
For anarchists the fundamental
question is “who has the power?”.
A system that’s built on a few
people having the real power won’t
gently change into one where
everyone has it. That’s because
those with the wealth and power aren’t just going to give it up. They
might feel forced to make some
reforms if they feel threatened, but
this is the opposite of giving power.
It’s people using the power they
have to stay at the top of the pile.
Leopards don’t change their spots.
As anarchists, we want people to
run their own lives, cooperating with each other not just in our own
neighbourhood, but ultimately
across the world. At the end of
the day we’re not asking the
**state**, government or the rich and
powerful to do anything for us.
They will always act in the interests
of the **ruling class** they are a part
of. We want everyone else to join
together and do it ourselves.
*** 41. What is this direct action you lot talk about?
Definitions of direct action include
“something done as the most
immediate way of achieving an
aim” and “a form of political
activism, in which participants
act directly, ignoring established
political (and industrial)
procedures.”
Examples include political graffiti,
strikes, workplace occupations,
demonstrations, sit-ins, **sabotage**,
squatting or revolutionary guerrilla
warfare. Most anarchists would not
include demonstrations. Sabotage
is when people deliberately
obstruct, damage, or destroy
something for political advantage.
This could be people occupying or
destroying something like an arms
factory or a coal burning power
station. But it can simply be one
fed-up worker literally “putting a
spanner in the works” to disrupt
production.
Some people use the term direct
action for what anarchists would
see as little more than radical
lobbying. Here the action is
appealing to a government to
change a particular policy, rather
than the people involved in the
action actually changing something
themselves.
Often those doing the radical
lobbying intend to get arrested and
state their case in court. This is
sometimes called “Speaking Truth
to Power”. Most anarchists believe
those in power already know the
truth.
For anarchists a fundamental
issue is that direct action should
increase the confidence of all
those carrying it out. That’s
only possible if everyone has a
genuinely equal say.
For anarchists committed to **class
struggle**, any proper revolution
has to be organised mainly by poor
and **working class** people. So any
direct action is only justified if it
gives them a sense of power — even
if they’re not directly involved in it.
*** 42. Would a revolution be violent? Wouldn’t governments suppress any attempts at real change with force?
The media usually portrays
anarchists as violent and
destructive and most people
imagine an anarchist revolution
would be the same. This is a
misunderstanding of anarchism.
An anarchist revolution is not a
revolution that topples one group
of rulers to replace them with
another – such revolutions often
are violent but don’t really change
things. An anarchist revolution
would transform how society works
by changing how decisions are
made. Rather than one event, it
will be a process, where people
increasingly realise that they don’t
have to put up with things the way they are and that they themselves
can organise society in a freer,
fairer way.
Such a process might start by
people organising themselves
locally, taking over their workplaces
and running them for the benefit of
themselves and their community,
rather than the benefit of bosses
and shareholders. They might also
start taking over providing services
to the community.
There have been many examples
of workers running their
own factories and of people
organising community services for
themselves. Examples include the
800 community health centres,
municipal clinics and hospitals set
up by the **Zapatista** movement
of local people in Mexico which
run to this day. Or, the Argentinian
workers who in their thousands,
from the early 2000‘s, re-opened
factories closed by their owners
and ran them **collectively**.
Of course, if such activity starts
to gain ground, it’s likely to be
challenged by the **state**, or by
individuals keen to turn situations
to their own advantage. In such
cases, people have defended what
they have gained, by force where
necessary.
Anarchist ideas are seen as
dangerous by those who benefit
from the existing system, and there
are likely to be violent attempts
to suppress them if they are seen
to be gaining ground. However,
the greater the proportion of
people who refuse to accept being
exploited, the greater the chance that the existing order can be
replaced, with less bloodshed, by
something far better.
*** 43. How do we know a revolution won’t end in chaos and destruction?
The current system is seriously
flawed in so many ways, that if
humanity is even going to survive,
it has to be overthrown. As the
**capitalist** ruling class will not give
up their power willingly, then a
revolution is necessary.
Not all revolutions are successful.
The **Russian Revolution** is a prime
example.
Nevertheless, there are many
things we can do to ensure that a revolution will lead to a much
better society rather than chaos
and destruction. Firstly, we begin
to create the new society in the
shell of the old. In other words,
we now begin the process of
developing the structures and
practices of **non-hierarchical self-
organisation**. Malatesta, an Italian
anarchist (1853 — 1932), had
much to say about the importance
of organisation. Whether it be
our own political organisations,
a **housing co-op**, a union, or a
community garden, we can gain
experience in running things for
ourselves effectively and without
**hierarchies**.
Secondly, we need to begin to
bring people together on a number
of levels — locally, nationally and
internationally. The more people
get used to working and organising
together the better placed we will
be to create a well organised new
society that will be global.
In addition, the less violent the
revolution the better. Malatesta
also had something to say about
that. He argued that the bigger the
revolutionary movement, the more
people involved, the less there will
be a need for violence. This will make it easier for us to continue the process of making our vision a
reality.
*** 44. Why would anyone support some sort of revolution when the outcome is unknown?
A revolution is not a one-off
event in which society changes
completely from one way of
working to another. The change
will be the result of a process that
will have been on-going for many
years, involving all of us creating a vision and the conditions for
a new society. What we do now — the actions we take and the
structures we create — will shape
the kind of society we end up with.
Therefore, although we don’t have
the exact format for a new society,
the outcome won’t be completely
unknown.
However, it’s important to
recognise that we can’t foresee
exactly what will happen. There is
indeed some risk the revolution
won’t lead to the society we
want. This is why it’s important
to develop a vision and begin to
create “the new society in the shell
of the old”.
We do expect and encourage new
ideas to emerge as a result of
the revolutionary process, which
is essentially a creative one.
Once people are freed from the
constraints of the present society,
they will be able to imagine and
put into practice new ways of doing
things that haven’t been thought of
before. There is an element of the
unknown. But it will be us who are
making new things happen — they
won’t be imposed on us.
The revolution is also necessary.
We may not know exactly what will
happen but we know that what
we presently have can’t go on.
Issues like climate change and the
extreme injustices of **capitalism**
(and other **hierarchies**) mean that we feel we have no choice but to
work towards a complete break
with the current society.
*** 45. What would happen to people who opposed an anarchist revolution?
When people ask this question
they often seem to think that
anarchists would shoot everyone
who oppose us; just like the rulers
did in the so-called **communist**
states or as present day **dictators**
and some **capitalist** leaders do. It
certainly isn’t the way anarchists
work!
Also, we don’t see the “revolution”
a better
as a big one-off thing – it will be
fairly gradual over many years.
But to answer the question, it would really depend on how
others to anyone opposed the revolution.
If those that didn’t like our ideas started using repressive violence, naturally the anarchists and those agreeing with them would fight to win!
But, if people who didn’t like the
revolution were opposing it in other
ways: say by discussing what they
saw as a better way forward or
handing out leaflets suggesting
a different way — then that’s
totally within their rights and they
should do that without any fear.
We believe our views are the best
there presently are, but we want a
better society by convincing others
to be part of it — not by forcing
them to do what we say is best.
We want people involved because
they think it’s the best way to live.
We are fine with people challenging
us and suggesting different ways-
even **hierarchical** ways! Although we see no sense in having a
society where a tiny minority boss
the vast majority of us around. Why
would anyone want that?!
*** 46. Isn’t it “human nature” to compete with others to get the best for us and our families?
It would be very weird if we didn’t
want the best for ourselves, our
families, friends, and those we
personally care about. Anarchists
are not alone in believing we
don’t have to “compete with”- i.e. trample on — everyone else to get it.
There is increasing evidence,
and more people, that question if
human nature was ever actually
competitive or selfish. When
humans were first evolving there
were small numbers of them and
resources were plentiful, so there
was no need for people to be
selfish. This is still seen in groups
that continue to live as they did
in those hunter gatherer times.
So if we are selfish, it’s a recent
development and certainly not
‘human nature’.
Anarchists believe the vast majority
of us would be better off if we all
cooperated. Everyone competing
with each other keeps us divided
and only benefits the rich. Even in this capitalist society when
workers stand together and
fight they’re a lot better off than
when they’re isolated individuals
grovelling to the boss for a few
extra crumbs. And this benefit from
working together will become much
larger as that cooperation spreads.
Before the UK introduced a welfare
state run by the **ruling class**,
workers ran their own medical
**friendly societies** (they employed
the doctors!). Even in Chile, under
the military dictatorship, workers
formed **mutual aid** projects.
And there are factory and land
occupations across the world.
The challenge for anarchists is
to help sustain projects where
cooperation among ordinary people
is already happening, prevent the state from undermining or
replacing them, and work to
increase them. And also resist the
increasing attacks by those with
most to lose from real change.
*** 47. Don’t most people want an easy life and are happy for others to make decisions?
A lot of people may just want an
easy life, but what we know is that people live in and react to the
environment around them. Most of
the people we know have grown up
in a world where they have been
stripped of their ability to make
decisions for themselves. From
schools that demand a respect for
authority without question, to the
governments which make decisions
that suit themselves regardless of
how much people object. We are
taught that our opinions do not
matter, and we shouldn’t question
the way the world is — it just is.
Get on with it and enjoy all the
opportunities and pleasures that
life has provided you with.
This is the world we know, and it
can be easy to draw the conclusion
that this is what people want. But
this is not the only way life can
be organised. There are societies
around the world where people
actively participate in decision
making processes as a part of daily
life for example:
— Indigenous communities
— Assorted libertarian zones of the
past, for example, in **Spain 1936**
or **Manchuria 1930**
— The **Zapatistas**, or **Rojava**, in our
own time.
And it happens here in the UK too.
We see people collectively organise
together to solve issues, time and
time again. The distribution of
**mutual aid** support groups during
the COVID crisis, and the **Friendly
Societies** in days gone by, are good people have this spark in them,
and that the possibility of a world
where we all take responsibility can
exist.
*** 48. How do we get the rich to give up their wealth?
Presently it’s difficult to get anyone
to reduce their living standards
in favour of a fair distribution
of resources, especially if they
are unsure of the future. Many
speeches, books, social media
posts etc. have clearly described
the evils of inequality. But still the
rich get richer and more powerful.
As said before, an anarchist society
won’t happen instantly. As society’s
ideas change some wealthier
individuals will see there is more
to life than increasing their wealth.
Building communities, getting rid
of individual greed, sharing all
resources and seeing the benefits
for all of a fairer society, will
gradually convince many richer
people that they don’t need huge
amounts of stuff and wealth.
As we move nearer to an anarchist
society, the **state** will gradually
disappear, hoarding money will
begin to be pointless and all
resources, like raw materials,
workplaces and land, will start to
come under community ownership.
Everyone will have an equal say in
decision making and free access to everything produced by society.
Some might try and cling onto
their wealth. But under anarchism,
these people will no longer own
the resources that provide them
with the wealth they have under
**capitalism**. Without money and our
labour they will no longer increase
their riches by investment. Without
the state there will be no schemes
designed to funnel money upwards
via the public purse from poor to
rich. Without the politicians, police,
judges and the army no one will
protect them and their wealth.
But even after all this, if they
still try and hoard while others
have less, then each community
will decide what they feel is
fair. Communities may let them
have more. Or communities may
convince them to give up their excesses. Or communities may well just go and redistribute what the
wealthy are hoarding. If necessary
at the point of a gun.
*** 49. What about power? How do we get them to share that?
Anarchists believe there are two
kinds of power. One is power over
other people. The other is our own
individual and **collective** power to
run our own lives. In an anarchist
society nobody will have power
over others.
As we advance towards an
anarchist society, we can
hope powerful people will see
the advantages of a free and
**cooperative** life. But we suspect
many may not.
Whether it’s being a **dictator**
or someone inflicting domestic
violence, being able to force other
people to do what you want can
be very addictive. The process of
revolution will erode that power, as people experience taking control
of their own lives, but many power-
addicts will fight tooth and nail to
retain it.
In an anarchist society, it’s not
simply about being able to do
whatever you like, so anyone
refusing to give up their power will
probably need to be confronted by
the rest of their community.
How each community does this,
as we have said before, depends
on the specific circumstances. We
have given some examples how it
could happen, but communities will
develop others as well.
But, in the end power cannot lay in
the hands of a tiny minority, it has
to be shared between us all.
*** 50. Does the revolution need to happen globally or can it happen on a smaller scale?
Ideally the anarchist revolution
would happen globally. Obviously
cooperation between different
parts of the world would be easier,
with all national borders abolished.
But we are realists and know this
may not happen globally at the
same time. It’s more likely to start
on a smaller scale at first.
Currently there are anarchists
and sympathisers throughout the
world. One way it might happen is if
anarchist practices start becoming
dominant in one area. This would hopefully lead to anarchism and
anarchist ideas taking root more
widely. This could then start to
develop in most other countries,
as anarchists there feel more
empowered, and others are won
over to anarchism.
Some **states** are more oppressive
than others, have different
economic and social conditions
and different amounts and types
of political culture. This means the
revolution is likely to develop at
different speeds.
Anarchists don’t believe in money
So if anarchism only started in
one or two areas how would they
trade? This would be decided at
the time but here are some ideas.
The revolution might cover a wide
enough scale that there’s enough
of everything we need within the
revolutionary space. We might
decide to go without something
that we don’t really need. We might
barter with less revolutionary
areas. Maybe we compromise
and sell stuff we produce to other
places and use that money to buy
things we need within the liberated
areas. Or use money seized from
the banks!
It’s difficult to say for certain how
or if trade would happen. Many
factors will come into play, which we can’t even guess at here. But yes, we do think an anarchist
revolution can start on a smaller
scale and then grow. Be great
though if it did happen worldwide
all at once!
*** 51. Can we really change things?
The simple answer is ‘Yes we
can’. If we couldn’t, society would
be the same as it’s always been
and it definitely is not. We got rid
of the divine right of Kings; the
church’s power is much reduced;
and many barbaric customs have
gone. Things we take for granted,
like paid holidays or weekends,
were not given to us by generous
employers but fought for by
previous generations. Recent
years have seen these gains
eroded, with laws limiting strikes
and giving employers more power.
But workers in new **grassroots
trade unions** are fighting back and
winning significant victories.
Examples exist in other areas.
Women have achieved huge
advances towards equal treatment in society (but not enough). People
with disabilities have fought and
won victories for themselves.
These reforms are far short of what
anarchists want. That requires
**capitalism** and the **state** to be replaced by a society based on anarchist principles.
Two examples many anarchists
see of this are in **Spain** during
their Civil war and the self-ruling
indigenous community of Cheran,
Michoacan, Mexico.
In 2011, led by local
women, the people of
Cheran rose up to defend
their forest from armed
loggers and kicked
out corrupt police and
politicians at the same
time. Political parties
are banned. Using direct
democracy everyone
gets a say and decisions
are made by consensus,
from who will get a local
job in construction, to
the allocation of public
services.
During the Spanish Civil
War in 1936, groups
organised along anarchist
lines operated the
factories, mills, docks,
transport, shops and
utilities without managers
or the state. Peasants took collective control of the land. In many areas money was abolished.
These groups created economic
equality based on need and ability.
It was a shining example of how
things could be.
*** 52. So ask yourself, what kind of future do I want to see for myself and the world?
An anarchist society would be a
fairer, equal, more democratic
society.
A **non-hierarchical** system, where
everyone has a say in how society
is run.
Where decisions are made that
benefit the local community and
wider society, without the need to
consider company profit margins
or the corrupt self-interest of
politicians and wealthy individuals.
Millions of people would be freed
from the jobs that offer no benefit
to society, like the financial sector.
A society in which no one goes
hungry and where everyone has
access to the medicines they need
and the best health care.
Where people can follow their
dreams, get the education they
want, find meaningful, interesting
work and travel or settle wherever
they like without barriers or
restrictions.
** Glossary
**Accountable / Accountability**
This means having to answer for
your actions and decisions to
others connected to you such as
workmates, neighbours, etc.
**Anarchy**. Literally means ‘without
power’ — from the Greek, without
(‘An’) power or authority (‘archy’).
Anarchism is the belief that
everyone should live without any
power over others.
**Assemblies**. Also known as
People’s Assemblies, these are the
basic level of organising in a non-
hierarchical system. They are open
to everyone and are the group
that makes decisions. Discussions
about how the group operates
are decided in a group meeting or
assembly (could be face-to-face
or using technology). Everybody in
that area or workplace is welcome
and has an equal say in running
things and the workload is shared.
**Authoritarian socialists**/
communists. See “state run
socialism”.
**Capitalism**. The system we live
under now. Capitalism is an
economic, political, educational,
social and cultural system in which
a few own and control property
to benefit their own interests.
A society of bosses, profits,
landlords, etc. and the division
between rich and poor.
**Class / working class / ruling
class**. There are lots of different
definitions of class, but very
broadly it describes the split into
2 classes — the ruling class with
power, wealth and connections
and the working class who only
have their labour to sell to make a
living and only have the power they
can generate through mutual aid
and solidarity with the rest of their
class.
**Class struggle**. Refers to the
constant and wide ranging conflict
between the working class/
exploited and the ruling class/
exploiters. Almost everyone is in
the first group even though some
still work for or identify with the
interests of the ruling class or
own a relatively small amount of
property or wealth.
**Collectives/Collectively**. A group
of people working together towards
a common goal and generally
making decisions by some agreed form of consensus decision
making.
**Communism (communists)**. A way
of organising in which all property
and resources are owned by the
community and each person
contributes according to their
ability and receives according
to their needs. However, over
the years its meaning has been
corrupted and those in power or
the media purposely mistake it
with “state run socialism” (see
state run socialism).
**Conflict resolution**. See
“mediation”
**Consensus or consensus decision
making**. Here, instead of just
voting, a group discusses an issue
and tries to get everyone within
that discussion or group to come
to an agreement. This sometimes
takes longer and people need to
be more flexible, either by being
prepared to compromise or by
looking for different answers.
Getting everyone to agree isn’t
always possible or practical, so
over the years guidelines have
developed to help groups decide
on what to do when consensus
isn’t reached. See www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus as a starting point. Many
communities around the world
decide things this way. And many
international trade agreements
are agreed this way. It’s just those
in power love to con us that voting
is the only way – as it benefits the
powerful.
**Cooperatives** (e.g. workers and
housing). A co-op is an organisation
that’s owned and controlled by its
members, to meet their shared
needs. The members can be
workers, residents or anyone who
has a say in how the co-op is run.
In a worker’s co-op the workplace
is run equally by everyone (and
we do mean everyone) who works
there. It could also, if people
wanted, include people from the
local area. In a housing co-op
a number of homes (say all the
homes in a street or estate) are
again run equally by everyone who
lives there.
**Decentralisation**. Capitalist
states are centralised. Here the
greatest power is held in the
centre, often by one person (a
president or prime minister). In
Non-hierarchical systems power
is held by assemblies and so is
decentralised.
**Delegates**. People sent by an
assembly to larger meetings
to truly represent people. They
are given instructions by their
assemblies to do specific things,
so are not put in a position of
exercising power themselves.
Delegates can be instantly recalled
(the assembly that sent them can
replace them) which stops them
saying something different to their
assemblies’ views.
**Dictatorship**. A form of government
which is characterised by a leader,
or a group of leaders, which holds
governmental powers with few to
no limitations.
**Direct democracy**. Everyone has
the power to make decisions
themselves (in assemblies)
rather than passing this power
to politicians in elections (which
is indirect or representative
democracy).
**Factory committees**. See
“workers’ councils”
**Fascism**. Far-right, authoritarian,
ultra-nationalist, racist and violent
political belief. Fascists believe
in a single all powerful dictatorial
leader, using force to strictly
control every aspect of society.
**Friendly societies**. These were
workers’ self-help mutual aid
organisations. The first began
around 1500. By the time they
were effectively replaced by the
authoritarian hierarchy of the
welfare state they were providing
everything from insurance against
temporary unemployment to GPs
and hospitals for their members.
**Grassroots Trades Unions**.
The International Workers of
the World, Cleaners & Allied
Independent Workers Union, and
United Voices of the World are
three of these. These were set
up by workers wanting to control
their own struggles instead of
being controlled, and sold out, by
mainstream trade unions.
**Hierarchy** — see non-hierarchical
**Identity politics**. A political
approach wherein people of a
particular race, nationality, religion,
sex, gender, sexual orientation,
or other identifying factor develop
political agendas that are based
upon these identities. Identity
politics is connected with the
idea that some groups in society
are oppressed and begins with
analysis of that oppression.
**Justice — Reparative**. Here the
“offender” compensates their
victim by covering losses resulting
from the crime, either with money
and/or services.
**Justice – Restorative**. This both
tries to restore the victim and
community to their pre-crime
conditions, but goes a step further.
Alleged offenders are encouraged
to admit their guilt and try to atone
for it.
**Justice – Transformative**. This
aims to transform those involved
for the better. It attempts to change
society as a whole as well as the
individuals involved. It tries to
give victims answers to why they
were victimised. It also requires
the offender to work to change
themselves, usually with the
assistance of others.
**Libertarian**. The opposite of
authoritarian. The definition we use
here is that It doesn’t mean people
can do whatever they want, but
that no one is forced to do anything
and all decisions are made by
everyone having an equal say.
Others use different definitions.
**Manchuria’s Anarchist zone**. This
was in what is now North East
China. It lasted from 1929 to 1931.
The zone included shops where
everything was free. Worker and
peasant cooperatives and free
education were set up throughout
the zone, along with Regional
assemblies.
**Mediation and conflict resolution**.
This is where trained people try
and help others who can’t agree
on something to agree on the
issue. Mediation tends to be
where individuals or groups work
out the best way to go forward so
that everyone is happy. Conflict
resolution tends to happen when
individuals or groups are more
agitated with each other. On a
small level it could be helping
people in a group come to a
decision they all can accept. On
a larger level it could be stopping
wars by mediation between the
two sides. Both these happen in
present society. In an anarchist
society more of us would have the
access to this help and also be
trained to help others.
**Mutual aid**. Helping and
supporting each other based on
need and expecting nothing in
return
**Nationalism**. A belief that
demands loyalty, devotion, or
allegiance to a nation or nation-
state. It also believes that such
demands outweigh other individual
or group interests, particularly
class. It is often a base for
emerging racism or fascism.
Anarchists want a society without
nationalism.
**Non-hierarchica**l. This is where
there is no leader, president or
manager type role and no inferior
ones either. Instead members of a
group, organisation or collective all
have an equal say in how the group
is run, what the goals are and how
to reach those goals. A hierarchy
is any relationship that is unequal.
We live in many hierarchies.
Some are obvious such as having
politicians and bosses in charge,
and some less obvious, such as
some people being confident and
listened to because of their gender
or class background. Anarchists
are against all hierarchies.
**Nuclear families**. Traditionally
refers to a husband, wife and
children, where the male is the
dominant person.
**Participatory democracy**. See
“self-organisation”.
**Paris Commune**. This lasted
for 2 months in 1871. After
driving out the French Army, the
citizens of Paris declared Paris
an independent commune. All
elected on the Central Council
were instantly recallable and got
the average worker’s wage. Policies
expressed the immediate needs
of the working class. Workers took
over enterprises deserted by their
owners. Rent was cancelled, police
and child labour abolished and the
Catholic Church made powerless.
The French Army returned in
overwhelming force and the
insurrection was crushed.
**Recallable delegates**. See
“delegates”.
**Representative democracies.**
Casting a vote every 4 or 5 years
after which you have no further say
in any decision making, and the
so-called elected leaders then do
whatever they want.
**Rojava 2012 to present**. Rojava
(in the Kurdish controlled part
of north and east Syria) has
tried to implement a number
of anarchist ideas. It strives for
gender equality and tolerance of
all races, religions, and political
views without hierarchies. Some
elements of the revolution are
organised along anarchist lines
and demonstrate that this is
possible in the modern world. This
has been achieved while Rojava is
involved in armed conflict against
ISIS, Syria and Turkey and is faced
with a severe embargo.
**Ruling Class**. See “Class”
**Russian Revolution**. Although
this started with a lot of local
organisation — some anarchists in
Russia in 1917 saw the “soviets”
much like we today see our
assemblies – the Communist
party quickly destroyed the
non-hierarchical “bottom up”
approach and brought in a strictly
hierarchical “top-down” approach including excessive violence
against anyone who objected.
**Sabotage**. To deliberately obstruct,
damage, or destroy (something),
for political and economic
advantage. Sabot, where the word
sabotage comes from, was the
name of wooden clogs worn by
French workers and which they
used as a tool to destroy machines.
**Scarcity** — the difference between
how much of something is needed
and how much is made available.
**Self-organisation**. Another way
of describing non-hierarchical
organising, because people decide
what happens themselves without
external or higher forces telling
them what to do. Horizontal is
another word used to describe the
opposite of hierarchies. Another
similar phrase is Participatory
democracy because everyone
is involved all the time, rather
than simply casting a vote every
few years as in our current
representative democracies.
**Solidarity**. Helping and supporting
each other based on need and
expecting nothing in return.
**Soviets**. See “workers’ councils”
**Spain 1936**. There was a workers’
revolution that began at the
outbreak of the Spanish Civil
War in 1936 and for two to three
years resulted in the widespread
implementation of anarchist
and, more broadly, libertarian
socialist organisational principles
throughout various parts of the
country. In Barcelona in particular
the anarcho-syndicalist CNT
trade union (run by its members)
took over, and very efficiently
ran everything from factories to
public transport to the telephone
exchange. Out in the countryside
people went a step further,
collectivised the land, and
abolished money.
**State**. A country’s governments,
parliaments, monarchies and all
the agencies, flags, borders that
go with them plus an expectation
that everything is done via them.
The state also runs or regulates
education, culture, health services,
media, religions, municipals and
the market, to a certain extent, and
maintains control with forces like
police, courts, prisons, military and
spy networks.
**State run socialism**. This
describes countries such as China,
the Soviet Union, Cuba and many others that called themselves socialist or communist but operate
with a very powerful government
which controls every aspect of
life and economy. Authoritarian
socialists/communists are those
that defend and intend to create
similar systems (although they
might claim to want to do things
differently).
**Stonewall Riots**. Also called the
Stonewall Uprising, began on June
28, 1969 when New York City
police raided the Stonewall Inn,
a gay club located in Greenwich
village. The raid sparked a riot
among those in the bar and
neighbourhood residents as
police attacked employees and
customers. This led to six days
of protests and violent clashes
with cops outside the bar, in
neighbouring streets and in nearby
Christopher Park. The Stonewall
Riots kick started the gay rights
movement in the United States and
around the world.
**Ukraine 1917–21**. Anarchist
Nestor Makhno and his comrades
launched an anarchist army in
1917 as peasants took over the
land. Makhno and his supporters
attempted to reorganise social and
economic life along anarchist lines, including setting up communes
on large private estates, the
redistribution of land and the
organisation of free elections
to local soviets (councils) and
regional congresses. At the same
time a spontaneous wave of
peasant land occupations spread
across Russia from February 1917
onwards.
**Workers’ councils, soviets, factory
committees/groups**. These are
some of the different types of
organisation that bring together
people in their workplaces and
communities. They are similar to
“assemblies” mentioned above.
**Working Class**. See “class”
**Zapatistas**. The Zapatista Army of
National Liberation went “public”
with their short lived New Year’s
day 1994 armed takeover of 7
cities in Mexico’s Chiapas region-
rejecting the US/Mexico Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Following this
local people expelled landowners
from their estates, abolished
private property and established
autonomous communities.
These survive to this day, in
spite of intermittent conflict with
the Mexican state. Largely self-
sufficient, they operate workers co-ops, family farms, community
stores and universal healthcare,
while pushing strongly for women’s
equality. As with Rojava, there are
different views around what the
relationship between the armed
wing and the actual communities
really is. They have consistently
reached out to other grassroots
movements including those outside
Mexico with their international
“encuentros”/assemblies.
** Further Reading
What follows is a selection of
books and websites that inspired
a load of us to become anarchists
or want to find out more about this
inspirational view that ordinary
people can organise society and
all its bits and pieces much better
than politicians.
A lot of these books have been
digitally copied and made free on
the internet. Places to start looking
for them could be:
- [[https://theanarchistlibrary.org][theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- [[https://libcom.org/library/][libcom.org]]
If you buy the books don’t use
Amazon or some other dodgy
supplier. Support Anarchist shops
and distributors. Some we know of
are:
- AK Press
[[https://akuk.com][https://akuk.com]]
- Freedom Bookshop
[[https://freedompress.org.uk][https://freedompress.org.uk]]
- PM Press:
[[https://pmpress.org][https://pmpress.org]]
- Active Distribution
[[https://activedistributionshop.org][https://activedistributionshop.org]]
Some other websites that are
worth visiting are:
- Anarchist Frequently Asked Questions:
[[http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html][anarchism.pageabode.com]]
- A Infos
[[http://www.ainfos.ca][www.ainfos.ca]]
*** Reading list
- **Colin Ward: “Anarchy in Action”**
(180 pages 1973)
With chapters on the family, schools,
housing, crime, employment,
welfare, deviancy, planning, and
more, this is probably the best
practical example of anarchist
ideas in action. As he writes in his
introduction, “This book is not
intended for people who had spent
a lifetime pondering the problems
of anarchism, but for those who
either had no idea of what the word
implied or knew exactly what it
implied and rejected it, considering
that it had no relevance for the
modern world”.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/colin-ward-anarchy-in-action][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Alexander Berkman: “ABC of Anarchism”**
(145 pages 1929)
Berkman was born in 1870 under
Tsarist dictatorship, emigrated to
the US and was jailed for fourteen
years after shooting an industrialist
whose thugs had opened fire on
striking workers. This book by one
of the most gifted writers for the
anarchist movement answers some
of the charges made against it and
presents the case for communist
anarchism clearly and intelligently.
Thorough and well stated, it
is today regarded as a classic
statement of the cause’s goals and
methods.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Peter Gelderloos: “Anarchy Works”**
(281 pages 2016)
Gelderloos takes examples from
around the world, picking through
history and anthropology, showing
that people have, in different
ways and at different times,
demonstrated mutual aid, self-
organization, autonomy, horizontal
decision making, and so forth--the
principles that anarchy is founded
on--regardless of whether they
called themselves anarchists or
not. This is an inspiring answer to
the people who say that anarchists are utopian: a point-by-point
introduction to how anarchy can
and has actually worked.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin: “Anarchism and The Black Revolution and Other Essays”**
(2013)
From Lorenzo “I wish to introduce
young people and especially Black
people and other people of color to
revolutionary Anarchist ideals. This
book will discuss Anarchism and its
relevance to Black and Third World
liberation movements...My views
are not necessarily those of any
group, although I speak generally
of the theories of Black Autonomy,
an ideological tendency within the
Anarchist movement. It is up to
the reader to determine whether
these ideas are valid and worthy of
adoption.”
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lorenzo-kom-boa-ervin-anarchism-and-the-black-revolution][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Errico Malatesta: “At the Café”**
(160 pages 1920)
In 1897, while Malatesta was
hiding from the police, he regularly
went to a cafe in Ancona, Italy. This
wasn’t an anarchist cafe, but had a
variety of customers including the
local policeman. The conversations
he had in this cafe became the
basis for the dialogues that make up this book. Malatesta, in his
usual common-sense and matter-
of-fact style, sets out and critically
analyses the arguments for and
against anarchism. This is a
classic defence of anarchism, that
anticipates the rise of nationalism,
fascism and communism.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-at-the-cafe][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Simon Read: “Everything You Wanted To Know About Anarchism But Were Afraid To Ask”**
(60 pages 1985)
An excellent, short introduction to
anarchism, its ideas, and some of
the thornier issues in life (“don’t
we need the police to catch
criminals,” “aren’t people naturally
selfish,” “don’t we need some kind
of management,” etc).
- **Marcos Mayer: “Anarchism for Beginners”**
170 pages 2003
Commercial book about anarchist
ideas with many illustrations.
Maybe not the best but an
easy read to get a basic idea of
anarchism.
- **Emma Goldman: “Anarchism and other essays”**
(280 pages 1910)
Anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman is one of the towering
figures in global radicalism of the
late 19th and early 20th centuries.
An early advocate of birth control
and women’s rights, as well as
a dedicated anarchist, she was
an important and influential
figure in such far-flung events as
the Russian Revolution and the
Spanish Civil War. In addition to
her classic essay which lays out
anarchist ideals, this volume
contains six other essays on
prisons to marriage, direct action,
violence, and sexuality.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer: “Floodgates of Anarchy”**
(140 pages 1970)
This book looks at anarchism
in relation to class struggle. It
presents an argument against
class-based society and hierarchy
and advocates for a free and equal
society based on individual dignity
and merit. It argues that the state/
government is the true enemy of
the people and that only through
the dissolution of government
can the people put an end to
exploitation and war, leading to a
fully free society.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/stuart-christie-albert-meltzer-the-floodgates-of-anarchy][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Clifford Harper: “Anarchy: A Graphic Guide”**
(212 pages 1987)
A clearly written and simple
introduction to anarchism,
beautifully illustrated in Clifford
Harper’s distinctive woodcut-style,
published in 1987. “Like all really
good ideas, Anarchy is pretty
simple when you get down to it-
human beings are at their very
best when they are living free of
authority, deciding things among
themselves rather than being
ordered about.” So begins this
anarchist classic.
- **Cindy Milstein: “Anarchism and Its Aspirations”**
(140 pages 2010)
Cindy provides an overview of
the history and hopeful future for
a better world. It quickly brings
even the uninitiated reader up
to speed with a crash course
on some of the most influential
anarchists in history and their
ideas on how we might achieve the
transformation of society. It looks
at how these principles have been
put into practice by groups such
as the Situationist International,
social ecologists, Zapatistas,
anti-globalization activists,
and other directly democratic organizations and communities in
their respective struggles against
capitalism and state control.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cindy-milstein-anarchism-and-its-aspirations][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Anarchist Federation: “Introduction to Anarchist
Communism”**
(40 pages 2015)
Anarchist communism is an
economic and political system
based upon removing oppressive
and exploitative structures in
society (such as capitalism and
the state), and building a society
where everyone has an equal
input into decisions that affect
their life. This pamphlet sets out
a short introduction to Anarchist
Communism.
[[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchist-federation-introduction-to-anarchist-communism][Link to text on theanarchistlibrary.org]]
- **Chaz Bufe: “A Future Worth Living Thoughts On Getting There”**
(26 pages 1998)
This pamphlet briefly looks at
why things are the way they are,
why people put up with it, why
both anarchism and Marxism
have failed, and what we can do
about it—principles, practices,
and projects that could lead to a
“future worth living.”