/usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secE6.html

<html>
<head>

<title>E.6 What is the population myth?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>E.6 What is the population myth?</h1>

<p>
The idea that population growth is the <b>key</b> cause of ecological problems
is extremely commonplace. Even individuals associated with such radical 
green groups as <b>Earth First!</b> have promoted it. It is, however, a gross 
distortion of the truth. <b>Capitalism</b> is the main cause of both 
overpopulation <b>and</b> the ecological crisis. 
</p><p>
Firstly, we should point out that all the "doomsday" prophets of the
"population bomb" have been proved wrong time and time again. The dire
predictions of Thomas Malthus, the originator of the population myth, 
have not come true, yet neo-Malthusians continue to mouth his reactionary
ideas. In fact Malthus wrote his infamous <i>"Essay on the Principles of 
Population"</i> which inflicted his <i>"law of population"</i> onto the world in 
response to the anarchist William Godwin and other social reformers.
In other words, it was explicitly conceived as an attempt to "prove" 
that social stratification, and so the status quo, was a "law of 
nature" and that poverty was the fault of the poor themselves, not the 
fault of an unjust and authoritarian socio-economic system. As such, the 
"theory" was created with political goals in mind and as a weapon in the
class struggle (as an aside, it should be noted that Darwin argued his 
theory of natural selection was <i>"the doctrine of Malthus applied to the 
whole animal and vegetable kingdom."</i> [quoted by Peter Marshall, <b>Nature's 
Web</b>, p. 320] In other words, anarchism, indirectly, inspired the theory 
of evolution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the form of Social Darwinism
this was also used against working class people and social reform).
</p><p>
As Kropotkin summarised, Malthus work was <i>"pernicious"</i> in its influence.
It <i>"summed up ideas already current in the minds of the wealth-possessing
 minority"</i> and arose to combat the <i>"ideas of equality and liberty"</i> awakened 
by the French and American revolutions. Malthus asserted against Godwin 
<i>"that no equality is possible; that the poverty of the many is not due to 
institutions, but is a natural <b>law.</b>"</i> This meant he <i>"thus gave the rich a 
kind of scientific argument against the ideas of equality."</i> However, it was 
simply <i>"a pseudo-scientific"</i> assertion which reflected <i>"the secret desires 
of the wealth-possessing classes"</i> and not a scientific hypothesis. This is 
obvious as technology has ensured that Malthus's fears are <i>"groundless"</i> while 
they are continually repeated. [<b>Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, 
p. 77, p. 78 and p. 79]
</p><p>
That the theory was fundamentally ideological in nature can be seen from
Malthus himself. It is interesting to note that in contrast, and in direct 
contradiction to his population "theory," as an economist Malthus was worried 
about the danger of <b>over-production</b> within a capitalist economy. He was 
keen to defend the landlords from attacks by Ricardo and had to find a reason 
for their existence. To do this, he attacked Say's Law (the notion that 
over-production was impossible in a free market economy). Utilising the 
notion of effective demand, he argued that capitalist saving caused the 
threat of over-production and it was the landlords luxury consumption which 
made up the deficit in demand this caused and ensured a stable economy. As 
Marxist David McNally points out, the <i>"whole 
of this argument is completely at odds with the economic analysis"</i> of his 
essay on population. According to that, the <i>"chronic . . . danger which 
confronts society is <b>underproduction</b> of food relative to people."</i> In his 
economics book, the world <i>"is threatened by <b>overproduction.</b> Rather than 
there being too little supply relative to demand, there is now too little 
demand relative to supply."</i> In fact, Malthus even went so far as to argue 
for the poor to be employed in building roads and public works! No mention 
of "excess" population there, which indicates well the ideological nature 
of his over-population theory. As McNally shows, it was the utility of 
Malthus's practical conclusions in his "Essay on the Principles of 
Population" for fighting the poor law and the right to subsistence (i.e. 
welfare provisions) which explained his popularity: <i>"he made classical 
economics an open enemy of the working class."</i> [<i>"The Malthusian Moment: Political Economy 
versus Popular Radicalism"</i>, pp. 62-103, <b>Against the Market</b>, p. 85 and 
p. 91]
</p><p>
So it is easy to explain the support Malthus and his assertions got
in spite of the lack of empirical evidence and the self-contradictory
utterances of its inventor. Its support rests simply in its utility 
as a justification for the inhuman miseries inflicted upon the
British people by "its" ruling class of aristocrats and industrialists
was the only reason why it was given the time of day. Similarly today,
its utility to the ruling class ensures that it keeps surfacing every 
so often, until forced to disappear again once the actual facts of the
case are raised. That the population myth, like "genetic" justifications
for race-, class- and gender-based oppression, keeps appearing over and
over again, even after extensive evidence has disproved it, indicates its
usefulness to the ideological guardians of the establishment.
</p><p>
Neo-Malthusianism basically blames the victims of capitalism for their
victimisation, criticising ordinary people for "breeding" or living too
long, thus ignoring (at best) or justifying (usually) <b>privilege</b> -- the 
social root of hunger. To put it simply, the hungry are hungry because
they are excluded from the land or cannot earn enough to survive. In Latin
America, for example, 11% of the population was landless in 1961, by 1975
it was 40%. Approximately 80% of all Third World agricultural land is
owned by 3% of landowners. As anarchist George Bradford stresses, Malthusians 
<i>"do not consider the questions of land ownership, the history of colonialism, 
and where social power lies. So when the poor demand their rights, the 
Malthusians see 'political instability' growing from population pressure."</i>
[<b>Woman's Freedom: Key to the Population Question</b>, p. 77] Bookchin makes
a similar critique:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"the most sinister feature about neo-Malthusianism is the extent 
to which it actively deflects us from dealing with the social origins 
of our ecological problems -- indeed, the extent to which it places 
the blame for them on the victims of hunger rather than those who 
victimise them. Presumably, if there is a 'population problem' and 
famine in Africa, it is the ordinary people who are to blame for 
having too many children or insisting on living too long -- an argument 
advanced by Malthus nearly two centuries ago with respect to England's 
poor. The viewpoint not only justifies privilege; it fosters brutalisation 
and degrades the neo-Malthusians even more than it degrades the victims of 
privilege."</i> [<i>"The Population Myth"</i>, pp. 30-48, <b>Which Way for the Ecology 
Movement?</b>, p. 34]
</blockquote></p><p>
Increased population is not the cause of landlessness, it is the result of
it. If a traditional culture, its values, and its sense of identity are
destroyed, population growth rates increase dramatically. As in 17th-
and 18th-century Britain, peasants in the Third World are kicked off their
land by the local ruling elite, who then use the land to produce cash
crops for export while their fellow country people starve. Like Ireland
during the Potato Famine, the Third World nations most affected by famine
have also been exporters of food to the developed nations. Malthusianism
is handy for the wealthy, giving them a "scientific" excuse for the misery
they cause so they can enjoy their blood-money without remorse. It is
unwise for greens to repeat such arguments:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"It's a betrayal of the entire message of social ecology to ask the world's 
poor to deny themselves access to the necessities of life on grounds that 
involve long-range problems of ecological dislocation, the shortcomings of 
'high' technology, and very specious claims of natural shortages in materials, 
while saying nothing at all about the artificial scarcity engineered by
corporate capitalism."</i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 350]
</blockquote></p><p>
In a country that is being introduced to the joys of capitalism by state
intervention (the usual means by which traditional cultures and habits 
are destroyed to create a "natural system of liberty"), population soon
explodes as a result of the poor social and economic conditions in which
people find themselves. In the inner-city ghettos of the First World,
social and economic conditions similar to those of the Third World
give rise to similarly elevated birth rates. When ghetto populations are
composed mostly of minorities, as in countries like the US, higher birth
rates among the minority poor provides a convenient extra excuse for
racism, "proving" that the affected minorities are "inferior" because 
they "lack self-control," are "mere animals obsessed with procreation," 
etc. Much the same was said of Irish Catholics in the past and, needless 
to say, such an argument ignores the fact that slum dwellers in, for 
example, Britain during the Industrial Revolution were virtually all 
white but still had high birth rates. 
</p><p>
Population growth, far from being the cause of poverty, is in fact a
result of it. There is an inverse relationship between per capita income
and the fertility rate -- as poverty decreases, so do the population
rates. When people are ground into the dirt by poverty, education falls,
women's rights decrease, and contraception is less available. Having
children then becomes virtually the only survival means, with people
resting their hopes for a better future in their offspring. Therefore
social conditions have a major impact on population growth. In countries 
with higher economic and cultural levels, population growth soon starts 
to fall off. Today, for example, much of Europe has seen birth rates fall
beyond the national replacement rate. This is the case even in Catholic
countries, which one would imagine would have religious factors
encouraging large families. 
</p><p>
To be clear, we are <b>not</b> saying that overpopulation is not a very serious
problem. Obviously, population growth <b>cannot</b> be ignored or solutions
put off until capitalism is eliminated. We need to immediately provide
better education and access to contraceptives across the planet as well 
as raising cultural levels and increasing women's rights in order to 
combat overpopulation <b>in addition to</b> fighting for land reform, union organising 
and so on. Overpopulation only benefits the elite by keeping the cost 
of labour low. This was the position of the likes of Emma Goldman and other
radicals of her time:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Many working-class radicals accepted the logic that excessive numbers were 
what kept the poor in their misery. During the nineteenth century there were 
courageous attempts to disseminate birth-control information both to promote 
lower population and to make it possible for women to control their own 
reproductivity and escape male domination. Birth control was the province of 
feminism, radical socialism and anarchism."</i> [Bradford, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 69]
</blockquote></p><p>
Unlike many neo-Malthusians Goldman was well aware that <b>social</b> reasons 
explained why so many people went hungry. As she put it, <i>"if the masses of 
people continue to be poor and the rich grow ever richer, it is not because 
the earth is lacking in fertility and richness to supply the need of an 
excessive race, but because the earth is monopolised in the hands of the few 
to the exclusion of the many."</i> She noted that the promotion of large families 
had vested interests behind it, although working class people <i>"have learned to see 
in large families a millstone around their necks, deliberately imposed upon
them by the reactionary forces in society because a large family paralyses 
the brain and benumbs the muscles of the masses . . . [The worker] continues 
in the rut, compromises and cringes before his master, just to earn barely 
enough to feed the many little mouths. He dare not join a revolutionary
organisation; he dare not go on strike; he dare not express an opinion."</i> 
[<i>"The Social Aspects of Birth Control"</i>, <b>Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma 
Goldman's Mother Earth</b>, p. 135 and pp. 136-7] This support for birth 
control, it should be stressed, resulted in Goldman being arrested. Malthus, 
like many of his followers <i>"opposed contraception as immoral, preferring to 
let the poor starve as a 'natural' method of keeping numbers down. For him, 
only misery, poverty, famine, disease, and war would keep population from 
expanding beyond the carrying capacity of the land."</i> [Bradford, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 69] 
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, Goldman linked the issue of birth control to that of women's
liberation arguing that <i>"I never will acquiesce or submit to authority, nor 
will I make peace with a system which degrades woman to a mere incubator and
which fattens on her innocent victims. I now and here declare war upon this 
system."</i> The key problem was that woman <i>"has been on her knees before the 
altar of duty imposed by God, by Capitalism, by the State, and by Morality"</i>
for ages. Once that changed, the issue of population would solve itself
for <i>"[a]fter all it is woman whom is risking her health and sacrificing
her youth in the reproduction of the race. Surely she ought to be in a 
position to decide how many children she should bring into world, whether 
they should be brought into the world by the man she loves and because she wants 
the child, or should be born in hatred and loathing."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 140 and 
p. 136]
</p><p>
Other anarchists have echoed this analysis. George Bradford, for example, 
correctly notes that <i>"the way out of the [ecological] crisis lies in the 
practical opening toward freedom of self-expression and selfhood for women
that is the key to the destruction of hierarchy."</i> In other words, women's 
<i>"freedom and well-being are at the centre of the resolution to the population 
problem, and that can only be faced within the larger social context."</i> That 
means <i>"real participation in social decision-making, real health concerns, 
access to land, and the overthrow of patriarchal domination."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 68 and p. 82] Bookchin makes the same point, noting that population growth 
rates have fallen in developed countries because <i>"of the <b>freedom</b> that women 
have acquired over recent decades to transcend the role that patriarchy 
assigned to them as mere reproductive factories."</i> [<i>"The Future of the 
Ecology Movement,"</i> pp. 1-20, <b>Which Way for the Ecology Movement?</b>, p. 19]
</p><p>
This means that an <b>increase</b> of freedom will solve the population question.
Sadly, many advocates of neo-Malthusianism extend control over people from
women to all. The advocates of the "population myth," as well as getting the 
problem wrong, also (usually) suggest very authoritarian "solutions" -- for
example, urging an increase in state power with a "Bureau of Population
Control" to "police" society and ensure that the state enters the bedroom
and our most personal relationships. Luckily for humanity and individual
freedom, since they misconceive the problem, such "Big Brother" solutions
are not required. 
</p><p>
So, it must be stressed the "population explosion" is not a neutral theory, 
and its invention reflected class interests at the time and continual 
use since then is due to its utility to vested interests. We should not be 
fooled into thinking that overpopulation is the main cause of the ecological 
crisis, as this is a strategy for distracting people from the root-cause of 
both ecological destruction and population growth today: namely, the capitalist 
economy and the inequalities and hierarchical social relationships it produces.
As such, those who stress the issue of population numbers get it backward.
Poverty causes high birth rates as people gamble on having large families so 
that some children will survive in order to look after the parents in their 
old age. Eliminate economic insecurity and poverty, then people have less 
children.
</p><p>
Some Greens argue that it is impossible for <b>everyone</b> to have a high
standard of living, as this would deplete available resources and place 
too much pressure on the environment. However, their use of statistics 
hides a sleight of hand which invalidates their argument. As Bookchin
correctly argues:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Consider the issue of population and food supply in terms of mere numbers 
and we step on a wild merry-go-round that does not support neo-Malthusian 
predictions of a decade ago, much less a generation ago. Such typically 
neo-Malthusian stunts as determining the 'per capita consumption' of steel, 
oil, paper, chemicals, and the like of a nation by dividing the total tonnage 
of the latter by the national population, such that every man, women, and 
child is said to 'consume' a resultant quantity, gives us a picture that is 
blatantly false and functions as a sheer apologia for the upper classes. The 
steel that goes into a battleship, the oil that is used to fuel a tank, and 
the paper that is covered by ads hardly depicts the human consumption of 
materials. Rather, it is stuff consumed by all the Pentagons of the world 
that help keep a 'grow-or-die economy in operation -- goods, I may add, 
whose function is to destroy and whose destiny is to be destroyed."</i> [<i>"The 
Population Myth"</i>, pp. 30-48, <b>Which Way for the Ecology Movement?</b>, pp. 34-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
Focusing on averages, in other words, misses out the obvious fact we
live in a highly unequal societies which results in a few people using
many resources. To talk about consumption and not to wonder how many 
Rolls Royces and mansions the "average" person uses means producing 
skewed arguments. Equally, it is possible to have more just societies 
with approximately the same living standards with significantly <b>less</b> 
consumption of resources and <b>less</b> pollution and waste produced. We 
need only compare America with Europe to see this. One could point out, 
for example, that Europeans enjoy more leisure time, better health, 
less poverty, less inequality and thus more economic security, greater 
intergenerational economic mobility, better access to high-quality social 
services like health care and education, and manage to do it all in a 
far more environmentally sustainable way (Europe generates about half 
the CO2 emissions for the same level of GDP) compared to the US.
</p><p>
In fact, even relatively minor changes in how we work can have significant 
impact. For example, two economists at the Center for Economic and Policy 
Research produced a paper comparing U.S. and European energy consumption 
and related it to hours worked. They concluded that if Americans chose to 
take advantage of their high level of productivity by simply shortening 
the workweek or taking longer holidays rather than producing more, there 
would follow a number of benefits. Specifically, if the U.S. followed 
Western Europe in terms of work hours then not only would workers find 
themselves with seven additional weeks of time off, the US would consume 
some 20% less energy and if this saving was directly translated into lower 
carbon emissions then it would have emitted 3% less carbon dioxide in 2002 
than in 1990 (this level of emissions is only 4% above the negotiated 
target of the Kyoto Protocol). If Europe following IMF orthodoxy and
increased working hours, this would have a corresponding negative 
impact on energy use and emissions (not to mention quality of life).
[David Rosnick and Mark Weisbrot, <b>Are Shorter Work Hours Good for 
the Environment?</b>] Of course, any such choice is influenced by 
social institutions and pressures and, as such, part of a wider 
social struggle for change. 
</p><p>
In other words, we must question the underlying assumption of the 
neo-Malthusians that society and technology are static and that the 
circumstances that produced historic growth and consumption rates will 
remain unchanged. This is obviously false, since humanity is not static. 
To quote Bookchin again:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"by reducing us to studies of line graphs, bar graphs, and statistical 
tables, the neo-Malthusians literally freeze reality as it is. Their 
numerical extrapolations do not construct any reality that is new; they 
mere extend, statistic by statistic, what is basically old and given . . . 
We are taught to accept society, behaviour, and values as they <b>are</b>, not 
as they should be or even <b>could</b> be. This procedure places us under the 
tyranny of the status quo and divests us of any ability to think about 
radically changing the world. I have encountered very few books or 
articles written by neo-Malthusians that question whether we should live 
under any kind of money economy at all, any statist system of society, 
or be guided by profit oriented behaviour. There are books and articles 
aplenty that explain 'how to' become a 'morally responsible' banker, 
entrepreneur, landowner, 'developer,' or, for all I know, arms merchant. 
But whether the whole system called capitalism (forgive me!), be it 
corporate in the west or bureaucratic in the east, must be abandoned 
if we are to achieve an ecological society is rarely discussed."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33]
</blockquote></p><p>
It is probably true that an "American" living standard is not possible 
for the population of the world at its present level (after all, the 
US consumes 40% of the world's resources to support only 5% of its 
population). For the rest of the world to enjoy that kind of standard 
of living we would require the resources of multiple Earths! Ultimately, 
anything which is not renewable is exhaustible. The real question is 
when will it be exhausted? How? Why? And by whom? As such, it is 
important to remember that this "standard of living" is a product of 
an hierarchical system which produces an alienated society in which 
consumption for the sake of consumption is the new god. In a grow-or-die 
economy, production and consumption must keep increasing to prevent 
economic collapse. This need for growth leads to massive advertising 
campaigns to indoctrinate people with the capitalist theology that more and 
more must be consumed to find "happiness" (salvation), producing consumerist 
attitudes that feed into an already-present tendency to consume in order to 
compensate for doing boring, pointless work in a hierarchical workplace. 
Unless a transformation of values occurs that recognises the importance of 
<b>living</b> as opposed to <b>consuming,</b> the ecological crisis <b>will</b> get worse. 
It is impossible to imagine such a radical transformation occurring under 
capitalism and so a key aim of eco-anarchists is to encourage people to consider 
what they need to live enriched, empowering and happy lives rather than 
participate in the rat race capitalism produces (even if you do win, you
remain a rat). 
</p><p>
Nor it cannot be denied that developments like better health 
care, nutrition, and longer lifespans contribute to overpopulation 
and are made possible by "industry." But to see such developments 
as primary causes of population growth is to ignore the central 
role played by poverty, the disruption of cultural patterns, and 
the need for cheap labour due to capitalism. There are always 
elevated birth rates associated with poverty, whether or not 
medical science improves significantly (for example, during the 
early days of capitalism). "Industrialism" is in fact a term
used by liberal Greens (even when they call themselves "deep") 
who do not want to admit that the ecological crisis cannot be 
solved without the complete overthrow of capitalism, pretending 
instead that the system can become "green" through various band-aid 
reforms.  "Controlling population growth" is always a key item on 
such liberals' agendas, taking the place of "eliminating capitalism," 
which should be the centrepiece. <i>"Population control is substituted 
for social justice, and the problem is actually aggravated by the 
Malthusian 'cure',"</i> points out feminist Betsy Hartmann. [quoted by 
Bradford, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 77] 
</p><p>
After all, there <b>is</b> enough food to feed the world's population but 
its distribution reflects inequalities in wealth, power and effective 
demand (this is most obviously seen when food is exported from famine 
areas as there is no effective demand for it there, a sadly regular 
occurrence). The <i>"myth that population increases in places like the 
Sudan, for example, result in famine"</i> can only survive if we ignore
<i>"the notorious fact that the Sudanese could easily feed themselves if 
they were not forced by the American-controlled World Bank and 
International Monetary Fund to grow cotton instead of grains."</i> 
[Bookchin, <b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 11] Hence the importance of class
analysis and an awareness of hierarchy. We can hardly talk of "our" 
resources when those resources are owned by a handful of giant 
corporations. Equally, we cannot talk about "our" industrial impact 
on the planet when the decisions of industry are made by a bosses and 
most of us are deliberately excluded from the decision making process.
While it makes sense for the ruling elite to ignore such key issues,
it counter-productive for radicals to do so and blame "people" or
their numbers for social and environmental problems:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The most striking feature of such way of thinking is not only that 
it closely parallels the way of thinking that is found in the 
corporate world. What is more serious is that it serves to deflect 
our attention from the role society plays in producing ecological 
breakdown. If 'people' as a <b>species</b> are responsible for environmental 
dislocations, these dislocations cease to be the result of <b>social</b> 
dislocations. A mythic 'Humanity' is created -- irrespective of 
whether we are talking about oppressed minorities, women, Third World 
people, or people in the First World -- in which everyone is brought 
into complicity with powerful corporate elites in producing 
environmental dislocations. In this way, the social roots of 
ecological problems are shrewdly obscured . . . [W]e can dismiss 
or explain away hunger, misery, or illness as 'natural checks' that 
are imposed on human beings to retain the 'balance of nature.' We 
can comfortably forget that much of the poverty and hunger that 
afflicts the world has its origins in the corporate exploitation of 
human beings and nature -- in agribusiness and social oppression."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 9-10]
</blockquote></p><p>
Looking at population numbers simply misses the point. As Murray Bookchin 
argues, this <i>"arithmetic mentality which disregards the social context of 
demographics is incredibly short-sighted. Once we accept without any 
reflection or criticism that we live in a 'grow-or-die' capitalistic 
society in which accumulation is literally a law of economic survival and 
competition is the motor of 'progress,' anything we have to say about 
population is basically meaningless. The biosphere will eventually be 
destroyed whether five billion or fifty million live on the planet. 
Competing firms in a 'dog-eat-dog' market must outproduce each other 
if they are to remain in existence. They must plunder the soil, remove 
the earth's forests, kill off its wildlife, pollute its air and waterways 
not because their intentions are necessarily bad, although they usually 
are . . .  but because they must simply survive. Only a radical 
restructuring of society as a whole, including its anti-ecological 
sensibilities, can remove this all commanding social compulsion."</i> 
[<i>"The Population Myth"</i>, pp. 30-48, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 34] A sane society would 
not be driven by growth for the sake of growth and would aim to reduce 
production by reducing the average working week to ensure both an 
acceptable standard of living <b>plus</b> time to enjoy it. So it is not 
a case that the current industrial system is something we need to keep. 
Few anarchists consider a social revolution as simply expropriating 
current industry and running it more or less as it is now. While 
expropriating the means of life is a necessary first step, it is only 
the start of a process in which we transform the way we interact with 
nature (which, of course, includes people).
</p><p>
To conclude, as Bradford summarises the <i>"salvation of the marvellous green 
planet, our Mother Earth, depends on the liberation of women -- and children, 
and men -- from social domination, exploitation and hierarchy. They must go 
together."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 68] By focusing attention away from the root causes 
of ecological and social disruption -- i.e. capitalism and hierarchy -- and 
onto their victims, the advocates of the "population myth" do a great favour 
to the system that creates mindless growth. Hence the population myth will 
obviously find favour with ruling elites, and this -- as opposed to any basis 
for the myth in scientific fact -- will ensure its continual re-appearance in
the media and education.
</p> 

</body>
</html>
anarchism 14.0-4 / usr / share / doc / anarchism / html / secE6.html
