/usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secI2.html

<html>
<head>

<title>I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?</title>

</head>

<body>

<h1>I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?</h1>

<p>
No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint" 
for a free society. <i>"Anarchism"</i>, as Rocker correctly stressed, 
<i>"is no patent solution for all human problems, no Utopia of 
a perfect social order, as it has so often been called, since on 
principle it rejects all absolute schemes and concepts. It does not 
believe in any absolute truth, or in definite final goals for human 
development, but in an unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements 
and human living conditions, which are always straining after higher 
forms of expression, and to which for this reason one can assign no 
definite terminus nor set any fixed goal."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>,
p. 15]
</p><p>
All we can do here is indicate those general features that we 
believe a free society <b>must</b> have in order to qualify 
as truly libertarian. For example, a society based on 
hierarchical management in the workplace (like capitalism) would 
not be libertarian and would soon see private or public states 
developing to protect the power of those at the top hierarchical 
positions. Beyond such general considerations, however, the 
specifics of how to structure a non-hierarchical society must 
remain open for discussion and experimentation:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse 
economic [and social] conditions, on the premise that these cannot 
imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty."</i> 
[D. A. de Santillan, <b>After the Revolution</b>, p. 95]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, our comments should not be regarded as a detailed plan but
rather a series of suggestions based on what anarchists have
traditionally advocated as an alternative to capitalism combined
with what has been tried in various social revolutions. Anarchists 
have always been reticent about spelling out their vision of the 
future in too much detail for it would be contrary to anarchist 
principles to be dogmatic about the precise forms the new society 
must take. Free people will create their own alternative 
institutions in response to conditions specific to their area as
well as their needs, desires and hopes and it would be presumptuous 
of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance. As 
Kropotkin argued, once expropriation of social wealth by the masses 
has been achieved <i>"then, after a period of groping, there
will necessarily arise a new system of organising production and
exchange . . . and that system will be a lot more attuned to
popular aspirations and the requirements of co-existence and 
mutual relations than any theory, however splendid, devised
by the thinking and imagination of reformers"</i>. This, however, 
did not stop him <i>"predicting right now that"</i> in some areas 
influenced by anarchists <i>"the foundations of the new organisation 
will be the free federation of producers' groups and the free 
federation of Communes and groups in independent Communes."</i> 
[<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 232]
</p><p>
This is because what we think now will influence the future just 
as real experience will influence and change how we think. Given
the libertarian critique of the state and capitalism, certain 
kinds of social organisation are implied. Thus, our recognition 
that wage-labour creates authoritarian social relationships and 
exploitation suggests a workplace in a free society can only be 
based on associated and co-operative labour (i.e., self-management). 
Similarly, given that the state is a centralised body which delegates
power upwards it is not hard to imagine that a free society would
have communal institutions which were federal and organised from
the bottom-up.
</p><p>
Moreover, given the ways in which our own unfree society has 
shaped our ways of thinking, it is probably impossible for us 
to imagine what new forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and 
creativity is unleashed by the removal of its present authoritarian 
fetters. Thus any attempts to paint a detailed picture of the future 
will be doomed to failure. Ultimately, anarchists think that <i>"the
new society should be organised with the direct participation
of all concerned, from the periphery to the centre, freely and
spontaneously, at the prompting of the sentiment of solidarity
and under pressure of the natural needs of society."</i> [E. Malatesta
and A. Hamon, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 2, p. 20]
</p><p>
Nevertheless, anarchists have been willing to specify some broad
principles indicating the general framework within which they expect 
the institutions of the new society to grow. It is important to 
emphasise that these principles are not the arbitrary creations of 
intellectuals in ivory towers. Rather, they are based on the actual 
political, social and economic structures that have arisen <b>spontaneously</b> 
whenever working class people have attempted to throw off their chains 
during eras of heightened revolutionary activity, such as the Paris 
Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and the 
Hungarian uprising of 1956, France in 1968, the Argentinean revolt 
against neo-liberalism in 2001, to name just a few. It is clear, 
from these examples, that federations of self-managed workers' 
councils and community assemblies appear repeatedly in such popular 
revolts as people attempt to manage their own destinies directly, both
economically and socially. While their names and specific organisational 
structures differ, these can be considered  basic libertarian socialist 
forms, since they have appeared during all revolutionary periods. 
Ultimately, such organisations are the only alternatives to political,
social and economic authority -- unless we make our own decisions 
ourselves, someone else will.
</p><p>
So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just an
attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no way an
attempt to determine <b>exactly</b> what a free society would be like, for 
such a free society will be the result of the actions of all of society, 
not just anarchists. As Malatesta argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"it is a question of freedom for everybody, freedom for each 
individual so long as he [or she] respects the equal freedom of
others."</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"None can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who 
is nearest to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the 
greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom, coupled by experience, 
is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there 
is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err."</i> 
[<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 49]
</blockquote></p><p>
And, of course, real life has a habit of over-turning even the
most realistic sounding theories, ideas and ideologies. Marxism, 
Leninism, Monetarism, laissez-faire capitalism (among others) have 
proven time and time again that ideology applied to real life has 
effects not predicted by the theory before hand (although in all 
four cases, their negative effects where predicted by others; in 
the case of Marxism and Leninism by anarchists). Anarchists are
aware of this, which is why we reject ideology in favour of theory
and why we are hesitant to create blue-prints for the future.
History has repeatedly proven Proudhon right when he stated that 
<i>"every society declines the moment it falls into the hands of the
ideologists."</i> [<b>System of Economical Contradictions</b>, p. 115]
</p><p>
Only life, as Bakunin stressed, can create and so life must
inform theory -- and so if the theory is producing adverse
results it is better to revise the theory than deny reality
or justify the evil effects it creates on real people. Thus
this section of the FAQ is not a blue print, rather it is a
series of suggestions (suggestions drawn, we stress, from 
actual experiences of working class revolt and organisation).
These suggestions may be right or wrong and informed by 
Malatesta's comments that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"We do not boast that we possess absolute truth, on the
contrary, we believe that <b>social truth</b> is not a fixed
quantity, good for all times, universally applicable or
determinable in advance, but that instead, once freedom
has been secured, mankind will go forward discovering and
acting gradually with the least number of upheavals and
with a minimum of friction. Thus our solutions always leave
the door open to different and, one hopes, better solutions."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p.21]
</blockquote></p><p>
It is for this reason that anarchists, to quote Bakunin,
think that the <i>"revolution should not only be made for
the people's sake; it should also be made by the people."</i> 
[<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 141] Social problems
will be solved in the interests of the working class only
if working class people solve them themselves. This applies
to a social revolution -- it will only liberate the working
class if working class people make it themselves, using 
their own organisations and power. Indeed, it is the course
of struggling for social change, to correct social problems,
by, say, strikes, occupations, demonstrations and other
forms of direct action, that people can transform their 
assumptions about what is possible, necessary and desirable. 
The necessity of organising their struggles and their 
actions ensures the development of assemblies and other
organs of popular power in order to manage their activity.
These create, potentially, an alternative means by which
society can be organised. As Kropotkin argued, <i>"[a]ny strike
trains the participants for a common management of affairs."</i>
[quoted by Caroline Cahm, <b>Kropotkin and the Rise of
Revolutionary Anarchism</b>, p. 233] The ability of people to 
manage their own lives, and so society, becomes increasingly
apparent and the existence of hierarchical authority,
the state, the boss or a ruling class, becomes clearly
undesirable and unnecessary. Thus the framework of the
free society will be created by the very process of class
struggle, as working class people create the organisations
required to fight for improvements and change within capitalism
(see <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>).
</p><p>
Thus, the <b>actual</b> framework of an anarchist society and how it
develops and shapes itself is dependent on the needs and desires
of those who live in such a society or are trying to create one.
This is why anarchists stress the need for mass assemblies in
both the community and workplace and their federation from the
bottom up to manage common affairs. Anarchy can only be created
by the active participation of the mass of people. In the words 
of Malatesta, an anarchist society would be based on <i>"decisions 
taken at popular assemblies and carried out by groups and 
individuals who have volunteered or are duly delegated."</i> The 
<i>"success of the revolution"</i> depends on <i>"a large number of 
individuals with initiative and the ability to tackle practical 
tasks: by accustoming the masses not to leave the common cause 
in the hands of a few, and to delegate, when delegation is 
necessary, only for specific missions and for limited duration."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 129] This self-management would be the
basis on which an anarchist society would change and develop,
with the new society created by those who live within it. 
Thus Bakunin:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and 
supreme control must always belong to people organised into 
a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations 
. . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary 
delegation."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 172]
</blockquote></p><p>
And, we must not forget that while we may be able to roughly
guess the way an anarchist society could start initially,
we cannot pretend to predict how it will develop in the long
term. A social revolution is just the beginning of a process 
of social transformation. Unfortunately, we have to start where 
we are now, not where we hope to end up! Therefore our discussion 
will, by necessity, reflect the current society as this is the
society we will be transforming. While, for some, this outlook 
may not be of a sufficient qualitative break with the world we 
now inhabit, it is essential. We need to offer and discuss 
suggestions for action in the <b>here and now</b>, not for some 
future pie in the sky world which can only possibly exist
years, even decades, <b>after</b> a successful revolution. 
</p><p>
For example, the ultimate goal of anarchism, we stress, is <b>not</b> 
the self-management of existing workplaces or industries within the
same industrial structure produced by capitalism. However, a revolution 
will undoubtedly see the occupation and placing under self-management 
much of existing industry and we start our discussion assuming a similar 
set-up as exists today. This does not mean that an anarchist society
will continue to be like this, we simply present the initial stages 
using examples we are all familiar with. It is simply the first stage of 
transforming industry into something more ecologically safe, socially 
integrated and individually and collectively empowering for people.
</p><p>
Some people <b>seriously</b> seem to think that after a social revolution 
working people will continue using the same technology, in the same old
workplaces, in the same old ways and not change a single thing (except, 
perhaps, electing their managers). They simply transfer their own lack 
of imagination onto the rest of humanity. For anarchists, it is 
<i>"certain, however, that, when they [the workers] find themselves their 
own masters, they will modify the old system to suit their convenience in 
a variety of ways . . . as common sense is likely to suggest to free men 
[and women]."</i> [Charlotte M. Wilson, <b>Anarchist Essays</b>, p. 23] So 
we have little doubt that working people will quickly transform their work, 
workplaces and society into one suitable for human beings, rejecting 
the legacy of capitalism and create a society we simply cannot predict. 
The occupying of workplaces is, we stress, simply the first stage of
the process of transforming them and the rest of society. These words 
of the strikers just before the 1919 Seattle General Strike expresses 
this perspective well:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Labour will not only SHUT DOWN the industries, but Labour 
will REOPEN, under the management of the appropriate trades, 
such activities as are needed to preserve public health and 
public peace. If the strike continues, Labour may feel led 
to avoid public suffering by reopening more and more activities, 
</p><p>
"UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT. 
</p><p>
"And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that 
leads -- NO ONE KNOWS WHERE!"</i> [quoted by Jeremy Brecher,
<b>Strike!</b>, p. 110]
</blockquote></p><p>
People's lives in a post-revolutionary society will not centre around 
fixed jobs and workplaces as they do now. Productive activity will
go on, but not in the alienated way it does today. Similarly, in
their communities people will apply their imaginations, skills and
hopes to transform them into better places to live (the beautification
of the commune, as the CNT put it). The first stage, of course, will
be to take over their existing communities and place them under
community control. Therefore, it is essential to remember that 
our discussion can only provide an indication on how an anarchist 
society will operate in the months and years after a successful 
revolution, an anarchist society still marked by the legacy of 
capitalism. However, it would be a great mistake to think that 
anarchists do not seek to transform all aspects of society to 
eliminate that legacy and create a society fit for unique 
individuals to live in. As an anarchist society develops it
will, we stress, transform society in ways we cannot guess at
now, based on the talents, hopes, dreams and imaginations of 
those living in it.
</p><p>
Lastly, it could be argued that we spend too much time discussing 
the <i>"form"</i> (i.e. the types of organisation and how they make 
decisions) rather than the <i>"content"</i> of an anarchist society 
(the nature of the decisions reached). Moreover, the implication 
of this distinction also extends to the organisations created in 
the class struggle that would, in all likelihood, become the 
framework of a free society. However, form is as, perhaps more, 
important than content. This is because <i>"form"</i> and <i>"content"</i> are 
inter-related -- a libertarian, participatory <i>"form"</i> of organisation 
allows the <i>"content"</i> of a decision, society or struggle to change. 
Self-management has an educational effect on those involved, as they 
are made aware of different ideas, think about them and decide between 
them (and, of course, formulate and present their own ones). Thus the 
nature of these decisions can and will evolve. Thus form has a decisive 
impact on <i>"content"</i> and so we make no apologies for discussing the
form of a free society. As Murray Bookchin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"To assume that the forms of freedom can be treated merely as forms
would be as absurd as to assume that legal concepts can be treated
merely as questions of jurisprudence. The form and content of
freedom, like law and society, are mutually determined. By the 
same token, there are forms of organisation that promote and
forms that vitiate the goal of freedom . . . To one degree or
another, these forms either alter the individual who uses them
or inhibit his [or her] further development."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity
Anarchism</b>, p. 89]
</blockquote></p><p>
And the <b>content</b> of decisions are determined by the individuals
involved. Thus participatory, decentralised, self-managed organisations
are essential for the development of the content of decisions because
they develop the individuals who make them.
</p>

<a name="seci21"><h2>I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?</h2></a>

<p>
Partly, in order to indicate why people should become anarchists. Most
people do not like making jumps in the dark, so an indication of what
anarchists think a desirable society could look like may help those 
people who are attracted to anarchism, inspiring them to become committed 
to its practical realisation. Partly, it's a case of learning from past 
mistakes. There have been numerous anarchistic social experiments on 
varying scales, and its useful to understand what happened, what worked 
and what did not. In that way, hopefully, we will not make the same 
mistakes twice. 
</p><p>
However, the most important reason for discussing what an anarchist
society would look like is to ensure that the creation of such a 
society is the action of as many people as possible. As Errico Malatesta 
indicated in the middle of the Italian revolutionary <i>"Two Red Years"</i> 
(see <a href="secA5.html#seca55">section A.5.5</a>), 
<i>"either we all apply our minds to thinking about 
social reorganisation, and right away, at the very same moment that 
the old structures are being swept away, and we shall have a more 
humane and more just society, open to future advances, or we shall 
leave such matters to the 'leaders' and we shall have a new government."</i> 
[<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 69] 
</p><p>
Hence the importance of discussing what the future will be like in the
here and now. The more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free
society would look like the easier it will be to create that society and
ensure that no important matters are left to others to decide for
us. The example of the Spanish Revolution comes to mind. For many years
before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications discussing what an
anarchist society would look like (for example, <b>After the Revolution</b> 
by Diego Abel de Santillan and <b>Libertarian Communism</b> by Isaac Puente),
the end product of libertarians organising and educating in Spain for almost
seventy years before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the millions 
of people who participated already shared a similar vision and started to 
build a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where their books were 
wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately cover. 
</p><p>
So, this discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is 
not a drawing up of blueprints, nor is it an attempt to force the future 
into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an 
attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like 
and to learn from previous experiments. However, as anarchists recognise 
the importance of building the new world in the shell of the old, our 
ideas of what a free society would be like can feed into how we organise 
and struggle today. And vice versa; for how we organise and struggle today
will have an impact on the future.
</p><p>
As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,
for it is <i>"absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed
and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'
without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what has 
to be done and who immediately set about doing it"</i> for <i>"social 
life, as the life of individuals, does not permit of interruption."</i> 
He stressed that to <i>"neglect all the problems of reconstruction or 
to pre-arrange complete and uniform plans are both errors, excesses 
which, by different routes, would led to our defeat as anarchists and 
to the victory of new or old authoritarian regime. The truth lies in 
the middle."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 121] 
</p><p>
Moreover, the importance of discussing the future can help indicate
whether our activities are actually creating a better world. After all,
if Karl Marx had been more willing to discuss his vision of a socialist
society then the Stalinists would have found it much harder to claim
that their hellish system was, in fact, socialism. Given that anarchists 
like Proudhon and Bakunin gave a board outline of their vision of a free 
society it would have been impossible for anarchism to be twisted as 
Marxism was. Most anarchists would agree with Chomsky's evaluation of 
the issue:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"A movement of the left should distinguish with clarity between
its long-range revolutionary aims and certain more immediate effects
it can hope to achieve . . . 
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote>
"But in the long run, a movement of the left has no chance of success,
and deserves none, unless it develops an understanding of contemporary
society and a vision of a future social order that is persuasive to a
large majority of the population. Its goals and organisational forms 
must take shape through their active participation in political struggle
[in its widest sense] and social reconstruction. A genuine radical
culture can be created only through the spiritual transformation of
great masses of people the essential feature of any social revolution
that is to extend the possibilities for human creativity and freedom 
. . . The cultural and intellectual level of any serious radical
movement will have to be far higher than in the past . . . It will
not be able to satisfy itself with a litany of forms of oppression 
and injustice. It will need to provide compelling answers to the 
question of how these evils can be overcome by revolution or 
large-scale reform. To accomplish this aim, the left will have to
achieve and maintain a position of honesty and commitment to libertarian
values."</i> [<b>Radical Priorities</b>, pp. 189-90]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
We hope that this section of the FAQ, in its own small way, will encourage
as many people as possible to discuss what a libertarian society would be
like and use that discussion to bring it closer. 
</p>

<a name="seci22"><h2>I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from capitalism?</h2></a>

<p>
Possibly, it depends what is meant by an anarchist society. 
</p><p>
If it is meant a fully classless society (what some people, 
inaccurately, would call a "utopia") then the answer is a clear 
<i>"no, that would be impossible."</i> Anarchists are well aware that 
<i>"class difference do not vanish at the stroke of a pen whether
that pen belongs to the theoreticians or to the pen-pushers who 
set out laws or decrees. Only action, that is to say direct action 
(not through government) expropriation by the proletarians, 
directed against the privileged class, can wipe out class 
difference."</i> [Luigi Fabbri, <i>"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"</i>, 
pp. 13-49,  <b>The Poverty of Statism</b>, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), 
p. 30] 
</p><p>
As we discussed in <a href="secH2.html#sech25">section H.2.5</a>, 
few anarchists consider it likely that a perfectly functioning 
libertarian communist society would be the immediate effect of
a social revolution. For anarchists a social revolution is a 
<b>process</b> and not an event (although, of course, a process 
marked by such events as general strikes, uprisings, insurrections 
and so on). As Kropotkin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps 
five years  that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution 
in the property system and in social organisation."</i> 
[<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 72]
</blockquote></p><p>
His famous work <b>The Conquest of Bread</b> aimed, to use his words, at 
<i>"prov[ing] that communism -- at least partial -- has more chance of
being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking the 
lead"</i> and tried <i>"to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, 
a large city -- if its inhabitants have accepted the idea -- could 
organise itself on the lines of free communism."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
p. 298] The revolution, in other words, would progress towards communism 
after the initial revolt:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"we know that an <b>uprising</b> can overthrow and change a government
in one day, while a <b>revolution</b> needs three or four years of
revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results . . . if we should 
expect the revolution, from its <b>earliest</b> insurrections, to have a 
communist character, we would have to relinquish the possibility of a 
revolution, since in that case there would be need of a strong majority 
to agree on carrying through a change in the direction of communism."</i> 
[Kropotkin, quoted by Max Nettlau, <b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, 
pp. 282-3]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition, different areas will develop in different speeds and 
in different ways, depending on the influences dominant in the 
area. <i>"Side by side with the revolutionised communes,"</i> argued 
Kropotkin, other areas <i>"would remain in an expectant attitude, 
and would go on living on the Individualist system . . . revolution 
would break out everywhere, but revolution under different aspects; 
in one country State Socialism, in another Federation; everywhere 
more or less Socialism, not conforming to any particular rule."</i> 
Thus <i>"the Revolution will take a different character in each of 
the different European nations; the point attained in the 
socialisation of wealth will not be everywhere the same."</i> 
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, pp. 81-2 and p. 81] 
</p><p>
Kropotkin was also aware that a revolution would face many problems, 
including the disruption of economic activity, civil war and isolation. 
He argued that it was <i>"certain that the coming Revolution . . . will 
burst upon us in the middle of a great industrial crisis . . . There 
are millions of unemployed workers in Europe at this moment. It will 
be worse when Revolution has burst upon us . . . The number of the 
out-of-works will be doubled as soon as barricades are erected in Europe 
and the United States . . . we know that in time of Revolution exchange 
and industry suffer most from the general upheaval . . . A Revolution in 
Europe means, then, the unavoidable stoppage of at least half the 
factories and workshops."</i> He stressed that there would be <i>"the 
complete disorganisation"</i> of the capitalist economy and that during 
a revolution <i>"[i]nternational commerce will come to a standstill"</i> 
and <i>"the circulation of commodities and of provisions will be 
paralysed."</i> This would, of course, have an impact on the development 
of a revolution and so the <i>"circumstances will dictate the measures."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 69-70, p. 191 and p. 79]
</p><p>
Thus we have anarcho-communism being introduced <i>"during a revolutionary 
period"</i> rather than instantly and the possibility that it will be 
<i>"partial"</i> in many, if not all areas, depending on the 
<i>"circumstances"</i> encountered. Therefore the (Marxist inspired) 
claim that anarchists think a fully communist society is possible overnight 
is simply false -- we recognise that a social revolution takes time to 
develop after it starts. As Malatesta put it, <i>"after the revolution, 
that is after the defeat of the existing powers and the overwhelming
victory of the forces of insurrection"</i> then <i>"gradualism really 
comes into operation. We shall have to study all the practical problems 
of life: production, exchange, the means of communication, relations 
between anarchist groupings and those living under some kind of authority, 
between communist collectives and those living in an individualistic
way; relations between town and country . . . and so on."</i> 
[<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 173] In other words,
<i>"each community will decide for itself during the transition
period the method they deem best for the distribution of the
products of associated labour."</i> [James Guillaume, <i>"On 
Building the New Social Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on 
Anarchism</b>, p. 362]
</p><p>
However, if by "anarchist society" it is meant a society that has
abolished the state and started the process of transforming society from 
below then anarchists argue that such a society is not only possible 
after a successful revolution, it is essential. Thus the anarchist social 
revolution would be political (abolition of the state), economic (abolition 
of capitalism) and social (abolition of hierarchical social relationships). 
Or, more positively, the introduction of self-management into every aspect 
of life. In other words, <i>"political transformation"</i> and <i>"economic 
transformation"</i> must be <i>"accomplished together and simultaneously."</i> 
[Bakunin, <b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 106] This transformation would be 
based upon the organisations created by working class people in their 
struggle against capitalism and the state (see 
<a href="secI2.html#seci23">next section</a>). 
Thus the framework of a free society would be created by the struggle for 
freedom itself, by the class struggle <b>within</b> but <b>against</b> 
hierarchical society. This revolution would come <b><i>"from below"</i></b> 
and would expropriate capital as well as smash the state 
(see <a href="secH2.html#sech24">section H.2.4</a>). Such a society, 
as Bakunin argued, will not be "perfect" by any means:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised 
from the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,
confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced that 
what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands times 
better and more just than any existing organisation. Moreover, this 
. . . organisation, being on the one hand open to revolutionary 
propaganda . . . , and on the other, not petrified by the intervention 
of the State . . . will develop and perfect itself through free 
experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect in our times.
</p><p>
"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation
of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development
of each commune will take its point of departure the actual
condition of its civilisation."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>,
p. 207]
</blockquote></p><p>
How far such a new social organisation will meet the all the ideals 
and hopes of communist-anarchists will vary according to objective 
circumstances and the influence of libertarian theory. As people
start to liberate themselves they will under go an ethical and 
psychological transformation as they act to the end specific  
hierarchical social structures and relationships. It does not imply
that people need to be "perfect" nor that a perfect anarchist society 
will come about "overnight. Rather, it means that while an anarchist
society (i.e., one without a state or private property) would be 
created by revolution, it will be one initially marked by the society 
it came from and would require a period of self-activity by which 
individuals reshape and change themselves as they are reshaping and 
changing the world about them. Thus Malatesta:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"And even after a successful insurrection, could we overnight
realise all desires and pass from a governmental and capitalist 
hell to a libertarian-communist heaven which is the complete
freedom of man within the wished-for community of interests 
with all men?</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"These are illusions which can take root among authoritarians
who look upon the masses as the raw material which those who have
power can, by decrees, supported by bullets and handcuffs, mould
to their will. But these illusions have not taken among anarchists.
We need the people's consensus, and therefore we must persuade by
means of propaganda and example . . . to win over to our ideas an
ever greater number of people."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 82-3]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
So, clearly, the idea of a "one-day revolution" is one rejected as a 
harmful fallacy by anarchists. We are aware that revolutions are a 
<b>process</b> and not an event (or series of events). However, one thing 
that anarchists do agree on is that it is essential for both the state 
and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is true 
that, in the course of social revolution, we anarchists may not be 
able to stop a new state being created or the old one from surviving. 
It all depends on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the 
population and how willing people are to introduce them. There is no 
doubt, though, that for a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the 
state and capitalism must be destroyed and new forms of oppression 
and exploitation not put in their place. How quickly after such a 
destruction we move to a fully communist-anarchist society is a moot 
point, dependent on the conditions the revolution is facing and the 
ideas and wants of the people making it.
</p><p>
So the degree which a society which has abolished the state can
progress towards free communism depends on objective conditions
and what a free people want. Bakunin and other collectivists 
doubted the possibility of introducing a communistic system 
instantly after a revolution. For Kropotkin and many other 
anarcho-communists, communistic anarchy can, and must, be 
introduced as far as possible and as soon as possible in order 
to ensure a successful revolution. We should mention here that 
some anarchists, like the individualists and mutualists, do not 
support the idea of revolution and instead see anarchist alternatives 
growing within capitalism and slowly replacing it.
</p><p>
In other words anarchists agree that an anarchist society cannot be
created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists
could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian socialism
can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand it,
organising and liberating themselves. <i>"Communist organisations,"</i> 
argued Kropotkin, <i>"must be the work of all, a natural growth, a 
product of the constructive genius of the great mass. Communism cannot 
be imposed from above; it could not live even for a few months if the 
constant and daily co-operation of all did not uphold it. It must be 
free."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 140] The results of the Russian 
Revolution should have cleared away long ago any contrary illusions 
about how to create "socialist" societies. The lesson from every 
revolution is that the mistakes made by people in liberating 
themselves and transforming society are always minor compared to the 
results of creating authorities, who eliminate such "ideological errors" 
by destroying the freedom to make mistakes (and so freedom as such). 
Freedom is the only real basis on which socialism can be built 
(<i>"Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the 
truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not 
the freedom to be wrong."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 72]).
Therefore, most anarchists would agree with Malatesta:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"To organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it would 
be necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as methods of
production, of exchange and consumption; and all this could not be
achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted
and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages could be
gained and were able to act for themselves."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 36] 
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This means that while the conditions necessary of a free society would 
be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be utopian
to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. Few anarchists
have argued that such a jump would be possible -- rather they have
argued that revolutions create the conditions for the evolution towards
an anarchist society by abolishing state and capitalism. <i>"Besides,"</i> 
argued Alexander Berkman, <i>"you must not confuse the social revolution 
with anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is a violent upheaval; 
anarchy is a social condition of freedom and peace. The revolution is 
the <b>means</b> of bringing anarchy about but it is not anarchy itself. 
It is to pave the road to anarchy, to establish conditions which will 
make a life of liberty possible."</i> However, <i>"to achieve its 
purpose the revolution must be imbued with and directed by the 
anarchist spirit and ideas. The end shapes the means . . . the social 
revolution must be anarchist in method as in aim."</i> [<b>What is 
Anarchism?</b>, p. 231] 
</p><p>
This means that while acknowledging the possibility of a transitional 
<b>society</b>, anarchists reject the notion of a transitional <b>state</b> 
as confused in the extreme (and, as can be seen from the experience of 
Marxism, dangerous as well). An anarchist society can only be achieved 
by anarchist means. Hence French Syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier's 
comments:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Nobody believes or expects that the coming revolution . . . will
realise unadulterated anarchist-communism. . . it will erupt, no
doubt, before the work of anarchist education has been completed . . .
[and as] a result . . . , while we do preach perfect communism,
it is not in the certainty or expectation of [libertarian] communism's 
being the social form of the future: it is in order to further men's
[and women's] education . . . so that, by the time of the day of
conflagration comes, they will have attained maximum emancipation.
But must the transitional state to be endured necessarily or
inevitability be the collectivist [i.e. state socialist/capitalist]
jail? Might it not consist of libertarian organisation confined
to the needs of production and consumption alone, with all political
institutions having been done away with?"</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>,
vol. 2, p. 55]
</blockquote></p><p>
One thing <b>is</b> certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass movement
will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists 
to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to 
face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo. An anarchist 
revolution or mass movement will face (and indeed has faced) such 
counter-revolutionary movements. However, this does not mean that the 
destruction of the state and capitalism need be put off until after the 
forces of reaction are defeated. For anarchists, a social revolution and 
free society can only be defended by anti-statist means (for more 
discussion of this important subject see 
<a href="secJ7.html#secj76">section J.7.6</a>).
</p><p>
So, given an anarchist revolution which destroys the state, the type 
and nature of the economic system created by it will depend on local
circumstances and the level of awareness in society. The individualists
are correct in the sense that what we do now will determine how the 
future develops. Obviously, any "transition period" starts in the 
<b>here and now,</b> as this helps determine the future. Thus, while 
social anarchists usually reject the idea that capitalism can be 
reformed away, we agree with the individualist and mutualist 
anarchists that it is essential for anarchists to be active today in
constructing the ideas, ideals and new liberatory institutions of the
future society within the current one. The notion of waiting for the
"glorious day" of total revolution is not one held by anarchists -- 
just like the notion that we expect a perfect communist-anarchist society
to emerge the day after a successful revolution. Neither position 
reflects anarchist ideas on social change.
</p>

<a name="seci23"><h2>I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarchists do not abstractly compare a free society with the
current one. Rather, we see an <b>organic</b> connection between
what is and what could be. In other words, anarchists see the
initial framework of an anarchist society as being created
under statism and capitalism when working class people 
organise themselves to resist hierarchy. As Kropotkin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"To make a revolution it is not . . . enough that there should 
be . . . [popular] risings . . . It is necessary that after the 
risings there should be something new in the institutions [that
make up society], which would permit new forms of life to be 
elaborated and established."</i> [<b>The Great French Revolution</b>,
vol. 1, p. 200]
</blockquote></p><p>
Anarchists have seen these new institutions as being linked with 
the need of working class people to resist the evils of hierarchy, 
capitalism and statism, as being the product of the class struggle 
and attempts by working class people to resist authority, oppression 
and exploitation. Thus the struggle of working class people to 
protect and enhance their liberty under hierarchical society 
will be the basis for a society <b>without</b> hierarchy. This 
basic insight allowed anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon to predict 
future developments in the class struggle such as workers' councils 
(such as those which developed during the 1905 and 1917 Russian 
Revolutions). As Oskar Anweiler notes in his definitive work on the 
Russian Soviets (Workers' Councils):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Proudhon's views are often directly associated with the
Russian councils . . . Bakunin . . ., much more than
Proudhon, linked anarchist principles directly to
revolutionary action, thus arriving at remarkable 
insights into the revolutionary process that contribute
to an understanding of later events in Russia . . .
</p><p>
"In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas 
as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in 
the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my 
political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political 
federation or decentralisation.' . . . Proudhon's conception 
of a self-governing state [sic!] founded on producers'
corporations [i.e. federations of co-operatives], is
certainly related to the idea of 'a democracy of
producers' which emerged in the factory soviets. To
this extent Proudhon can be regarded as an ideological
precursor of the councils . . . 
</p><p>
"Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary 
committees with representatives from the barricades, the 
streets, and the city districts, who would be given binding 
mandates, held accountable to the masses, and subject to 
recall. These revolutionary deputies were to form the 
'federation of the barricades,' organising a revolutionary 
commune to immediately unite with other centres of 
rebellion . . . 
</p><p>
"Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees
to elect communal councils, and a pyramidal organisation
of society 'through free federation from the bottom upward,
the association of workers in industry and agriculture --
first in the communities, then through federation of 
communities into districts, districts into nations, and
nations into international brotherhood.' These proposals 
are indeed strikingly similar to the structure of the
subsequent Russian system of councils . . .
</p><p>
"Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the
revolution and the masses' capacity for elementary
organisation undoubtedly were echoed in part by the
subsequent soviet movement. . . Because Bakunin . . .
was always very close to the reality of social struggle,
he was able to foresee concrete aspects of the revolution.
The council movement during the Russian Revolution,
though not a result of Bakunin's theories, often
corresponded in form and progress to his revolutionary
concepts and predictions."</i> [<b>The Soviets</b>, pp. 8-11]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
<i>"As early as the 1860's and 1870's,"</i> Paul Avrich also noted,
<i>"the followers of Proudhon and Bakunin in the First International 
were proposing the formation of workers' councils designed both as 
a weapon of class struggle against capitalists and as the structural 
basis of the future libertarian society."</i> [<b>The Russian 
Anarchists</b>, p. 73]
</p><p>
In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal but rather an aspect of 
the current struggles against domination, oppression and exploitation 
(i.e. the class struggle, to use an all-embracing term, although we must 
stress that anarchists use this term to cover all struggles against 
domination). <i>"Anarchism,"</i> argued Kropotkin, <i>"is not a mere 
insight into a remote future. Already now, whatever the sphere of action 
of the individual, he [or she] can act, either in accordance with anarchist 
principles or on an opposite line."</i> It was <i>"born among the people 
-- in the struggles of real life"</i> and <i>"owes its origin to the 
constructive, creative activity of the people."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
p. 75, p. 150 and p. 149] Thus, <i>"Anarchism is not . . . a theory 
of the future to be realised by divine inspiration. It is a living force 
in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions."</i> It 
<i>"stands for the spirit of revolt"</i> and so <i>"[d]irect action 
against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority 
of the law, of direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority 
of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism."</i> 
[Emma Goldman, <b>Anarchism and Other Essays</b>, p. 63 and p. 66]
</p><p>
Anarchism draws upon the autonomous self-activity and spontaneity 
of working class people in struggle to inform both its political 
theory and its vision of a free society. The struggle against 
hierarchy teaches us not only how to be anarchists but also gives 
us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be like, what its 
initial framework could be and the experience of managing our own 
activities which is required for such a society to function successfully. 
</p><p>
Therefore, as is clear, anarchists have long had a clear
vision of what an anarchist society would look like and,
equally as important, where such a society would spring
from (as we proved in
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a> Lenin's assertion
that anarchists <i>"have absolutely no clear idea of <b>what</b> 
the proletariat will put in its [the states] place"</i> is simply 
false). It would, therefore, be useful to give a quick summary
of anarchist views on this subject.
</p><p>
Proudhon, for example, looked to the self-activity of French workers, 
artisans and peasants and used that as the basis of his ideas on 
anarchism. While seeing such activity as essentially reformist in 
nature, like subsequent revolutionary anarchists he saw the germs 
of anarchy <i>"generating from the bowels of the people, from the 
depths of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which 
shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate them"</i> as 
<i>"it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce 
some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial 
combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler 
of society, shall become its slave."</i> [<b>System of Economical
Contradictions</b>, p. 399 and p. 398] Workers should follow the 
example of those already creating co-operatives:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Do not the workmen's unions at this moment serve as the
cradle for the social revolution . . . ? Are they not always 
the open school, both theoretical and practical, where the 
workman learns the science of the production and distribution 
of wealth, where he studies, without masters and without books, 
by his own experience solely, the laws of . . . industrial 
organisation . . . ?"</i> [<b>General Idea of the Revolution</b>, 
p. 78] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Attempts to form workers associations, therefore, <i>"should be 
judged, not by the more or less successful results which they 
obtain, but only according to their silent tendency to assert 
and establish the social republic."</i> The <i>"importance of 
their work lies, not in their petty union interests, but in their 
denial of the rule of capitalists, money lenders and governments."</i> 
They <i>"should take over the great departments of industry, which 
are their natural inheritance."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 98-9]
</p><p>
This linking of the present and the future through the
self-activity and self-organisation of working class people
is also found in Bakunin. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin stressed
<b>revolutionary</b> activity and so he saw the militant labour 
movement, and the revolution itself, as providing the basic
structure of a free society. As he put it, <i>"the organisation 
of the trade sections and their representation in the Chambers 
of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new 
society which is to replace the old one. They are creating not
only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself."</i> 
[<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 255]
</p><p>
The needs of the class struggle would create the framework of 
a new society, a federation of workers councils, as <i>"strikes 
indicate a certain collective strength already, a certain 
understanding among the workers . . . each strike becomes 
the point of departure for the formation of new groups."</i> 
[<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, pp. 149-50] This pre-revolutionary
development would be accelerated by the revolution itself:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"the revolution must set out from the first to radically
and totally destroy the State . . . The natural and necessary 
consequence of this destruction will be . . . [among others, 
the] dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police 
and priesthood. . . confiscation of all productive capital 
and means of production on behalf of workers' associations, 
who are to put them to use . . . the federative Alliance 
of all working men's associations . . . [will] constitute 
the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will be] composed 
of . . . delegates  . . . vested with plenary but accountable 
and removable mandates. . . all provinces, communes and 
associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines 
. . . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations, 
communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force 
capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . . 
[The] revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and 
supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a 
free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . 
organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary 
delegation."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, 
pp. 170-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Like Bakunin, Kropotkin stressed that revolution transformed
those taking part in it. As he noted in his classic account
of the French Revolution, <i>"by degrees, the revolutionary
education of the people was being accomplished by the revolution 
itself."</i> Part of this process involved creating new organisations 
which allowed the mass of people to take part in the decision
making of the revolution. He pointed to <i>"the popular Commune,"</i> 
arguing that <i>"the Revolution began by creating the Commune . . . 
and through this institution it gained . . . immense power."</i> 
He stressed that it was <i>"by means of the 'districts' [of the 
Communes] that . . . the masses, accustoming themselves to 
act without receiving orders from the national representatives, 
were practising what was to be described later as Direct
Self-Government."</i> Such a system did not imply isolation,
for while <i>"the districts strove to maintain their own 
independence"</i> they also <i>"sought for unity of action,
not in subjection to a Central Committee, but in a federative 
union."</i> The Commune <i>"was thus made <b>from below
upward</b>, by the federation of the district organisations;
it spring up in a revolutionary way, from popular initiative."</i> 
Thus the process of class struggle, of the needs of the 
fighting against the existing system, generated the framework 
of an anarchist society for <i>"the districts of Paris laid the 
foundations of a new, free, social organisation."</i> Little wonder 
he argued that <i>"the principles of anarchism . . . already dated 
from 1789, and that they had their origin, not in theoretical 
speculations, but in the <b>deeds</b> of the Great French Revolution"</i> 
and that <i>"the libertarians would no doubt do the same to-day."</i> 
[<b>The Great French Revolution</b>, vol. 1, p. 261, p. 200, p. 203, 
p. 206, p. 204 and p. 206] 
</p><p>
Similarly, as we noted in <a href="secH2.html#sech26">section H.2.6</a>
we discover him arguing in <b>Mutual Aid</b> that strikes and labour 
unions were an expression of mutual aid in capitalist society. Elsewhere, 
Kropotkin argued that <i>"labour combinations"</i> like the <i>"Sections"</i> 
of French revolution were one of the <i>"main popular anarchist currents"</i> 
in history, expressing the <i>"same popular resistance to the growing power 
of the few."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 159] For Kropotkin, like Bakunin, 
libertarian labour unions were <i>"natural organs for the direct struggle 
with capitalism and for the composition of the future social order."</i> 
[quoted by Paul Avrich, <b>The Russian Anarchists</b>, p. 81] 
</p><p>
As can be seen, the major anarchist thinkers pointed to
forms of organisation autonomously created and managed by
the working class as the framework of an anarchist society.
Both Bakunin and Kropotkin pointed to militant, direct
action based labour unions while Proudhon pointed towards
workers' experiments in co-operative production and mutual
credit. Later anarchists followed them. The anarcho-syndicalists,
like Bakunin and Kropotkin, pointed to the developing labour 
movement as the framework of an anarchist society, as providing 
the basis for the free federation of workers' associations 
which would constitute the commune. Others, such as the Russians 
Maximov, Arshinov, Voline and Makhno, saw the spontaneously 
created workers' councils (soviets) of 1905 and 1917 as the 
basis of a free society, as another example of Bakunin's 
federation of workers' associations. 
</p><p>
Thus, for all anarchists, the structural framework of an
anarchist society was created by the class struggle, by
the needs of working class people to resist oppression,
exploitation and hierarchy. As Kropotkin stressed, 
<i>"[d]uring a revolution new forms of life will always 
germinate on the ruins of the old forms . . . It is 
impossible to legislate for the future. All we can 
do is vaguely guess its essential tendencies and clear 
the road for it."</i> [<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, 
pp. 101-2] These essential tendencies were discovered, in 
practice, by the needs of the class struggle. The necessity 
of practising mutual aid and solidarity to survive under 
capitalism (as in any other hostile environment) makes 
working people and other oppressed groups organise together to 
fight their oppressors and exploiters. Thus the co-operation 
necessary for a libertarian socialist society, like its 
organisational framework, would be generated by the need to 
resist oppression and exploitation under capitalism. The 
process of resistance produces organisation on a wider and 
wider scale which, in turn, can become the framework of a free 
society as the needs of the struggle promote libertarian forms 
of organisation such as decision making from the bottom
up, autonomy, federalism, mandated delegates subject to instant
recall and so on. 
</p><p>
For example, a strikers' assembly would be the basic 
decision-making forum in a struggle for improved wages 
and working conditions. It would create a strike committee 
to implement its decisions and send delegates to spread the 
strike. These delegates inspire other strikes, requiring
a new organisation to co-ordinate the struggle. This 
results in delegates from all the strikes meeting and 
forming a federation (a workers' council). The
strikers decide to occupy the workplace and the strike 
assemblies take over the means of production. The strike
committees become the basis for factory committees which
could administer the workplaces, based on workers'
self-management via workplace assemblies (the former
strikers' assemblies). The federation of strikers' delegates
becomes the local communal council, replacing the existing
state with a self-managed federation of workers' associations.
In this way, the class struggle creates the framework of
a free society.
</p><p>
This, obviously, means that any suggestions of how an anarchist
society would look like are based on the fact that the <i><b>actual</b></i> 
framework of a free society will be the product of <i><b>actual</b></i> 
struggles. This means that the form of the free society will 
be shaped by the process of social change and the organs 
it creates. This is an important point and worth repeating.
</p><p>
So, as well as changing themselves while they change the world,
a people in struggle also create the means by which they
can manage society. By having to organise and manage their 
struggles, they become accustomed to self-management and 
self-activity and create the possibility of a free society 
and the organisations which will exist within it. Anarchy is
not a jump into the dark but rather a natural progression
of the struggle for freedom in an unfree society. The
contours of a free society will be shaped by the process
of creating it and, therefore, will not be an artificial
construction imposed on society. Rather, it will be created
from below up by society itself as working class people
start to break free of hierarchy. The class struggle thus
transforms those involved as well as society <b>and</b> creates
the organisational structure and people required for a
libertarian society.
</p><p>
This clearly suggests that the <b>means</b> anarchists support
are important as they are have a direct impact on the ends
they create. In other words, means influence ends and so
our means must reflect the ends we seek and empower those
who use them. As the present state of affairs is based on the 
oppression, exploitation and alienation of the working class, 
any tactics used in the pursuit of a free society must be based 
on resisting and destroying those evils. This is why anarchists 
stress tactics and organisations which increase the power, 
confidence, autonomy, initiative, participation and self-activity 
of oppressed people. As we indicate in section J 
(<a href="secJcon.html"><i>"What Do Anarchists Do?"</i></a>) this
means supporting direct action, solidarity and self-managed 
organisations built and run from the bottom-up. Only by
fighting our own battles, relying on ourselves and our own
abilities and power, in organisations we create and run 
ourselves, can we gain the power and confidence and experience 
needed to change society for the better and, hopefully, create 
a new society in place of the current one.
</p><p>
Needless to say, a revolutionary movement will never, at
its start, be purely anarchist:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"All of the workers' and peasants' movements which have
taken place . . . have been movements within the limits
of the capitalist regime, and have been more of less
tinged with anarchism. This is perfectly natural and
understandable. The working class do not act within a
world of wishes, but in the real world where they are
daily subjected to the physical and psychological blows
of hostile forces . . . the workers continually feel
the influence of all the real conditions of the
capitalist regime and of intermediate groups . . . 
Consequently it is natural that the struggle which
they undertake inevitably carries the stamp of various
conditions and characteristics of contemporary society.
The struggle can never be born in the finished and
perfected anarchist form which would correspond to
all the requirements of the ideas . . . When the
popular masses engage in a struggle of large dimensions,
they inevitably start by committing errors, they
allow contradictions and deviations, and only through
the process of this struggle do they direct their 
efforts in the direction of the ideal for which they
are struggling."</i> [Peter Arshinov, <b>The History of
the Makhnovist Movement</b>, pp. 239-40]
</blockquote></p><p>
The role of anarchists is <i>"to help the masses to take
the right road in the struggle and in the construction
of the new society"</i> and <i>"support their first constructive
efforts, assist them intellectually."</i> However, the 
working class <i>"once it has mastered the struggle and
begins its social construction, will no longer surrender
to anyone the initiative in creative work. The working
class will then direct itself by its own thought; it
will create its society according to its own plans."</i> 
[Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 240-1] All anarchists can do 
is help this process by being part of it, arguing our 
case and winning people over to anarchist ideas (see 
<a href="secJ3.html">section J.3</a> for more details). Thus 
the process of struggle and debate will, hopefully, turn a 
struggle <b>against</b> capitalism and statism into one <b>for</b> 
anarchism. In other words, anarchists seek to preserve and 
extend the anarchistic elements that exist in every struggle 
and to help them become consciously libertarian by discussion 
and debate as members of those struggles.
</p><p>
Lastly, we must stress that it is only the <b>initial</b> framework
of a free society which is created in the class struggle. As
an anarchist society develops, it will start to change and
develop in ways we cannot predict. The forms in which people
express their freedom and their control over their own lives
will, by necessity, change as these requirements and needs
change. As Bakunin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Even the most rational and profound science cannot divine
the form social life will take in the future. It can only
determine the <b>negative</b> conditions, which follow logically
from a rigorous critique of existing society. Thus, by means
of such a critique, social and economic science rejected
hereditary individual property and, consequently, took the
abstract and, so to speak, <b>negative</b> position of collective
property as a necessary condition of the future social 
order. In the same way, it rejected the very idea of the
state or statism, meaning government of society from above
downward . . . Therefore, it took the opposite, or 
negative, position: anarchy, meaning the free and 
independent organisation of all the units and parts of
the community and their voluntary federation from below
upward, not by the orders of any authority, even an
elected one, and not by the dictates of any scientific
theory, but as the natural development of all the
varied demands put forth by life itself.
</p><p>
"Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define
for himself how they will and must live on the morrow of
the social revolution. That will be determined first by
the situation of each people, and secondly  by the desires
that manifest themselves and operate most strongly within
them."</i> [<b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, pp. 198-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
So while it will be reasonable to conclude that, for
example, the federation of strike/factory assemblies and their
councils/committees will be the framework by which production
will initially be organised, this framework will mutate to
take into account changing production and social needs. The
actual structures created will, by necessity, be transformed 
as industry is transformed from below upwards to meet the real 
needs of society and producers as both the structure and nature 
of work and industry developed under capitalism bears the 
marks of its economic class, hierarchies and power (<i>"a radical 
social ecology not only raises traditional issues such as the 
reunion of agriculture with industry, but also questions the
very structure of industry itself."</i> [Murray Bookchin,
<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 408]). Therefore, under workers' 
self-management industry, work and the whole structure and 
organisation of production will be transformed in ways we can 
only guess at today. We can point the general direction (i.e. 
self-managed, ecologically balanced, decentralised, federal, 
empowering, creative and so on) but that is all. Similarly, 
as cities and towns are transformed into ecologically integrated 
communes, the initial community assemblies and their federations 
will transform along with the transformation of our surroundings. 
What they will evolve into we cannot predict, but their fundamentals 
of instant recall, delegation over representation, decision making 
from the bottom up, and so on will remain.
</p><p>
So, while anarchists see <i>"the future in the present"</i> as the initial
framework of a free society, we recognise that such a society will
evolve and change. However, the fundamental principles of a free
society will not change and so it is useful to present a summary
of how such a society could work, based on these principles. 
</p>

</body>
</html>
anarchism 14.0-4 / usr / share / doc / anarchism / html / secI2.html
