Written by and copyright© Evan Ling
The conservative elements in our society have failed to learn the lesson from history that no social or economic system can remain unchanged or last forever. Therefore they fail to plan for the next era in socio-economic history. Those who have learned this lesson are already considering what sort of society we or our descendants (presuming we have descendants) might enjoy or endure. A number of theorists were already considering the possibilities right at the beginning of the industrial capitalist system.
The first question that arises is whether one is content with the hierarchical, capitalistic and competitive elements of the current social system. Frances Proudhon imagined a society in which no form of government would be necessary. He, along with others, insisted that it was possible for people to be ethical enough to live peacefully by voluntary co-operation. The hierarchical and competitive nature of society could be blamed for most of the ills of society. Further, Proudhon rejected the notion that a violent revolution or a centralist form of government would be necessary, even as a transitional event. Proudhon was the first to use the term "anarchy" in a positive sense, rather than its negative inference of disorder and chaos.
It is easy to misinterpret an anarchist's views as right wing liberalism, leftist Marxism, or even as feminism. For example, the astonishing 17th century tractarian, activist and precursor of anarchism, Winstanley wrote:
"Every one that gets an authority into his hands tyrannizes over others; as many husbands, parents, masters, magistrates, that live after the flesh do carry themselves like oppressing lords over such as are under them, not knowing that their wives, children, servants, subjects are their fellow creatures, and hath an equal privilege to share them in the blessing of liberty."
In this statement, Winstanley is claiming equal rights for woman and children over all property, wealth and authority, not just over a vague concept of "liberty". This was Winstanley's meaning in the phrase "the blessing of liberty". Although this indicates a sympathy with feminist concepts, Winstanley's advocacy of equal rights for women was merely incidental to his plan to establish agrarian communes wherever there were commons and wastelands.
It is most important to realise that anarchism is not an amalgam of concepts from both the political "right" and "left", but a complete rejection of both. As Baldelli wrote in the book Social Anarchism, "Both Right and Left are systems of mystification and political exploitation". As can clearly be observed in state, national and international politics, the so-called "right" can appear revolutionary, radical or reformist in some ways (e.g., Jeff Kennett in Victoria, Marshall Perron in the Northern Territory, through to the many right-wing terrorists and dictators in world history), whilst the so-called "left" can be reactionary and conservative (e.g., former communists in Russia and Eastern Europe, through to the many boring Australian Labour Party hacks). Having established its form of government and implemented its policies, even the most radical or revolutionary group rapidly become reactionaries and conservatives to protect their own power and privilege.
It is not merely proposed that people could just "get by" without governments and politics. From the anarchist perspective, all forms of government, particularly national governments, are not just unnecessary, but destructive and exploitative. Probably the most widely known anarchist, Leo Tolstoy wrote that "the modern state is nothing but a conspiracy to exploit, but most of all to demoralize its citizens..." and
"I regard all governments, not only the Russian government, as intricate institutions, sanctified by tradition and custom, for the purpose of committing by force and with impunity the most revolting crimes."
Anarchism is both individualist and egalitarian. To the anarchist, the ideal society is one where power is equally shared - where personal power is no longer an issue in decision-making. On the other hand, anarchists believe that this society should also provide both personal security and the opportunity for self-realisation. For example, "Anarchist Question And Answer" in the 200th issue Anarchist Age Weekly Review described an egalitarian society where the individual is allowed to develop in their own way and at their own pace with the support of the community, and in freedom from economic dependence on other individuals.
An anarchist society's co-operative and non-hierarchical nature means that every member of that society is entitled to the goods and services they need. In capitalist economies the main goal is profit. In an anarchist society, the main goal of the economic system is provision for everyone's needs. Competition for wealth is destructive because it produces losers as well as winners, as well as producing unnecessary duplication of infrastructure.
Further development of anarchist theory deals with the detail of how such a society is to develop and function. For example, many anarchists believe that all wealth and property needs to be controlled by the whole community in order to allow for equal sharing of decision-making power. They do not consider that unequal access to goods and services can exist without leading to unequal access to decision-making power.
Others, like Proudhon, believe that it is only large holdings that threaten freedom and equity. Proudhon claimed that charging rent for the use of property is a form of theft, and argued that people should be able to have possession of the home, land and other things they need for their personal use and livelihood. Proudhon believed that anything's value is in its use, not in the ownership of it.
This question of the economic system is balanced by the fact that most anarchists do not advocate the forcible removal of property. For both practical and ethical reasons, communal ownership of all property is not a necessary part of an anarchist society. As Baldelli states, "anarchism, in fact, cannot be linked to a particular economic system". However, any anarchic economic system must primarily be appropriate to the needs and resources of the society, provide for the needs of every person, and not involve any person having an unequal share of decision-making power.
With anarchism rising out of a period of decline, anarchists are firstly concerned with consciousness raising, both about the need for change and about anarchism itself. With all the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of anarchism in our society, it is difficult for people to recognise anarchy as a genuinely viable alternative. Anarchists write, publish, broadcast, explain, discuss and teach their beliefs.
Another way anarchists can demonstrate the benefits of the anarchist society is through locality development - an intense and vital involvement in their local community. Anarchism is well suited to the locality development model. Anarchist methods are not confronting or threatening. All those wishing to be involved are encouraged to be equal participants. A locality development worker is a resource and an equal participant, not a leader. It would be expected that other participants will be found to have resources and abilities to share which may be equal or greater than that of the locality development worker.
Locality development is well suited to anarchism. Both are process oriented. Baldelli argues that means are of greater significance than ends. Ends are uncertain, often placed in the indefinite future. Means are real, they are active and present. To make our present social experience an end in itself is anarchy. Through locality development, we seek to give people control over their own community right now - in the present day, not in the unforeseeable future.
Neither the participants, their group nor their community are manipulated or used as a means towards some further goal beyond themselves. It is not anarchism to have some hidden agenda regarding some bigger picture of revolution or radical change beyond the wishes of community members.
I have been involved in a Christian Bible study group which is a practical example of some elements of this model. The group was established by ordinary laypeople of a local church, not by the church's leaders. Its original goal was to provide an opportunity for those who were outside the cliques and power structures within the church to be empowered by mutual support and by increased knowledge.
This group first studied the first epistle of John, containing the passage which justifies the structure of the group from a Christian perspective: "As for you,...you do not need anyone to teach you" (1 John 4: 27, GNB). Accordingly, this group does not have any teacher or leader in any formal sense. The group decides by consensus which books of the Bible it will study and in what order.
The group studies entire books, section by section, from beginning to end. The group does not study Bible topics, as topical studies are usually designed to arrive at a conclusion intended to suit the purposes of church leaders. Each person shares their resources, such as access to commentaries, a little knowledge of ancient Greek, or group work skills. Each person shares their understanding or interpretation, and nothing is required which is beyond the comfortable grasp of each individual.
Another example from my own experience was a youth group about fifteen years ago, at the dawn of my anarchist ideas. This was a weekly youth group, and every one or two months the entire group discussed its plan of activities for the following weeks. First, everyone was invited to suggest their ideas for the group. Then, from these ideas, activities were selected and scheduled by consensus. This mass meeting usually took about thirty minutes out of one of the weekly activities.
The person who chaired this planning meeting was selected every few months, by the largest number of votes in a simple secret ballot, provided that no one could be selected more than once. It is possible to have each capable person once as chairperson in a youth group because of the natural turnover of membership and the growth of capability within younger members. The process of a quick and simple ballot had the advantage of avoiding a great deal of discussion about personalities.
Anarchism is rebellious in nature. How can it not be when it opposes all forms of government? Proudhon advocated a form of revolution, but not as we normally define revolution. Proudhon knew from experience that each violent revolution inevitably led to an even more oppressive form of government. Revolution invokes the evils of destruction and suffering in its progress, and uncertainty and oppression in its outcome.
Proudhon, in his concept of revolution, advocated both social action and social planning. While advocating a form of social planning which would lead to anarchy, Proudhon also declared that this would never happen due to the nature of government. If anarchists were ever thrust into government, the government would be one of continuous reform. Government is advised to act immediately on the causes of the wants and grievances of the people, in an exaggerated but nonetheless gradual and non-disruptive way.
Baldelli suggests that this would involve the abolition of each politically imposed law, rule and regulation, one by one. Each would be suspended for a trial period. When it had been shown that no harm had occurred, the law would be abolished entirely. This was recently suggested in regard to Victoria's laws prohibiting marijuana.
Proudhon's revolution, or Baldelli's rebellion, more commonly takes the form of social action. Gandhi's passive resistance was a form of social action based on the work of Tolstoy and the 19th-century philosopher Thoreau, both of whom were anarchists. More recently and on a smaller scale, the action of Brunswick squatters of sitting in their lounge chairs in the street was anarchist, both in the practice of non-violent protest and in the principle of their right of possession of their home.
Anarchy exists in means, not just in ends. Anarchy does not rely on the full realisation of an anarchist society, nor even on the possibility of a full transformation of society at some future time. I propose that anarchists initially consider locality development roles which are not spectacular, disruptive or threatening. By this, anarchists demonstrate the usefulness of anarchism and that anarchism is not a threat to livelihood, life and limb. Then, when rebellion spontaneously erupts, anarchists can encourage and take full part in non-violent civil disobedience and social action against unequal distribution of power.
