J.7 What do anarchists mean by social revolution?

   In anarchist theory, social revolution means far more than just
   revolution. For anarchists, a true revolution is far more than just a
   change in the political makeup, structure or form of a society. It must
   transform all aspects of a society -- political, economic, social,
   interpersonal relationships, and so on -- and the individuals who
   comprise it. Indeed, these two transformations go hand in hand,
   complementing each other and supporting each other. People, while
   transforming society, transform themselves. As Alexander Berkman put
   it:

     "there are revolutions and revolutions. Some revolutions change only
     the governmental form by putting a new set of rulers in place of the
     old. These are political revolutions, and as such they often meet
     with little resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the
     entire system of wage slavery must also do away with the power of
     one class to oppress another. That is, it is not any more a mere
     change of rulers, of government, not a political revolution, but one
     that seeks to alter the whole character of society. That would be a
     social revolution." [What is Anarchism?, p. 176]

   It means two related things. First, it means transforming all parts of
   society and not just tinkering with certain aspects of the current
   system. Where political revolution means, in essence, changing bosses,
   social revolution means changing society, a transformation in the way
   society is organised and run. Social revolution, in other words, does
   not aim to change one form of subjection for another, but to do away
   with everything that can enslave and oppress the individual. Second, it
   means bringing about this fundamental change directly by the mass of
   people in society, rather than relying on political means of achieving
   this end, in the style of Marxist-Leninists and other authoritarian
   socialists. For anarchists, such an approach is a political revolution
   only and doomed to failure. The "actual, positive work of the social
   revolution must . . . be carried out by the toilers themselves, by the
   labouring people" as "the worse victims of present institutions, it is
   to their own interest to abolish them." [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 189 and
   p. 187]

   That is not to say that an anarchist social revolution is not political
   in content -- far from it; it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
   anarchist theory that there are political theories and goals at work
   within anarchism. With an analysis of the state which proclaims it to
   be an instrument of minority class rule, designed to exclude
   participation by the many, it should be obvious that we aim to abolish
   it. What we are saying, however, is that anarchists do not seek to
   seize power and attempt, through control of law enforcement and the
   military (in the style of governments) to bring change about from the
   top-down. Rather, we seek to bring change upward from below, and in so
   doing, make such a revolution inevitable and not contingent on the
   machinations of a political vanguard (unsurprisingly, as we noted in
   [1]section H.3.3, Lenin dismissed talk of change exclusively from below
   as anarchist and saw the need for change from above by government). As
   Durruti argued: "We never believed that the revolution consisted of the
   seizure of power by a minority which would impose a dictatorship on the
   people . . . We want a revolution by and for the people. Without this
   no revolution is possible. It would be a Coup d'Etat, nothing more."
   [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, pp. 135-7]

   For anarchists, a social revolution is a movement from below, of the
   oppressed and exploited struggling for their own freedom. Moreover,
   such a revolution does not appear as if by magic. Rather, it is the
   case that revolutions "are not improvised. They are not made at will by
   individuals nor even by the most powerful associations. They come
   independently of all will and all conspiracies, and are always brought
   on by the natural force of circumstance." [Bakunin, The Political
   Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 323] Revolutions break-out when the
   conditions are ripe and cannot be artificially produced (by, say, a
   union leadership proclaiming out of the blue such-and-such a day for a
   general strike). However, the actions of individuals and associations
   can make revolution more likely by their propaganda, struggles and
   organising so that when the circumstances change, people are able and
   willing to act in a revolutionary manner (by, say, spontaneously going
   on strike and their unions expanding the struggle into a general
   strike). This means that there is no mechanical, objective, process at
   work but rather something which we can influence but not command.
   Revolutions are a product of social evolution and of the social
   struggle which is an inevitable part of it:

     "the oppressed masses . . . have never completely resigned
     themselves to oppression and poverty, and who today more than ever
     show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and wellbeing, are
     beginning to understand that they will not be able to achieve their
     emancipation except by union and solidarity with all the oppressed,
     with the exploited everywhere in the world. And they also understand
     that the indispensable condition for their emancipation which cannot
     be neglected is the possession of the means of production, of the
     land and of the instruments of labour." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 33]

   Thus any social revolution proceeds from the daily struggles of working
   class people (just as anarchism does). It is not an event, rather it is
   a process -- a process which is occurring at this moment. So a social
   revolution is not something in the future which we wait for but an
   process which is occurring in the here and now which we influence along
   side other tendencies as well as objective factors. This means that
   "evolution and revolution are not two separate and different things.
   Still less are they opposites . . . Revolution is merely the boiling
   point of evolution." [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 179] This means how we act
   now matters as we shape the future by our struggles today. As German
   Anarchist Gustav Landauer put it:

     "The State is not something that can be destroyed by a revolution,
     but it is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings,
     a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other
     relationships, by behaving differently." [quoted by George Woodcock,
     Anarchism, p. 421]

   This does not mean that anarchists do not recognise that a revolution
   will be marked by, say, specific events (such as a general strike, wide
   scale occupations of land, housing, workplaces, actual insurrections
   and so on). Of course not. It means that we place these events in a
   process, within social movements recognising that they do not occur in
   isolation from history nor the evolution of ideas and movements within
   society.

   Berkman echoed this point when he argued that while "a social
   revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of society, its
   political, economic and social character" such a change "must first
   take place in the ideas and opinions of the people, in the minds of men
   [and women]." This means that "the social revolution must be prepared.
   Prepared in these sense of furthering evolutionary process, of
   enlightening the people about the evils of present-day society and
   convincing them of the desirability and possibility, of the justice and
   practicability of a social life based on liberty." [Op. Cit., p. 180-1]
   Such preparation would be the result of social struggle in the here and
   now, social struggle based on direct action, solidarity and
   self-managed organisations. While Berkman concentrated on the labour
   movement, his comments are applicable to all social movements:

     "In the daily struggle of the proletariat such an organisation [a
     syndicalist union] would be able to achieve victories about which
     the conservative union, as at present built, cannot even dream . . .
     Such a union would soon become something more than a mere defender
     and protector of the worker. It would gain a vital realisation of
     the meaning of unity and consequent power, of labour solidarity. The
     factory and shop would serve as a training camp to develop the
     worker's understanding of his [or her] proper role in life, to
     cultivate his [or her] self-reliance and independence, teach him [or
     her] mutual help and co-operation, and make him [or her] conscious
     of his [or her] responsibility. He [or she] will learn to decide and
     act on his [or her] own judgement, not leaving it to leaders or
     politicians to attend to his [or her] affairs and look out for his
     [or her] welfare . . . He [or she] will grow to understand that
     present economic and social arrangements are wrong and criminal, and
     he [or she] will determine to change them. The shop committee and
     union will become the field of preparation for a new economic
     system, for a new social life." [Op. Cit., pp. 206-7]

   In other words, the struggle against authority, exploitation,
   oppression and domination in the here and now is the start of the
   social revolution. It is this daily struggle, Bakunin stressed, which
   creates free people and the organisations it generates "bear . . . the
   living seed 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." Therefore (libertarian) socialism will be attained only
   "through the development and organisation of the non-political or
   anti-political social power of the working classes in city and
   country." [Bakunin On Anarchism, p. 255 and p. 263] Such social power
   is expressed in economic and community organisations such as
   self-managed unions and workplace/community assemblies (see [2]section
   J.5) and these form the organisational framework of a free society (see
   [3]section I.2.3).

   Anarchists try and follow the example of our Spanish comrades in the
   C.N.T. and F.A.I. who, when "faced with the conventional opposition
   between reformism and revolution, they appear, in effect, to have put
   forward a third alternative, seeking to obtain immediate practical
   improvements through the actual development, in practice, of
   autonomous, libertarian forms of self-organisation." [Nick Rider, "The
   Practice of Direct Action: The Barcelona Rent Strike of 1931", pp.
   79-105, For Anarchism, David Goodway (ed.), p. 99] While doing this,
   anarchists must also "beware of ourselves becoming less anarchist
   because the masses are not ready for anarchy." [Malatesta, Errico
   Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 162]

   So revolution and anarchism is the product of struggle, a social
   process in which anarchist ideas spread and develop. "This does not
   mean," argued Malatesta, "that to achieve anarchy we must wait till
   everyone becomes an anarchist. On the contrary . . . under present
   conditions only a small minority, favoured by specific circumstances,
   can manage to conceive what anarchy is. It would be wishful thinking to
   hope for a general conversion before a change actually took place in
   the kind of environment in which authoritarianism and privilege now
   flourish. It is precisely for this reason that [we] . . . need to
   organise for the bringing about of anarchy, or at any rate that degree
   of anarchy which could become gradually feasible, as soon as a
   sufficient amount of freedom has been won and a nucleus of anarchists
   somewhere exists that is both numerically strong enough and able to be
   self-sufficient and to spread its influence locally." [The Anarchist
   Revolution, pp. 83-4]

   Thus anarchists influence social struggle, the revolutionary process,
   by encouraging anarchistic tendencies within those who are not yet
   anarchists but are instinctively acting in a libertarian manner.
   Anarchists spread our message to those in struggle and support
   libertarian tendencies in it as far as we can. In this way, more and
   more people will become anarchists and anarchy will become increasingly
   possible (we discuss the role of anarchists in a social revolution in
   [4]section J.7.4). For anarchists, a social revolution is the end
   product of years of struggle. It is marked by the transformation of a
   given society, the breaking down of all forms of oppression and the
   creation of new ways of living, new forms of self-managed organisation,
   a new attitude to life itself. Moreover, we do not wait for the future
   to introduce such transformations in our daily life. Rather, we try and
   create as many anarchistic tendencies in today's society as possible in
   the firm belief that in so doing we are pushing the creation of a free
   society nearer.

   So anarchists, including revolutionary ones, try to make the world
   today more libertarian and so bring us closer to freedom. Few
   anarchists think of anarchy as something in (or for) the distant
   future, rather it is something we try and create in the here and now by
   living and struggling in a libertarian manner. Once enough people do
   this, then a more extensive change towards anarchy (i.e. a revolution)
   is possible.

J.7.1 Why are most anarchists revolutionaries?

   While most anarchists do believe that a social revolution is required
   to create a free society, some reject the idea. This is because they
   think that revolutions are by their very nature coercive and so are
   against anarchist principles. In the words of Proudhon (in reply to
   Marx):

     "Perhaps you still hold the opinion that no reform is possible
     without a helping coup de main, without what used to be called a
     revolution but which is quite simply a jolt. I confess that my most
     recent studies have led me to abandon this view, which I understand
     and would willingly discuss, since for a long time I held it myself.
     I do not think that this is what we need in order to succeed, and
     consequently we must not suggest revolutionary action as the means
     of social reform because this supposed means would simply be an
     appeal to force and to arbitrariness. In brief, it would be a
     contradiction." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p.
     151]

   Also they point to the fact that the state is far better armed than the
   general population, better trained and (as history proves) more than
   willing to slaughter as many people as required to restore "order." In
   face of this power, they argue, revolution is doomed to failure.

   Those opposed to revolution come from all tendencies of the movement.
   Traditionally, Individualist anarchists are usually against the idea of
   revolution, as was Proudhon. However, with the failure of the Russian
   Revolution and the defeat of the CNT-FAI in Spain, some social
   anarchists have rethought support for revolution. Rather than seeing
   revolution as the key way of creating a free society they consider it
   doomed to failure as the state is too strong a force to be overcome by
   insurrection. Instead of revolution, such anarchists support the
   creation of alternatives, such as co-operatives, mutual banks and so
   on, which will help transform capitalism into libertarian socialism by
   "burn[ing] Property little by little" via "some system of economics"
   which will "put back into society . . . the wealth which has been taken
   out of society by another system of economics." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p.
   151] Such alternative building, combined with pressurising the state
   to, say, use co-operatives to run public services and industries as
   well as civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes, is seen as the
   best way to creating anarchy. This may take time, they argue, but such
   gradual change will be more successful in the long run.

   Most revolutionary anarchists agree on the importance of building
   libertarian alternatives in the here and now. They would agree with
   Bakunin when he argued that such organisations as libertarian unions,
   co-operatives and so on are essential "so that when the Revolution,
   brought about by the natural force of circumstances, breaks out, there
   will be a real force at hand which knows what to do and by virtue
   thereof is capable of taking the Revolution into its own hands and
   imparting to it a direction salutary for the people: a serious,
   international organisation of worker's organisations of all countries,
   capable of replacing the departing political world of the States and
   the bourgeoisie." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 323] Thus,
   for most anarchists, the difference between evolution and revolution is
   one of little import -- anarchists should support libertarian
   tendencies within society as they support revolutionary situations when
   they occur.

   However, revolutionary anarchists argue that, ultimately, capitalism
   cannot be reformed away nor will the state wither away under the
   onslaught of libertarian institutions and attitudes. Neither mutual
   banking (see [5]section J.5.7) nor co-operatives (see [6]section
   J.5.11) can out-compete capitalist institutions. This means that these
   alternatives, while important, are insufficient to the task of creating
   a free society. This suggests that while libertarian tendencies within
   capitalism may make life better under that system, they cannot get rid
   of it. This requires a social revolution. Such anarchists agree with
   Alexander Berkman that there "is no record of any government or
   authority, of any group or class in power having given up its mastery
   voluntarily. In every instance it required the use of force, or at
   least the threat of it." [What is Anarchism?, p. 174] Even the end of
   State capitalism ("Communism") in Eastern Europe did not contradict
   this argument. Without the mass action of the population, the regime
   would have continued. Faced with a massive popular revolt, the
   Commissars realised that it was better to renounce (some) power than
   have it all taken from them (and they were right, as this allowed many
   of them to become part of the new, private capitalist, ruling class).
   Thus mass rebellion, the start of any true revolution, was required.

   The argument that the state is too powerful to be defeated has been
   proven wrong time and time again. Every revolution has defeated a
   military machine which previously had been proclaimed to be unbeatable
   (most obviously, the people armed in Spain defeated the military in
   two-thirds of the country). Ultimately, the power of the state rests on
   its troops following orders. If those troops rebel, then the state is
   powerless. That is why anarchists have always produced anti-militarist
   propaganda urging troops to join strikers and other people in revolt.
   Revolutionary anarchists argue that any state can be defeated, if the
   circumstances are right and the work of anarchists is to encourage
   those circumstances.

   In addition, revolutionary anarchists argue that even if anarchists did
   not support revolutionary change, this would not stop such events
   happening. Revolutions are the product of developments in human society
   and occur whether we desire them or not. They start with small
   rebellions, small acts of refusal by individuals, groups, workplaces
   and communities, then grow. These acts of rebellion are inevitable in
   any hierarchical society, as is their spreading wider and wider.
   Revolutionary anarchists argue that anarchists must, by the nature of
   our politics and our desire for freedom, support such acts of rebellion
   and, ultimately, social revolution. Not to do so means ignoring people
   in struggle against our common enemy and ignoring the means by which
   anarchist ideas and attitudes will grow within existing society. Thus
   Alexander Berkman was right when he wrote:

     "That is why it is no prophecy to foresee that some day it must come
     to decisive struggle between the masters of life and the
     dispossessed masses.

     "As a matter if fact, that struggle is going on all the time.

     "There is a continuous warfare between capital and labour. That
     warfare generally proceeds within so-called legal forms. But even
     these erupt now and then in violence, as during strikes and
     lockouts, because the armed fist of government is always at the
     service of the masters, and that fist gets into action the moment
     capital feels its profits threatened: then it drops the mask of
     'mutual interests' and 'partnership' with labour and resorts to the
     final argument of every master, to coercion and force.

     "It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow
     themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will
     they miraculously 'disappear' of themselves, as some people pretend
     to believe. It will require a revolution to get rid of them." [Op.
     Cit., p. 174]

   However, all anarchists are agreed that any revolution should be as
   non-violent as possible. Violence is the tool of oppression and, for
   anarchists, violence is only legitimate as a means of self-defence
   against authority. Therefore revolutionary anarchists do not seek
   "violent revolution" -- they are just aware that when people refuse to
   kow-tow to authority then that authority will use violence against
   them. This use of violence has been directed against non-violent forms
   of direct action and so those anarchists who reject revolution will not
   avoid state violence directed against them unless they renounce all
   forms of resistance to state and capitalist authority. So when it comes
   to effective action by the subjects of an authority, the relevant
   question quickly becomes how much does our freedom depend on us not
   exercising it?

   Nor do revolutionary anarchists think that revolution is in
   contradiction to the principles of anarchism. As Malatesta put it,
   "[f]or two people to live in peace they must both want peace; if one
   insists on using force to oblige the other to work for him and serve
   him, then the other, if he wishes to retain his dignity as a man and
   not be reduced to abject slavery, will be obliged, in spite of his love
   of peace, to resist force with adequate means." [Errico Malatesta: His
   Life and Ideas, p. 54] Under any hierarchical system, those in
   authority do not leave those subject to them in peace. The boss does
   not treat his/her workers as equals, working together by free agreement
   without differences in power. Rather, the boss orders the worker about
   and uses the threat of sanctions to get compliance. Similarly with the
   state. Under these conditions, revolution cannot be authoritarian --
   for it is not authoritarian to destroy authority! To quote Rudolf
   Rocker:

     "We . . . know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And
     we know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their
     privileges spontaneously. On the day of victorious revolution the
     workers will have to impose their will on the present owners of the
     soil, of the subsoil and of the means of production, which cannot be
     done -- let us be clear on this -- without the workers taking the
     capital of society into their own hands, and, above all, without
     their having demolished the authoritarian structure which is, and
     will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people
     under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of
     liberation; a proclamation of social justice; the very essence of
     social revolution, which has nothing in common with the utterly
     bourgeois principle of dictatorship." ["Anarchism and Sovietism",
     pp. 53-74, The Poverty of Statism, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 73]

   It should also be noted that those who proclaim that a revolution is
   inherently authoritarian like, say, Engels (see [7]section H.4.7) are
   confused. They fail to see that it is hardly "authoritarian" to stop
   someone ruling you! It is an act of liberation to free oneself from
   those oppressing you. Malatesta comments reflect well the position of
   revolutionary anarchists with regards to the use of force:

     "We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we wish to
     submit to a violent imposition.

     "We intend to use force against government, because it is by force
     that we are kept in subjection by government.

     "We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by
     force that they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the
     fruit of human labour, and use it to oblige others to work in their
     interest.

     "We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain
     or regain the means to impose his will and exploit the labour of
     others . . .

     "With the exception of these cases, in which the use of violence is
     justified as a defence against force, we are always against
     violence, and for self-determination." [Op. Cit., p. 56]

   This is the reason why most anarchists are revolutionaries. They do not
   think it against the principles of anarchism and consider it the only
   real means of creating a free society -- a society in which the far
   greater, and permanent, violence which keeps the majority of humanity
   in servitude can be ended once and for all.

J.7.2 Is social revolution possible?

   One objection to the possibility of social revolution is based on what
   we might call "the paradox of social change." This argument goes as
   follows: authoritarian institutions reward and select people with an
   authoritarian type of personality for the most influential positions in
   society; such types of people have both (a) an interest in perpetuating
   authoritarian institutions (from which they benefit) and (b) the power
   to perpetuate them; hence they create a self-sustaining and tightly
   closed system which is virtually impervious to the influence of
   non-authoritarian types. Therefore, institutional change presupposes
   individual change, which presupposes institutional change, and so on.
   Unless it can be shown, then, that institutions and human psychology
   can both be changed at the same time, hope for a genuine social
   revolution (instead of just another rotation of elites) appears to be
   unrealistic.

   Connected with this problem is the fact that the psychological root of
   the hierarchical society is addiction to power -- over other people,
   over nature, over the body and human emotions -- and that this
   addiction is highly contagious. That is, as soon as any group of people
   anywhere in the world becomes addicted to power, those within range of
   their aggression also feel compelled to embrace the structures of
   power, including centralised control over the use of deadly force, in
   order to protect themselves from their neighbours. Once these
   structures of power are adopted, authoritarian institutions become
   self-perpetuating.

   In this situation, fear becomes the underlying emotion behind the
   conservatism, conformity, and mental inertia of the majority, who in
   that state become vulnerable to the self-serving propaganda of
   authoritarian elites alleging the necessity of the state, strong
   leaders, militarism, "law and order," capitalists, rulers, etc. The
   simultaneous transformation of institutions and individual psychology
   becomes even more difficult to imagine.

   Serious as these obstacles may be, they do not warrant despair. To see
   why, let us note first that "paradigm shifts" in science have not
   generally derived from new developments in one field alone but from a
   convergence of cumulative developments in several different fields at
   once. For example, the Einsteinian revolution which resulted in the
   overthrow of the Newtonian paradigm was due to simultaneous progress in
   mathematics, physics, astronomy and other sciences that all influenced,
   reacted on, and cross-fertilised each other (see Thomas Kuhn's The
   Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Similarly, if there is going to
   be a "paradigm shift" in the social realm, i.e. from hierarchical to
   non-hierarchical institutions, it is likely to emerge from the
   convergence of a number of different socio-economic and political
   developments at the same time. In a hierarchical society, the
   oppression authority produces also generates resistance, and so hope.
   The "instinct for freedom" cannot be repressed forever.

   That is why anarchists stress the importance of direct action
   ([8]section J.2) and self-help ([9]section J.5). By the very process of
   struggle, by practising self-management, direct action and solidarity,
   people create the necessary "paradigm shift" in both themselves and
   society as a whole. Thus the struggle against authority is the school
   of anarchy -- it encourages libertarian tendencies in society and the
   transformation of individuals into anarchists ("Only freedom or the
   struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom." [Malatesta, Errico
   Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 59]). In a revolutionary situation,
   this process is accelerated. It is worth quoting Murray Bookchin at
   length on this subject:

     "Revolutions are profoundly educational processes, indeed veritable
     cauldrons in which all kinds of conflicting ideas and tendencies are
     sifted out in the minds of a revolutionary people . . .

     "Individuals who enter into a revolutionary process are by no means
     the same after the revolution as they were before it began. Those
     who encounter a modicum of success in revolutionary times learn more
     within a span of a few weeks or months than they might have learned
     over their lifetime in non-revolutionary times. Conventional ideas
     fall away with extraordinary rapidity; values and prejudices that
     were centuries in the making disappear almost overnight. Strikingly
     innovative ideas are quickly adopted, tested, and, where necessary,
     discarded. Even newer ideas, often flagrantly radical in character,
     are adopted with an elan that frightens ruling elites -- however
     radical the latter may profess to be -- and they soon become deeply
     rooted in the popular consciousness. Authorities hallowed by age-old
     tradition are suddenly divested of their prestige, legitimacy, and
     power to govern . . .

     "So tumultuous socially and psychologically are revolutions in
     general that they constitute a standing challenge to ideologues,
     including sociobiologists, who assert that human behaviour is fixed
     and human nature predetermined. Revolutionary changes reveal a
     remarkable flexibility in 'human nature,' yet few psychologists have
     elected to study the social and psychological tumult of revolution
     as well as the institutional changes it so often produces. Thus much
     must be said with fervent emphasis: to continue to judge the
     behaviour of a people during and after a revolution by the same
     standards one judged them by beforehand is completely myopic.

     "I wish to argue that the capacity of a revolution to produce
     far-reaching ideological and moral changes in a people stems
     primarily from the opportunity it affords ordinary, indeed
     oppressed, people to exercise popular self-management -- to enter
     directly, rapidly, and exhilaratingly into control over most aspects
     of their social and personal lives. To the extent that an
     insurrectionary people takes over the reins of power from the
     formerly hallowed elites who oppressed them and begins to
     restructure society along radically populist lines, individuals grow
     aware of latent powers within themselves that nourish their
     previously suppressed creativity, sense of self-worth, and
     solidarity. They learn that society is neither immutable nor
     sanctified, as inflexible custom had previously taught them; rather,
     it is malleable and subject, within certain limits, to change
     according to human will and desire." [The Third Revolution, vol. 1,
     pp. 6-7]

   In short, "it is only through th[e] struggle for freedom, equality and
   solidarity that you will reach an understanding of anarchism." [Nestor
   Makhno, The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, p. 71]

   So, social revolutions are possible. Anarchists anticipate successful
   revolts within certain circumstance. People who are in the habit of
   taking orders from bosses are not capable of creating a new society.
   Tendencies towards freedom, self-management, co-operation and
   solidarity are not simply an act of ethical will which overcomes the
   competitive and hierarchical behaviour capitalism generates within
   those who live in it. Capitalism is, as Malatesta noted, based on
   competition -- and this includes within the working class. However,
   co-operation is stimulated within our class by our struggles to survive
   in and resist the system. This tendency for co-operation generated by
   struggle against capitalism also produces the habits required for a
   free society -- by struggling to change the world (even a small part of
   it), people also change themselves. Direct action produces empowered
   and self-reliant people who can manage their own affairs themselves. It
   is on the liberating effects of struggle, the tendencies towards
   individual and collective self-management and direct action it
   generates, the needs and feelings for solidarity and creative solutions
   to pressing problems it produces that anarchists base their positive
   answer on whether social revolution is possible. History has shown that
   we are right. It will do so again.

J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?

   While many try and paint revolutions (and anarchists) as being violent
   by their very nature, the social revolution desired by anarchists is
   essentially non-violent. This is because, to quote Bakunin, "[i]n order
   to launch a radical revolution, it is . . . necessary to attack
   positions and things and to destroy property and the State, but there
   will be no need to destroy men and to condemn ourselves to the
   inevitable reaction which is unfailingly produced in every society by
   the slaughter of men." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 168-9]
   Equally, to destroy the institution of private property there is no
   need to destroy the actual useful things monopolised by the few:

     "How to smash the tyranny of capital? Destroy capital? But that
     would be to destroy all the riches accumulated on earth, all primary
     materials, all the instruments of labour, all the means of labour .
     . . Thus capital cannot and must not be destroyed. It must be
     preserved . . . there is but a single solution -- the intimate and
     complete union of capital and labour . . . the workers must obtain
     not individual but collective property in capital . . . the
     collective property of capital . . . [is] the absolutely necessary
     conditions of the emancipation of labour and of the workers." [The
     Basic Bakunin, pp. 90-1]

   The essentially non-violent nature of anarchist ideas of social
   revolution can be seen from the Seattle General Strike of 1919. Here is
   a quote from the Mayor of Seattle (we do not think we need to say that
   he was not on the side of the strikers):

     "The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted
     revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the fact . . .
     The intent, openly and covertly announced, was for the overthrow of
     the industrial system; here first, then everywhere . . . True, there
     were no flashing guns, no bombs, no killings. Revolution, I repeat,
     doesn't need violence. The general strike, as practised in Seattle,
     is of itself the weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous
     because quiet. To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the
     entire life stream of a community . . . That is to say, it puts the
     government out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt --
     no matter how achieved." [quoted by Howard Zinn, A People's History
     of the United States, pp. 370-1]

   If the strikers had occupied their workplaces and local communities had
   created popular assemblies then the attempted revolution would have
   become an actual one without any use of violence at all. In Italy, a
   year later, the occupations of the factories and land started. As
   Malatesta pointed out, "in Umanita Nova [the daily anarchist newspaper]
   we . . . said that if the movement spread to all sectors of industry,
   that is workers and peasants followed the example of the metallurgists,
   of getting rid of the bosses and taking over the means of production,
   the revolution would succeed without shedding a single drop of blood."
   Thus the "occupation of the factories and the land suited perfectly our
   programme of action." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 135]
   Sadly the workers followed their socialist trade union leaders and
   stopped the occupations rather than spreading them.

   These events indicate the strength of ordinary people and the relative
   weakness of government and capitalism -- they only work when they can
   force people to respect them. After all, a government is "only a
   handful of men" and is strong "when the people are with it. Then they
   supply the government with money, with an army and navy, obey it, and
   enable it to function." Remove that support and "no government can
   accomplish anything." The same can be said of capitalists, whose wealth
   "would do them no good but for the willingness of the people to work
   for them and pay tribute to them." Both would "find out that all their
   boasted power and strength disappear when the people refuse to
   acknowledge them as masters, refuse to let them lord it over them." In
   contrast, "the people's power" is "actual: it cannot be taken away . .
   . It cannot be taken away because it does not consist of possessions
   but in ability. It is the ability to create, to produce." To achieve a
   free society we need to "be conscious of its tremendous power."
   [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 84, p. 86, p. 87 and p. 83]

   Therefore the notion that a social revolution is necessarily violent is
   a false one. For anarchists, social revolution is essentially an act of
   self-liberation (of both the individuals involved and society as a
   whole). It has nothing to do with violence, quite the reverse, as
   anarchists see it as the means to end the rule and use of violence in
   society. Anarchists hope that any revolution is essentially
   non-violent, with any violence being defensive in nature. As Malatesta
   stressed, "Anarchists are opposed to violence" and it "is justifiable
   only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence."
   [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

   Of course, many revolutions are marked by violence. It has two sources.
   First, and most obviously, the violent resistance of those protecting
   their power and wealth against those seeking liberty. Unsurprisingly,
   this violence is usually downplayed in history books and the media.
   Second, acts of revenge resulting from the domination and repression of
   the system the revolution seeks to end. Such violence is not desired
   nor the aim of anarchism nor of the revolution. As Berkman argued:

     "We know that revolution begins with street disturbances and
     outbreaks; it is the initial phase which involves force and
     violence. But that is merely the spectacular prologue of the real
     revolution. The age long misery and indignity suffered by the masses
     burst into disorder and tumult, the humiliation and injustice meekly
     borne for decades find vents in acts of fury and destruction. That
     is inevitable, and it is solely the master class which is
     responsible for this preliminary character of revolution. For it is
     even more true socially than individually that 'whoever sows the
     wind will reap the whirlwind'; the greater the oppression and
     wretchedness to which the masses had been made to submit, the
     fiercer will rage the social storm. All history proves it, but the
     lords of life have never harkened to its warning voice." [Op. Cit.,
     p. 195]

   "Most people have very confused notions about revolution," Berkman
   suggested. "To them it means just fighting, smashing things,
   destroying. It is the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work
   should be considered the work itself that you have to do. The fighting
   bit of the revolution is merely the rolling up of your sleeves." The
   task of the revolution is the "destruction of the existing conditions"
   and "conditions are not destroyed [by] breaking and smashing things.
   You can't destroy wage slavery by wrecking the machinery in the mills
   and factories . . . You won't destroy government by setting fire to the
   White House." To think of revolution "in terms of violence and
   destruction is to misinterpret and falsify the whole idea of it. In
   practical application such a conception is bound to lead to disastrous
   results." For what is there to destroy? "The wealth of the rich? Nay,
   that is something we want the whole of society to enjoy." The means of
   production are to be made "useful to the entire people" and "serve the
   needs of all." Thus the aim of revolution is "to take over things for
   the general benefit, not to destroy them. It is to reorganise
   conditions for public welfare . . . to reconstruct and rebuild." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 183-4]

   Thus when anarchists like Bakunin speak of revolution as "destruction"
   they mean that the idea of authority and obedience must be destroyed,
   along with the institutions that are based on such ideas. We do not
   mean, as can be clearly seen, the destruction of people or wealth. Nor
   do we imply the glorification of violence -- quite the reserve, as
   anarchists seek to limit violence to that required for self-defence
   against oppression and authority.

   Therefore a social revolution may involve some violence. It may also
   mean no violence at all. It depends on the revolution and how widely
   anarchist ideas are spread. One thing is sure, for anarchists social
   revolution is not synonymous with violence. Indeed, violence usually
   occurs when the ruling class resists the action of the oppressed --
   that is, when those in authority act to protect their social position.

   The wealthy and their state will do anything in their power to prevent
   having a large enough percentage of anarchists in the population to
   simply "ignore" the government and property out of existence. If things
   got that far, the government would suspend the legal rights, elections
   and round up influential subversives. The question is, what do
   anarchists do in response to these actions? If anarchists are in the
   majority or near it, then defensive violence would likely succeed. For
   example, "the people armed" crushed the fascist coup of July 19th, 1936
   in Spain and resulted in one of the most important experiments in
   anarchism the world has ever seen (see [10]section A.5.6). This should
   be contrasted with the aftermath of the factory occupations in Italy in
   1920 and the fascist terror which crushed the labour movement (see
   [11]section A.5.5). In other words, you cannot just ignore the state
   even if the majority are acting, you need to abolish it and organise
   self-defence against attempts to re-impose it or capitalism.

   We discuss the question of self-defence and the protection of the
   revolution in [12]section J.7.6.

J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?

   Social revolution necessitates putting anarchist ideas into daily
   practice. Therefore it implies that direct action, solidarity and
   self-management become increasingly the dominant form of living in a
   society. It implies the transformation of society from top to bottom.
   We can do no better than quote Errico Malatesta on what revolution
   means:

     "The Revolution is the creation of new living institutions, new
     groupings, new social relationships; it is the destruction of
     privileges and monopolies; it is the new spirit of justice, of
     brotherhood, of freedom which must renew the whole of social life,
     raise the moral level and the material conditions of the masses by
     calling on them to provide, through their direct and conscious
     action, for their own futures. Revolution is the organisation of all
     public services by those who work in them in their own interest as
     well as the public's; Revolution is the destruction of all of
     coercive ties; it is the autonomy of groups, of communes, of
     regions; Revolution is the free federation brought about by a desire
     for brotherhood, by individual and collective interests, by the
     needs of production and defence; Revolution is the constitution of
     innumerable free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes of all
     kinds that exist among the people; Revolution is the forming and
     disbanding of thousands of representative, district, communal,
     regional, national bodies which, without having any legislative
     power, serve to make known and to co-ordinate the desires and
     interests of people near and far and which act through information,
     advice and example. Revolution is freedom proved in the crucible of
     facts -- and lasts so long as freedom lasts." [Errico Malatesta: His
     Life and Ideas, p. 153]

   This, of course, presents a somewhat wide vision of the revolutionary
   process. We will need to give some more concrete examples of what a
   social revolution would involve. However, before so doing, we stress
   that these are purely examples drawn from previous revolutions and are
   not written in stone. Every revolution creates its own forms of
   organisation and struggle. The next one will be no different. As we
   argued in [13]section I.2, an anarchist revolution will create its own
   forms of freedom, forms which will share features with organisations
   generated in previous revolutions, but which are unique to this one.
   Thus the Paris Commune of 1871 had mandated and recallable delegates as
   did the Russian soviets of 1905 and 1917, but the first was based on
   geographical delegation and the later on workplaces. All we do here is
   give a rough overview of what we expect (based on previous revolutions)
   to see occur in a future social revolution. We are not predicting the
   future. As Kropotkin put it:

     "A question which we are often asked is: 'How will you organise the
     future society on Anarchist principles?' If the question were put to
     . . . someone who fancies that a group of men [or women] is able to
     organise society as they like, it would seem natural. But in the
     ears of an Anarchist, it sounds very strangely, and the only answer
     we can give to it is: 'We cannot organise you. It will depend upon
     you what sort of organisation you choose.'" [Act for Yourselves, p.
     32]

   And organise themselves they have. In every social revolution, the
   oppressed have created many different self-managed organisations. These
   bodies include the directly democratic neighbourhood Sections of the
   Great French Revolution, the neighbourhood clubs of the 1848 French
   Revolution and the Paris Commune, the workers councils and factory
   committees of the Russian and German revolutions, the industrial and
   rural collectives of the Spanish Revolution, the workers councils of
   the Hungarian revolution of 1956, assemblies and action committees of
   the 1968 revolt in France, the neighbourhood assemblies and occupied
   workplaces of the 2001 revolt in Argentina, and so on. These bodies
   were hardly uniform in structure and some were more anarchistic than
   others, but the tendency towards self-management and federation existed
   in them all. This tendency towards anarchistic solutions and
   organisation is not unsurprising, for, as Nestor Makhno argued, "[i]n
   carrying through the revolution, under the impulsion of the anarchism
   that is innate in them, the masses of humanity search for free
   associations. Free assemblies always command their sympathy. The
   revolutionary anarchist must help them to formulate this approach as
   best they can." [The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, p.
   85]

   In addition, we must stress that we are discussing an anarchist social
   revolution in this section. As we noted in [14]section I.2.2,
   anarchists recognise that any revolution will take on different forms
   in different areas and develop in different ways and at different
   speeds. We leave it up to others to describe their vision of revolution
   (for Marxists, the creation of a "workers' state" and the seizure of
   power by the "proletarian" vanguard or party, and so on).

   So what would a libertarian revolution involve?

   Firstly, a revolution "is not the work of one day. It means a whole
   period, mostly lasting for several years, during which the country is
   in a state of effervescence; when thousands of formerly indifferent
   spectators take a lively part in public affairs." It "criticises and
   repudiates the institutions which are a hindrance to free development .
   . . it boldly enters upon problems which formerly seemed insoluble."
   [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 25-6] Thus, it would be a process in which
   revolutionary attitudes, ideas, actions and organisations spread in
   society until the existing system is overthrown and a new one takes its
   place. It does not come overnight. Rather it is an accumulative
   development, marked by specific events of course, but fundamentally it
   goes on in the fabric of society.

   So the real Russian revolution occurred during the period between the
   1917 February and October insurrections when workers took over their
   workplaces, peasants seized their land, new forms of social life
   (soviets, factory committees, co-operatives, etc.) were formed and
   people lost their previous submissive attitudes to authority by using
   direct action to change their lives for the better (see [15]section
   A.5.4). Similarly, the Spanish Revolution occurred after the 19th of
   July, 1936, when workers again took over their workplaces, peasants
   formed collectives and militias were organised to fight fascism (see
   [16]section A.5.6)

   Secondly, "there must be a rapid modification of outgrown economical
   and political institutions, an overthrow of the injustices accumulated
   by centuries past, a displacement of wealth and political power."
   [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 25] This aspect is the key one. Without the
   abolition of the state and capitalism, no real revolution has taken
   place. As Bakunin argued, "the program of social revolution" is "the
   abolition of all exploitation and all political or juridical as well as
   governmental and bureaucratic oppression, in other words, to the
   abolition of all classes through the equalisation of economic
   conditions, and the abolition of their last buttress, the state." That
   is, "the total and definitive liberation of the proletariat from
   economic exploitation and state oppression." [Statism and Anarchy, pp.
   48-9]

   We should stress here that, regardless of what Marxists may say,
   anarchists see the destruction of capitalism occurring at the same time
   as the destruction of the state. We do not aim to abolish the state
   first, then capitalism as Engels asserted we did (see [17]section
   H.2.4). This perspective of a simultaneous political and economic
   revolution is clearly seen when Bakunin wrote that a city in revolt
   would "naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in
   revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into associations
   and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of labour and every kind
   of capital and building; armed and organised by streets and quartiers,
   they will form the revolutionary federation of all the quartiers, the
   federative commune" All "the revolutionary communes will then send
   representatives to organise the necessary services and arrangements for
   production and exchange . . . and to organise common defence against
   the enemies of the Revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p.
   179]

   As can be seen, an essential part of a social revolution is the
   "expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the benefit of all."
   [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 198] This would be done by workers occupying
   their workplaces and placing them under workers' self-management. As
   Voltairine de Cleyre argued in 1910 "the weapon of the future will be
   the general strike" and is it not clear that "it must be the strike
   which will stay in the factory, not go out? which will guard the
   machines and allow no scab to touch them? which will organise, not to
   inflict deprivation on itself, but on the enemy? which will take over
   industry and operate it for the workers, not for franchise holder,
   stockholders, and officeholders?" ["A Study of the General Strike in
   Philadelphia", pp. 307-14, Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's
   Mother Earth, Peter Glassgold (ed.), p. 311] Individual self-managed
   workplaces would then federate on a local and industrial basis into
   workers' councils to co-ordinate joint activity, discuss common
   interests and issues as well as ensuring common ownership and
   universalising self-management: "We must push the workers to take
   possession of the factories, to federate among themselves and work for
   the community, and similarly the peasants should take over the land and
   the produce usurped by the landlords, and come to an agreement with the
   industrial workers on the necessary exchange of goods." [Malatesta, Op.
   Cit., p. 165]

   In this way capitalism is replaced by new economic system based the end
   of hierarchy, on self-managed work. These workplace assemblies and
   local, regional, etc., federations would start to organise production
   to meet human needs rather than capitalist profit. While most
   anarchists would like to see the introduction of communistic relations
   begin as quickly as possible in such an economy, most are realistic
   enough to recognise that tendencies towards libertarian communism will
   be depend on local conditions. As Malatesta argued:

     "It is then that graduation 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, the utilisation for the benefit
     of everyone of all natural resources of the different regions [and
     so on] . . . And in every problem [anarchists] should prefer the
     solutions which not only are economically superior but which satisfy
     the need for justice and freedom and leave the way open for future
     improvements, which other solutions might not." [Op. Cit., p. 173]

   No central government could organise such a transformation. No
   centralised body could comprehend the changes required and decide
   between the possibilities available to those involved. Hence the very
   complexity of life, and the needs of social living, will push a social
   revolution towards anarchism. "Unavoidably," argued Kropotkin, "the
   Anarchist system of organisation -- free local action and free grouping
   -- will come into play." [Op. Cit., p. 72] Unless the economy is
   transformed from the bottom up by those who work within it, socialism
   is impossible. If it is re-organised from the top-down by a centralised
   body all that will be achieved is state capitalism and rule by
   bureaucrats instead of capitalists. Without local action and free
   agreement between local groups to co-ordinate activity, a revolution
   would be dead in the water and fit only to produce a new bureaucratic
   class structure, as the experience of the Russian Revolution proves
   (see [18]section H.6).

   Therefore, the key economic aspect of a social revolution is the end of
   capitalist oppression by the direct action of the workers themselves
   and their re-organisation of their work and the economy by their own
   actions, organisations and initiative from the bottom-up:

     "To destroy radically this oppression without any danger of it
     re-emerging, all people must be convinced of their right to the
     means of production, and be prepared to exercise this basic right by
     expropriating the landowners, the industrialists and financiers, and
     putting all social wealth at the disposal of the people."
     [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 167]

   However, the economic transformation is but part of the picture. As
   Kropotkin argued, "throughout history we see that each change in the
   economic relations of a community is accompanied by a corresponding
   change in what may be called political organisation . . . Thus, too, it
   will be with Socialism. If it contemplates a new departure in economics
   it must be prepared for a new departure in what is called political
   organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 39] Thus the anarchist social revolution
   also aims to abolish the state and create a confederation of
   self-governing communes to ensure its final elimination. This
   destruction of the state is essential as "those workers who want to
   free themselves, or even only to effectively improve their conditions,
   will be forced to defend themselves from the government . . . which by
   legalising the right to property and protecting it with brute force,
   constitutes a barrier to human progress, which must be beaten down . .
   . if one does not wish to remain indefinitely under present conditions
   or even worse." Therefore, "[f]rom the economic struggle one must pass
   to the political struggle, that is to the struggle against government."
   [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 195]

   Thus a social revolution will have to destroy the state bureaucracy and
   its forces of violence and coercion (the police, armed forces,
   intelligence agencies, and so on). If this is not done then the state
   will come back and crush the revolution. As the CNT newspaper put it in
   the 1930s, the "first step in the social revolution is to take control
   of Town Hall and proclaim the free commune. Once this occurs,
   self-management spreads to all areas of life and the people exercise
   their sovereign executive power through the popular assembly." This
   free commune "is the basic unit of libertarian communism . . . and,
   federated, it provides the basic structure of the new society in all
   its aspects: administrative, economic and political." [quoted by Abel
   Paz, Durruti in the Spanish Revolution, p. 312]

   Such a destruction of the state does not involve violence against
   individuals, but rather the end of hierarchical organisations,
   positions and institutions. It would involve, for example, the
   disbanding of the police, army, navy, state officialdom, etc. It would
   mean the transformation of police stations, military bases, the offices
   used by the bureaucracy into something more useful (or, as in the case
   of prisons, their destruction). Town halls would be occupied and used
   by community and industrial groups, for example. Offices of the mayor
   could be turned into crèches. Police stations, if they have not been
   destroyed, could be turned into storage centres for goods (William
   Morris, in his utopian novel News from Nowhere, imagined the Houses of
   Parliament being turned into a manure storage facility). And so on.
   Those who used to work in such occupations would be asked to pursue a
   more fruitful way of life or leave the community. In this manner, all
   harmful and useless institutions would be destroyed or transformed into
   something of benefit to society.

   In addition, as well as the transformation/destruction of the buildings
   associated with the old state, the decision making process for the
   community previously usurped by the state would come back into the
   hands of the people. Alternative, self-managed organisations would be
   created in every community to manage community affairs. From these
   community assemblies, confederations would spring up to co-ordinate
   joint activities and interests. These neighbourhood assemblies and
   confederations would be means by which power would be dissolved in
   society and government finally eliminated in favour of freedom (both
   individual and collective).

   Ultimately, anarchism means creating positive alternatives to those
   existing institutions which provide some useful function. For example,
   we propose self-management as an alternative to capitalist production.
   We propose self-governing communes to organise social life instead of
   the state. "One only destroys, and effectively and permanently," argued
   Malatesta, "that which one replaces by something else; and to put off
   to a later date the solution of problems which present themselves with
   the urgency of necessity, would be to give time to the institutions one
   is intending to abolish to recover from the shock and reassert
   themselves, perhaps under other names, but certainly with the same
   structure." [Op. Cit., p. 159] This was the failure of the Spanish
   Revolution, which ignored the state rather than abolish it via new,
   self-managed organisations (see [19]section I.8.13). It must be
   stressed that this was not due to anarchist theory (see [20]section
   I.8.11).

   Hence a social revolution would see the "[o]rganisation of social life
   by means of free association and federations of producers and
   consumers, created and modified according to the wishes of their
   members, guided by science and experience, and free from any kind of
   imposition which does not spring from natural needs, to which everyone,
   convinced by a feeling of overriding necessity, voluntarily submits."
   [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 184] A revolution organises itself from the
   bottom up, in a self-managed way. As Bakunin summarised:

     "the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . .
     will constitute the Commune . . . The Commune will be organised by
     the standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation of a
     Revolutionary Communal Council composed of one or two delegates from
     each barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and
     removable mandates . . . all provinces, communes and associations .
     . . reorganising on revolutionary lines . . . [would send] their
     representatives to an agreed meeting place . . . vested with similar
     mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations,
     communes and provinces in the name of the same principles and to
     organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . .
     it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the
     revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas
     that will bring about the triumph of the revolution . . . There can
     no longer be any successful revolution unless the political
     revolution is transformed into social revolution . . . Since
     revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme
     control must always belong to the people organised in a free
     federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .
     organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary
     delegation." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-2]

   Thus we have a dual framework of revolution, the federation of
   self-managed workplace and community assemblies based on mandated and
   recallable delegates. "Through its class organisations," Makhno argued,
   "the people yearned to lay the foundations of a new, free society
   intended, as it develops without interference, to eliminate from the
   body of society all the parasites and all the power exercised by some
   over others, these being deemed by the toilers to be stupid and
   harmful." [Op. Cit., p. 79] These organisations, as we stressed in
   [21]section I.2.3, are the products of the social struggle and
   revolution themselves:

     "Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary
     process itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be the
     formation of assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of
     power. Assembly and community must become 'fighting words,' not
     distinct panaceas. They must be created as modes of struggle against
     existing society . . . The future assemblies of people in the block,
     the neighbourhood or the district -- the revolutionary sections to
     come -- will stand on a higher social level than all the present-day
     committees, syndicates, parties and clubs adorned by the most
     resounding 'revolutionary' titles. They will be the living nuclei of
     utopia in the decomposing body of bourgeois society . . . The
     specific gravity of society . . . must be shifted to its base -- the
     armed people in permanent assembly." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity
     Anarchism, pp. 104-5]

   Such organisations are required because "[f]reedom has its forms . . .
   a liberatory revolution always poses the question of what social forms
   will replace existing ones. At one point or another, a revolutionary
   people must deal with how it will manage the land and the factories
   from which it requires the means of life. It must deal with the manner
   in which it will arrive at decisions that affect the community as a
   whole. Thus if revolutionary thought is to be taken at all seriously,
   it must speak directly to the problems and forms of social management."
   [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 86] If this is not done, capitalism and the
   state will not be destroyed and the social revolution will fail. Only
   by destroying hierarchical power, by abolishing state and capitalism by
   self-managed organisations, can individuals free themselves and
   society.

   As well as these economic and political changes, there would be other
   changes as well -- far too many to chronicle here. For example: "We
   will see to it that all empty and under-occupied houses are used so
   that no one will be without a roof over his [or her] head. We will
   hasten to abolish banks and title deeds and all that represents and
   guarantees the power of the State and capitalist privilege. And we will
   try to reorganise things in such a way that it will be impossible for
   bourgeois society to be reconstituted." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 165]
   Similarly, free associations will spring up on a whole range of issues,
   interests and needs. Social life will become transformed, as will many
   aspects of personal life and personal relationships. We cannot say in
   which way, bar there will be a general libertarian movement in all
   aspects of life as women resist and overcome sexism, gays resist and
   end homophobia, the young will expect to be treated as individuals, not
   property, and so on.

   Society will become more diverse, open, free and libertarian in nature.
   And, hopefully, it and the struggle that creates it will be fun --
   anarchism is about making life worth living and so any struggle must
   reflect that. The use of fun in the struggle is important. There is no
   incongruity in conducting serious business and having fun. We are sure
   this will piss off the "serious" Left no end. The aim of revolution is
   to emancipate individuals not abstractions like "the proletariat,"
   "society," "history" and so on. Having fun is part and parcel of that
   liberation. As Emma Goldman argued (and was paraphrased in the 1970s to
   "If I cannot dance, it is not my revolution!"), anarchism stands for
   "release and freedom from conventions and prejudice" and so she could
   "not believe" that it "should demand the denial of life and joy" ("If
   it meant that, I did not want it"): "I want freedom, the right to
   self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things."
   [Living My Life, vol. 1, p. 56] As Bookchin suggested: "Can we resolve
   the anarchic, intoxicating phase that opens all the great revolutions
   of history merely into an expression of class interest and the
   opportunity to redistribute social wealth?" [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p.
   189f]

   Therefore a social revolution involves a transformation of society from
   the bottom up by the creative action of working class people. This
   transformation would be conducted through self-managed organisations
   which will be the basis for abolishing hierarchy, state and capitalism:
   "There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the
   revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be
   achieved by means of self-administration . . . If we define 'power' as
   the power of man over man, power can only be destroyed by the very
   process in which man acquires power over his own life and in which he
   not only 'discovers' himself, but, more meaningfully, formulates his
   selfhood in all its social dimensions." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 104]

J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social revolution?

   All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed, it is
   cliché that the revolutionaries are usually the most surprised when a
   revolution breaks out. Nor do anarchists assume that a revolution will
   initially be totally libertarian in nature. All we assume is that there
   will be libertarian tendencies which anarchists work within to try and
   strengthen. Therefore the role of anarchists and anarchist
   organisations is to push a revolution towards a social revolution by
   encouraging the tendencies we discussed in the [22]last section and by
   arguing for anarchist ideas and solutions. In the words of Vernon
   Richards:

     "We do not for one moment assume that all social revolutions are
     necessarily anarchist. But whatever form the revolution against
     authority takes, the role of anarchists is clear: that of inciting
     the people to abolish capitalistic property and the institutions
     through which it exercises its power for the exploitation of the
     majority by a minority." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 44]

   For anarchists, our role in a social revolution is clear -- we try to
   spread anarchist ideas and encourage autonomous organisation and
   activity by the oppressed. For example, during the Russian Revolution
   anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists played a key role in the factory
   committee movement for workers' self-management. They combated
   Bolshevik attempts to substitute state control for workers'
   self-management and encouraged workplace occupations and federations of
   factory committees (see Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers'
   Control for a good introduction to this movement and Bolshevik
   hostility to it). Similarly, they supported the soviets (councils
   elected by workers in their workplaces) but opposed their
   transformation from revolutionary bodies into state organs (and so
   little more than organs of the Communist Party, rubber-stamping the
   decisions of the party leadership). The anarchists tried to "work for
   their conversion from centres of authority and decrees into
   non-authoritarian centres, regulating and keeping things in order but
   not suppressing the freedom and independence of local workers'
   organisations. They must become centres which link together these
   autonomous organisations." [G. P. Maksimov, The Anarchists in the
   Russian Revolution, p. 105]

   Therefore, the role of anarchists, as Murray Bookchin put it, is to
   "preserve and extend the anarchic phase that opens all the great social
   revolutions" by working "within the framework of the forms created by
   the revolution, not within the forms created by the party. What this
   means is that their commitment is to the revolutionary organs of
   self-management . . . to the social forms, not the political forms."
   Revolutionary anarchists "seek to persuade the factory committees,
   assemblies or soviets to make themselves into genuine organs of popular
   self-management, not to dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them
   to an all-knowing political party," to organise to "propagate ideas
   systematically . . . ideas which promote the concept of
   self-management." The revolutionary organisation "presents the most
   advanced demands" and "formulate[s] -- in the most concrete fashion --
   the immediate task that should be performed to advance the
   revolutionary process. It provides the boldest elements in action and
   in the decision-making organs of the revolution." [Post-Scarcity
   Anarchism, pp. 139-140]

   Equally as important, "is that the people, all people, should lose
   their sheep-like instincts and habits with which their minds have been
   inculcated by an age-long slavery, and that they should learn to think
   and act freely. It is to this great task of spiritual liberation that
   anarchists must especially devote their attention." Unless people think
   and act for themselves, no social revolution is possible and anarchy
   will remain just an opposition tendency within authoritarian societies.
   Practically, this means the encouragement of self-management and direct
   action. Anarchists thus "push the people to expropriate the bosses and
   put all goods in common and organise their daily lives themselves,
   through freely constituted associations, without waiting for orders
   from outside and refusing to nominate or recognise any government or
   constituted body in whatever guise . . . even in a provisional
   capacity, which ascribes to itself the right to lay down the law and
   impose with force its will on others." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta:
   His Life and Ideas, pp. 160-1 and p. 197] This is because, to quote
   Bakunin, anarchists do "not accept, even in the process of
   revolutionary transition, either constituent assemblies, provisional
   governments or so-called revolutionary dictatorships; because we are
   convinced that revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands
   of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those of a few
   ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes reaction."
   [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 237]

   The history of every revolution confirms Kropotkin (who echoed
   Proudhon) that "revolutionary government" is a contradiction in terms.
   Government bodies mean "the transferring of initiative from the armed
   workers to a central body with executive powers. By removing the
   initiative from the workers, the responsibility for the conduct of the
   struggle and its objectives [are] also transferred to a governing
   hierarchy, and this could have no other than an adverse effect on the
   morale of the revolutionary fighters." [Richards, Op. Cit., pp. 42-3]
   Such a centralisation of power means the suppression of local
   initiatives, the replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and the
   creation of a new, exploitative and oppressive class of officials and
   party hacks. Only when power rests in the hands of everyone can a
   social revolution exist and a free society be created. If this is not
   done, if the state replaces the self-managed associations of a free
   people, all that happens is the replacement of one class system by
   another. This is because the state is an instrument of minority rule --
   it can never become an instrument of majority empowerment as its
   centralised, hierarchical and authoritarian nature excludes such a
   possibility (see [23]section H.3.7 for more discussion on this issue).

   Therefore an important role of anarchists is to undermine hierarchical
   organisation by creating self-managed ones, by keeping the management
   and direction of a struggle or revolution in the hands of those
   actually conducting it. It is their revolution, not a party's and so
   they should control and manage it. They are the ones who have to live
   with the consequences of it. As Bakunin argued, social revolution
   "should not only be made for the people's sake; it should also be made
   by the people." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141] "The revolution
   is safe, it grows and becomes strong," correctly argued Alexander
   Berkman, "as long as the masses feel that they are direct participants
   in it, that they are fashioning their own lives, that they are making
   the revolution, that they are the revolution. But the moment that their
   activities are usurped by a political party or are centred in some
   special organisation, revolutionary effort becomes limited to a
   comparatively small circle from which the large masses are practically
   excluded. The natural result is that popular enthusiasm is dampened,
   interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness wanes,
   and the revolution becomes the monopoly of a clique which presently
   turns dictator." [What is Anarchism?, p. 213] The history of every
   revolution proves this point, we feel, and so the role of anarchists is
   clear -- to keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian
   ideas, organisation, tactics and activity.

   Anarchists, therefore, organise to influence social struggle in a
   libertarian manner and our role in any social revolution is to combat
   authoritarian tendencies and parties while encouraging working class
   self-organisation, self-activity and self-management (how we organise
   to achieve this is described in [24]section J.3). Only by the spreading
   of libertarian ideas and values within society, encouraging libertarian
   forms of social organisation (i.e., self-management, decentralisation,
   federalism, etc.) and continually warning against centralising power
   into a few hands can a revolution become more than a change of masters.

J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?

   To some, particularly Marxists, this section may seem in contradiction
   with anarchist ideas. As we discussed in [25]section H.2.1, Marxists
   tend to assume, incorrectly, that anarchists are either against
   defending a revolution or see no need to. However, as will become very
   clear, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have always
   argued for defending a revolution -- by force, if necessary. Anarchists
   argue that Marx (and Marxists) confuse self-defence by "the people
   armed" with the state, a confusion which has horrific implications (as
   the history of the Russian Revolution shows).

   So how would an anarchist revolution (and by implication, society)
   defend itself? Firstly, we should note that it will not defend itself
   by creating a centralised body, a new state. If it did this then the
   revolution will have failed and a new class society would have been
   created (a society based on state bureaucrats and oppressed workers as
   in the Soviet Union). Thus we reject the Marxist notion of a so-called
   "workers" or "revolutionary" state as confused in the extreme (as
   should be obvious from our analysis in [26]section H). Rather, we seek
   libertarian means to defend a libertarian revolution. What would these
   libertarian means be?

   In short, this would involve the "creation of a voluntary militia,
   without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community,
   but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to
   re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention by countries
   as yet not in a state of revolution." The creation of a free militia
   would be part of the general social transformation as the "most
   powerful means for defending the revolution remains always that of
   taking away from the bourgeois the economic means on which their power
   rests, and of arming everybody (until such time as one will have
   managed to persuade everybody to throw away their arms as useless and
   dangerous toys), and of interesting the mass of the population in the
   victory of the revolution." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and
   Ideas, p. 166 and p. 173] As Bakunin stressed:

     "let us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . .
     Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can,
     in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into
     associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of
     labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised by
     streets and quartiers, they will form the revolutionary federation
     of all the quartiers, the federative commune . . . All the French
     and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives to
     organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common
     defence against the enemies of the Revolution, together with
     propaganda, the weapon of revolution, and practical revolutionary
     solidarity with friends in all countries against enemies in all
     countries." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 178-9]

   So anarchists have always seen the necessity to defend a revolution.
   There is no theoretical contradiction implied by this for while
   anarchism "is opposed to any interference with your liberty" and
   "against all invasion and violence", it recognises that when "any one
   attacks you, then it is he who is invading you, he who is employing
   violence against you. You have a right to defend yourself. More than
   that, it is your duty, as an anarchist to protect your liberty, to
   resist coercion and compulsion . . . In other words, the social
   revolution will attack no one, but it will defend itself against
   invasion from any quarter." [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p.
   231] These militias, in other words, do not seek to impose a
   revolution, for you cannot impose freedom or force people to be free
   against their will: "The power of the people in arms can only be used
   in the defence of the revolution and the freedoms won by their
   militancy and their sacrifices." [Vernon Richards, Lessons of the
   Spanish Revolution, p. 44]

   Such activity, Berkman stressed, "must be in consonance with th[e]
   spirit [of anarchism]. Self-defence excludes all acts of coercion, of
   persecution or revenge. It is concerned only with repelling attack and
   depriving the enemy of opportunity to invade you." Any defence would be
   based on "the strength of the revolution . . . First and foremost, in
   the support of the people . . . If they feel that they themselves are
   making the revolution, that they have become masters of their lives,
   that they have gained freedom and are building up their welfare, then
   in that very sentiment you have the greatest strength of the revolution
   . . . Let them believe in the revolution, and they will defend it to
   the death." Thus the "armed workers and peasants are the only effective
   defence of the revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 231-2] Malatesta stressed
   that a government is not required to defend freedom:

     "But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still
     unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to
     reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this
     people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are
     needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical
     knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to
     go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the
     former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the experience of
     history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own
     country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the
     corps of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and
     regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear."
     [Anarchy, p. 42]

   As can be seen, anarchist theory has always addressed the necessity of
   defending a social revolution and proposed a solution -- the voluntary,
   self-managed militia organised by the free communes and federations of
   workers' associations. The militias would be unified and co-ordinated
   by federations of communes while delegates from each militia unit would
   co-ordinate the actual fighting. In times of peace the militia members
   would be living and working among the rest of the populace, and, thus,
   they would tend to have the same outlook and interests as their
   fellows. Moreover, in the case of foreign intervention, the importance
   of international solidarity is important ("a social revolution cannot
   be a revolution in one nation alone. It is by nature an international
   revolution." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 49]). Thus any foreign intervention
   would face the problems of solidarity actions and revolts on its own
   doorstep and not dare send its troops abroad for long, if at all.
   Ultimately, the only way to support a revolution is to make your own.

   Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people
   that will defend it. Firstly, the population would be armed and so
   counter-revolutionaries would face stiff opposition to their attempts
   to recreate authority. Secondly, they would face liberated individuals
   who would reject and resist their attempts Thus, as we discuss in
   [27]section I.5.11, any authoritarian would face the direct action of a
   free people, of free individuals, who would refuse to co-operate with
   the would-be authorities and join in solidarity with their friends and
   fellow workers to resist them. The only way a counter-revolution could
   spread internally is if the mass of the population had become alienated
   from the revolution and this is impossible in an anarchist revolution
   as power remains in their hands. A free society need not fear internal
   counter-revolutionaries gaining support.

   History, as well as theory, points to such libertarian forms of
   self-defence. In all the major revolutions which anarchists took part
   in they formed militias to defend freedom. For example, anarchists in
   many Russian cities formed "Black Guards" to defend their expropriated
   houses and revolutionary freedoms. In the Ukraine, Nestor Makhno helped
   organise a peasant-worker army to defend the social revolution against
   authoritarians of right and left. In the Spanish Revolution, the CNT
   organised militias to free those parts of Spain under fascist rule
   after the military coup in 1936.

   These anarchist militias were as self-managed as possible, with any
   "officers" elected and accountable to the troops and having the same
   pay and living conditions as them. Nor did they impose their ideas on
   others. When a militia liberated a village, town or city they called
   upon the population to organise their own affairs, as they saw fit. All
   the militia did was present suggestions and ideas to the population.
   For example, when the Makhnovists passed through a district they would
   put on posters announcing:

     "The freedom of the workers and the peasants is their own, and not
     subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers and peasants to
     act, to organise themselves, to agree among themselves in all
     aspects of their lives, as they themselves see fit and desire . . .
     The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel . . . In no
     circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern." [quoted by
     Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 473]

   Needless to say, the Makhnovists counselled the workers and peasants
   "to set up free peasants' and workers' councils" as well as to
   expropriate the land and means of production. They argued that
   "[f]reedom of speech, of the press and of assembly is the right of
   every toiler and any gesture contrary to that freedom constitutes an
   act of counter-revolution." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 157-8]
   The Makhnovists also organised regional congresses of peasants and
   workers to discuss revolutionary and social issues. The army's declared
   principles were voluntary enlistment, the election of officers and
   self-discipline according to the rules adopted by each unit themselves.
   Remarkably effective, the Makhnovists were the force that defeated
   Denikin's army and helped defeat Wrangel. After the Whites were
   defeated, the Bolsheviks turned against the Makhnovists and betrayed
   them. However, while they existed the Makhnovists defended the freedom
   of the working class to organise themselves against both right and left
   statists (see Voline's The Unknown Revolution, Peter Arshinov's History
   of the Makhnovist Movement or Alexandre Skirda's Nestor Makhno
   Anarchy's Cossack for more information).

   A similar situation developed in Spain. After defeating the fascist
   military coup on 19th of July, 1936, the anarchists organised
   self-managed militias to liberate those parts of Spain under Franco.
   These groups were organised in a libertarian fashion from the bottom
   up:

     "The establishment of war committees is acceptable to all confederal
     militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which
     come to accommodations among themselves for small-scale operations.
     Ten such groups together make up one centuria, which appoints a
     delegate to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which
     is directed by a war committee, on which the delegates from the
     centurias have their say . . . although every column retains its
     freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of forces, which is
     not the same thing as unity of command." [Op. Cit., pp. 256-7]

   Like the Makhnovists, the anarchist militias in Spain were not only
   fighting against reaction, they were fighting for a better world. As
   Durruti argued: "Our comrades on the front know for whom and for what
   they fight. They feel themselves revolutionaries and they fight, not in
   defence of more or less promised new laws, but for the conquest of the
   world, of the factories, the workshops, the means of transportation,
   their bread and the new culture." [Op. Cit., p. 248] When they
   liberated towns and villages, the militia columns urged workers and
   peasants to collectivise the land and means of production, to
   re-organise life in a libertarian fashion. All across anti-Fascist
   Spain workers and peasants did exactly that. The militias only defended
   the workers' and peasants' freedom to organise their own lives as they
   saw fit and did not force them to create collectives or dictate their
   form.

   In this, the CNT was not only following the suggestions of the likes of
   Bakunin and Malatesta, it was implementing its own stated policies.
   Thus before the revolution we find leading FAI member D. A. Santillan
   arguing that the "local Council of Economy will assume the mission of
   defence and raise voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be, for
   combat" in the "cases of emergency or danger of a counter-revolution."
   These Local Councils would be a federation of workplace councils and
   would be members of the Regional Council of the Economy which, like the
   Local Council, would be "constitute[d] by delegations or through
   assemblies." [After the Revolution, p. 80 and pp. 82-83] Thus defence
   of a free society is based on the federation of workers' councils and
   so directly controlled by the revolutionary population. This can also
   be seen in the Spanish CNT's 1936 resolution on Libertarian Communism
   in the section entitled "Defence of the Revolution":

     "We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made through
     the revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will be taken to
     defend the new regime, whether against the perils of a foreign
     capitalist invasion . . . or against counter-revolution at home. It
     must be remembered that a standing army constitutes the greatest
     danger for the revolution, since its influence could lead to
     dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the revolution . . .
     The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to
     restore the system destroyed from either within or without . . . Let
     each Commune have its weapons and means of defence . . . the people
     will mobilise rapidly to stand up to the enemy, returning to their
     workplaces as soon as they may have accomplished their mission of
     defence. . . .

     "1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to
     the communes which be responsible for ensuring defensive means are
     effectively organised nationwide.

     "2. In the international context, we shall have to mount an
     intensive propaganda drive among the proletariat of every country so
     that it may take an energetic protest, calling for sympathetic
     action against any attempted invasion by its respective government.
     At the same time, our Iberian Confederation of Autonomous
     Libertarian Communes will render material and moral assistance to
     all the world's exploited so that these may free themselves forever
     from the monstrous control of capitalism and the State." [quoted by
     Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 110]

   Which was precisely what the CNT did do in July 1936 when faced with
   the fascist coup. Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the CNT militias
   were betrayed by their so-called allies on the left. The anarchist
   troops were not given enough arms and were left on the front to rot in
   inaction. The "unified" command of the Republican State preferred not
   to arm libertarian troops as they would use these arms to defend
   themselves and their fellow workers against the Communist led
   counter-revolution. Ultimately, the "people in arms" won the revolution
   and the "People's Army" which replaced it lost the war (see Jose
   Peirats' The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, Abel Paz's Durruti in the
   Spanish Revolution, Vernon Richard's Lessons of the Spanish Revolution
   or Noam Chomsky's Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship).

   While the cynic may point out that, in the end, these revolutions and
   militias were defeated, it does not mean that their struggle was in
   vain or a future revolution will not succeed. That would be like
   arguing in 1940 that democracy is inferior to fascism because most
   democratic states had been (temporarily) defeated by the Axis powers.
   It does not mean that these methods will fail in the future or that we
   should embrace apparently more "successful" approaches which end in the
   creation of a society the total opposite of what we desire (means
   determine ends, after all, and statist means will create statist ends
   and apparent "successes" -- like Bolshevism -- are the greatest of
   failures in terms of our ideas and ideals). All we are doing here is
   pointing how anarchists have defended revolutions in the past and that
   these methods were successful for a long time in face of tremendous
   opposition forces.

   Thus, in practice, anarchists have followed libertarian theory and
   created self-managed forms of self-defence against attempts to
   re-enslave a free people. In the end, an anarchist revolution can be
   defended only by applying its ideas as widely as possible. Its defence
   rests in those who make it. If the revolution is an expression of their
   needs, desires and hopes then it will be defended with the full passion
   of a free people. Such a revolution may be defeated by superior force,
   who can tell? But the possibility is that it will not and that is what
   makes it worth trying. To not act because of the possibility of failure
   is to live half a life.

   Anarchism calls upon everyone to live the kind of life they deserve as
   unique individuals and desire as human beings. Individually we can make
   a difference, together we can change the world.
   [28] J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? [29]up
   [30]Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism 

References

   1. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secH3.txt#sech33
   2. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ5.txt
   3. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI2.txt#seci23
   4. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ7.txt#secj74
   5. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ5.txt#secj57
   6. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ5.txt#secj511
   7. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secH4.txt#sech47
   8. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ2.txt
   9. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ5.txt
  10. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secA5.txt#seca56
  11. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secA5.txt#seca55
  12. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ7.txt#secj76
  13. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI2.txt
  14. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI2.txt#seci22
  15. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secA5.txt#seca54
  16. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secA5.txt#seca56
  17. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secH2.txt#sech24
  18. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secH6.txt
  19. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI8.txt#seci813
  20. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI8.txt#seci811
  21. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI2.txt#seci23
  22. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ7.txt#secj74
  23. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secH3.txt#sech37
  24. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secJ3.txt
  25. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secH2.txt#sech21
  26. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secHcon.txt
  27. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI5.txt#seci511
  28. //afaq/secJ6.html
  29. //afaq/secJcon.html
  30. //afaq/append1.html
