a common myth, both in fascism and in everyday anti-humanism, is the 'sanctity' of the family and the 'holy' institution of motherhood.
many women today are fighting against being pushed into the role of mothers and nothing else, and against the everyday domination of women and children by men, which is what the family is really all about.
the reality of family life is quite different from the sentimental ideal. wife battering, rape and child abuse are not accidental or isolated events - they are a result of conditioning in the family and by the media.
until we have freedom and equality in our daily lives we will have no freedom or equality at all, nor will we want it sincerely.
you have only to look at the 'master and slave' content of any porn magazine to see that sexual repression leads to domination and submission. if power is more important than fulfilment in your sexual life, then it will be more important in the rest of your life also.
support free love. if it's not free, it's not love.
right wing people talk a great deal about sex and what they call 'sexual morality' and 'purity'. even 'racial purity' is a largely sexual idea. it is based on fear of the sexuality of 'inferior races', feared because it threatens their own sexual control and power.
racists ask: "would you let your daughter marry one of them?". who are you to say what 'your' daughter should do with her own sex life anyway?
anarchists generally do not hold with conventional marriage. they do not accept that it is any business of the church or the state what people do with their sexual relationships. true emotional security for both children and adults is less likely to be found in a legally enforceable and artificially 'permanent' tie between two people of either sex, than it is in a wider network of relationships that may or may not have a sexual component.
many anarchists have seen living in communes as an important way in which to change society. but living in the same house as nine other people is not in itself the key to the ideal future. the important thing is to change our attitudes: to become more open and generous and less competitive and afraid of each other. the important thing is to have plenty of real friends rather than hiding in the family nest. we can do this as workmates and neighbours as well as home sharers.
forming communes now, or trying to, is riddled with problems. communes at the moment frequently fail either through isolation, or through squabbles within the group, or for a variety of other reasons. people brought up in this society do not easily develop more open, generous and honest relationships. most anarchists settle for being just a little less isolationist than most. we just do the best we can, and realise there is no such thing as perfection in an oppressive society. there are no anarchist saints.
changing everyday life
unless we can help people, including ourselves, to become less dominated by fear, anxiety and insecurity, there is little point in expecting them to behave sensibly and to start building a free, creative society. authoritarian ideas and unreasoning hatred of scapegoats such as blacks and homosexuals are part of a mass mental illness.
fortunately, there are forces operating in the direction of greater mental health, and anarchists should do what they can to assist these forces and movements.
of these, the clearest example is the radical psychotherapy movement. broadly speaking, groups within this movement try to move away from the old idea of the expert psychiatrist who solves the 'patient's' problems, towards an approach in which people, with assistance, help themselves. unfortunately this has been taken over by the neurotic middle classes. fees for encounter groups are too much for the likes of you and me, and encounter groups based around the problems of industrial management are hardly the way to a new society.
there are self-help therapy groups, though, which show some promise and may well catch on. the most successful seem to be those with a specific membership, such as depressives, or women's groups, and so on. we are against people trying to adjust to impossible situations and want them to learn to assert and express themselves.
as much of the psychological mess the human race has got itself into revolves around the unjust relationships between the sexes, anarchists put a lot of hope in the development of the women's movement. not that all feminists are revolutionaries. the national organisation of women, for example, was delighted to allow women to person nuclear missile control rooms. nevertheless, there is a strong anarchist strand to the women's movement, in the emphasis on small leaderless groups, self-help and the importance of women coming to terms with each other's feelings. challenging male domination should logically lead on to challenging all domination.
the women's movement also illustrates another promising development - the tendency to organise in small groups and collectives. where these work well they provide much needed support and a sense of worth to the individuals involved. other movements, such as parts of the gay movement, claimants unions, squatters, self-help health groups, and so on, are good for the same reason. this way of organising tends to help the development of sanity.
anything that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves and examine their relationship with the rest of the world should be encouraged. eventually we can hope that attitudes will change enough to allow people to have the confidence to take back power over their own lives.
local action and organisation
direct action can be used to change the conditions of houses, streets, schools, hospitals, and other amenities. such reforms have, in themselves, little to contribute towards building an anarchist society, but making people aware of the potential of direct action is important. at best such actions foster feelings of community spirit and promote self organisation. they raise political consciousness. at worst they lead to feelings of hopelessness and complete disillusionment with the human race. these feelings may drag you to political suicide. such 'has-beens' are to be seen in many labour party gatherings.
what sort of actions are we talking about? well if you're short of a house, then consider squatting. it by-passes the authorities in charge of housing and challenges property relations. it effectively demonstrates the disgrace of empty houses side by side with homelessness. unfortunately, popular prejudice hinders squatting from obtaining the wider support necessary for real change.
the community life of the street can be improved by festivals, street theatre, and so on. of course this sort of thing can have its drawbacks too, unless you're the sort of anarchist that's into lady di and her mates!
anarchists have participated in and often dreamt up all sorts of self-help schemes. these include making better use of land, labour swapping schemes, consumer product sharing schemes. again these encourage independence and demonstrate that alternative forms of economic exchange are viable. beware paid community workers wishing to professionalise the idea and destroy its real benefits by making it part of the system.
another common area of anarchist activity is getting involved in local campaigns. these may be useful in developing organisation and awareness and can have the virtue of making people think about political issues. a campaign against the closure of a local hospital, for instance, raises questions about who controls the hospitals and for whose benefit? unfortunately, people are often led astray by their illusions about 'democracy' and politicians, and wind up getting fobbed off or conned. this can result in disillusionment and apathy. the role of the anarchist is to try and make sure that it results instead in anger at the authorities and promotes direct action.
it is often difficult to find a balance between getting involved in immediate reforms (hence encouraging a false belief in the state as a benevolent force) and examining the long term implications of what you do. if you let your feelings run riot you will end up in reformism, desperate to remove the squalor you discover in society. this is understandable, but works against removing the roots of the squalor.
to improve the system is to strengthen it and thus in the long run increase human misery.
when local conditions become atrocious, riots break out. chief constable oxford of liverpool recently described local riots in brixton, liverpool, and so on, as "organised anarchy". it seems unlikely, however, that they stemmed from anything but pure frustration. sporadic rioting is not a particularly revolutionary activity in itself. if it had been organised, it would have been insurrection, which is a different story. how, then, do anarchists organise?
individuals join small anarchist groups in order to co-ordinate their actions with others not to be told what to do. the entire group discusses a particular action, but only those in favour will perform it. this contrasts completely with trotskyist groups in which each individual member must follow the party line.
disagreement on an important issue, or lack of shared action, simply means that a new grouping will come into being. in various parts of the country, groups have formed larger federations to co-ordinate the actions of these small groups (in a non-authoritarian way, of course).
this model of organisation has already become common in other strands of political activity, like women's groups and some community groups. if anarchism grows, one would expect to see an increase in this way of organising.
groups of people in a street, or perhaps at a particular workplace, can organise in this way to take the decisions that affect them. they can send delegates to larger meetings, taking this task in turn, instructing the delegate what to say, kicking him/her out if s/he gets power hungry. a utopian idea? it is already working now on a small scale (for example in the cnd). what's so difficult about it? all we need is a total revolution in everyday consciousness! in this way, a non-authoritarian system of organising all aspects of our lives from the cradle to the grave could emerge. it would be a federalist type of anarchist society.
anarchists see it as vital to educate people for a new society. some would go so far as to say that it is all we can reasonably do. to attempt a revolution as a tiny minority is just not on and with the best of intentions could lead only to a new slavery. a genuine revolution can only be made if the great majority of people want it and actively participate in creating the new world. naturally, it would stand a much better chance if the people had first organised, prepared and thought about the issues and problems. this means that one of our top priorities is to spread our ideas as far as possible.
preaching, however, is best avoided. we do not want mere followers. an even worse danger is that we may begin to hand out our ideas as a dogma. finally, we do not want to talk at people, but with them.
this last point is important. it is probably the surest sign of the degenerate state of modern society that communications are becoming increasingly impersonal, standardised and one way. millions of people watch the same tv programmes and read the same newspapers. as a result their own conversations are standardised. communications have become a commodity to be consumed, 'sounds' to be bought on plastic tapes. all modern communications media have two things in common: you have to pay for them, and there is no way of participating, you listen or watch, nothing else is required of you.
our belief in freedom leads us to demand freedom of speech and freedom of the press. this may seem odd, as these were old nineteenth century liberal rallying cries. the liberals now seem fairly satisfied that we have these precious freedoms already.
what they mean, of course, is that they have these freedoms. ordinary mortals, to say nothing of 'dangerous extremists' like ourselves, do not. we can say what we like (almost), but not on prime viewing time; we can write anything we like, but won't be able to distribute it through w h smith's. unless everyone has a reasonably good chance of actually being heard, then freedom of speech means nothing and they are quite happy to give it to us.
a recent spanish coup attempt is said to have failed because the fascist officers had an old fashioned view of political power and seized the parliament building. next time they will know better. they will seize the radio stations.
journalists, print workers, writers, technicians and actors may have to play a vital part in the struggle for a new society. they have it in their power to tell the truth. the cruddy 'product' that they obediently continue to churn out ought to have shamed them all into resigning by now. agitation within the communications industry, for workers' control of content, is a matter of urgency.
because communications are so tightly controlled by a very small clique who know very well the importance of their power, we are hardly likely to stand much chance of getting our views known through the existing set up. we need to find some other way of spreading our ideas until such time as the people get around to seizing control.
we have been forced out on to the fringes of society. we. are obliged to create our own media in order to express ourselves. naturally, it is all on a small scale and we reach only a few people with each leaflet, magazine or whatever. we can only hope that all the little things we do will add up. after all, a thousand leaflets are not wasted if they convince one new anarchist.
spreading the word is important, and an impressive range of different approaches have been tried at one time or another. here we list some of the things anarchists do or can do to get their ideas across.
the printed word -- the anarchist movement has produced a constant stream of articles, newspapers, magazines, books and leaflets throughout its history. some reached impressive numbers. many were read only by a few and are now forever forgotten.
the effort has not been completely wasted. we always need more and better-written anarchist material. people who are ready for ideas must be given as many chances as possible to find them.
leaflets, often quickly run off on a duplicator for a special event, are the simplest and cheapest possibility. wording should be simple and to the point. good graphics, including photographs, can be done on an electric stencil at a slightly higher cost.
cheap pamphlets on particular topics are best whipped out of the pocket at an appropriate point in a conversation. this one, for instance, is designed for those who insist on trotting out the old hoary objections to anarchism such as "what about murderers?" (see some common arguments against anarchism above.)
magazines and newspapers fall into two categories: those aimed at, or of interest only to, other anarchists, arid those aimed at reaching the uncommitted multitude. we seem to have plenty of magazines for anarchists but a shortage of agitational ones. there are a few, good, local anarchist papers: in addition many anarchists work on 'community' papers dealing with local issues.
book publishing and distribution is also an important part of the movement. order anarchist books at your local library. there are also plenty of anarchist books yet to be written. we need more works of anarchist theory, more analyses of present society and strategy for change. there is also scope in fiction or poetry. writing a book is not as daunting as it might first seem. many of the people who do write books are complete idiots.
street theatre -- this method of communicating is perhaps not used enough by anarchists. writing and rehearsing plays can be a useful practice in getting a group working together. the proper legal approach is to apply for planning permission (be sure to have a harmless sounding name). on the other hand, the 'santa claus army' who invaded the toy departments of amsterdam stores and gave away toys to the kids were also indulging in street theatre, though of a less legal kind. some kind of semi-theatrical event to make people think is a good alternative to the usual boring old demo.
public meetings -- at one time anarchist meetings drew crowds of thirty or forty thousand. public meetings have declined as mass entertainment has developed. fifty is a pretty good number these days. choose a theme, sort out speakers, book a hall and advertise it well. it may be a lot of effort, but it does sometimes produce new members, or at least some interest. people will take you more seriously.
alternative media -- this vague title is meant to cover unorthodox means of communication from badges or spray painting to video. small messages to the mass consciousness can be written on toilet walls or sprayed in six-foot letters down the sides of motorways. video is cheap(ish) and everybody by now must know of some way of borrowing or hiring cameras. anarchists have run successful pirate radio stations and there is no need to rule out dance or mime or a thousand other possible ways of getting a message across. use your imagination.
although we are kept out of the mass communications market, we can still find ways of reaching out with our ideas. the struggle to make means of expression available to the people at large is one of the most vital parts of the struggle for freedom. by imaginatively pioneering new means of communication that are easily available, we are not only spreading our views but helping others to express themselves. finally, the way in which an idea is communicated may be at least as important as the idea itself. if it allows or encourages participation so that people can stop being merely an 'audience' and start expressing themselves, it is a direct challenge to the system of power which needs us docile.
music -- rebellious or revolutionary music has a much longer history than the fashion-conscious youth of today, or even the ageing hippies of yesterday, may realise. believe it or not many operas turn around essentially revolutionary themes! in the eighteen-thirties, possession of a musical instrument was illegal for the lower orders. this was because wandering musicians were becoming alarmingly successful at stirring up discontent.
many anarchists choose to get involved in music as a way of communicating with people. it is a useful sort of activity for anarchists to do, and of course it can be fun. sadly, much current anarchist music is neither anarchist nor music, but some of it is good and some very good. it's all a matter of personal taste anyway.
music has the power to appeal to emotions directly. it is possible to communicate in a more basic way. it is also possible to use it to hypnotise and manipulate people, something which we would hope to avoid doing.
again, what we need to do is make music available to people, encourage them to have a go and bring out their creativity. some anarchists feel that for this reason, high technology expensive electric music should be avoided. on the other hand, the possibilities of home taping and easily produced cassettes are quite exciting.
we need to create new ways of making and sharing music that by-pass the music industry. let them howl about loss of copyright when their tapes are illegally copied. they've had things their own way too long.
art -- paintings in galleries have been described as 'museum art'. what is meant by this is that they are objects to be admired and bought and sold. they separate art from life and from people at large. art as a saleable item is the best that this system can offer. art as an activity it could neither understand nor allow.
there is a crying need to release the creative abilities of 'ordinary' people. this we can at least attempt to do when talking to people. we can find ways to work for the movement and enjoy ourselves at the same time. by using our own creativity, we can hope to reach the hidden parts of people that other ideas cannot reach.
spreading the word, or 'propaganda', has to be a major part of any anarchist strategy. above all else an anarchist revolution requires that people know what they are doing and why. nobody can be forced into freedom: it must be chosen and taken, or it is not really freedom. our task is harder than that of the door-to-door jehovah's witnesses. it is not enough for us to tell people what to think -- they must think for themselves, or they are not really anarchists.
schools and education
although we distrust schools, anarchists place great faith in the power of education. one of the major sources of hope for a better world is that the next generation, given help, might grow up less neurotic than the last. some would go so far as to say that educating children for freedom is the only real hope of eventually bringing about an anarchist society.
schools are mainly concerned with sorting and grading children for their future roles in the social hierarchy -- and ensuring that they accept the need for competition, hierarchy and respect for authority. such a system demands that the majority of children - and adults - are made to feel inferior. anarchists believe that academic examinations are a meaningless measure of a person's potential for playing a useful role in society. the cult of the professional expert is designed to shatter our confidence in our own abilities and judgement.
anarchists are opposed to corporal punishment or any form of compulsion in education. attendance at all classes should be voluntary. compulsion destroys the natural enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding. real education is the opposite of compulsory schooling, where the main lessons are fear and respect for authority. we need to equip our children with critical minds to understand the world, to see what changes are necessary to make it a better place for everyone, and to be able to bring about the necessary changes.
anarchists are opposed to any religious indoctrination in schools. fear and superstition have no place in an ethical education. religious 'education' should be abolished and replaced by the discussion of moral and philosophical questions based on concern and respect for others.
it is crazy to think that education merely consists of spending eleven years or so of our lives in schools cut off from the real world outside. it would be much healthier for our education to be integrated with the everyday work and life of society. in this way everyone's particular skills would be properly recognised by society and used for the education of others. we need to break down the divisions between work, play and education. education should be available throughout our lives, rather than being arbitrarily confined to that part of our lives spent in schools. we are all potential learners and teachers, passing on and acquiring skills and understanding as we go through life.
anarchists are generally agreed that the complete liberation of education is dependent on the creation of an anarchist society. however, this has not stopped anarchists from trying to create freer environments for children to grow and learn, here and now. some anarchists have educated their children at home. others have worked together with other parents and children rather than remain in isolated family units. in the last three decades several free schools have been established based on anarchist principles, and they have performed a valuable service in demonstrating in practical ways that alternatives exist. however, they have faced constant financial problems and all the other problems which come from trying to live freely in an unfree society.
some anarchists, and others who share their views on education, have concluded that for the foreseeable future most children will be in state schools and, therefore, have tried to change existing state schools as teachers or parents.
although by the nineteen-sixties the educational establishment had accepted libertarian methods at a s neill's summerhill school for the fee-paying children of wealthy parents, they were horrified at the prospect of similar methods being adopted in state schools for working class children. the most successful attempts, those at risinghill school and william tyndale school in london, were eventually stopped by the local education authority and the teachers were thrown out of their jobs.
the lesson for those who try again in the future is that it is essential to break down the isolation of schools from the community, so that parents will understand and actively support what anarchists are trying to do in schools.
conclusion
for more detailed consideration of anarchist theory, we have provided a booklist for further reading. we have listed areas of activity and outlined the anarchist approach. we have made no attempt to indicate which types of activity are most likely to lead to a non-authoritarian future. this kind of judgement requires careful consideration of the nature of society and strategy for change. we hope that you will eventually form your own conclusions. anarchists make up their own minds.
if you are interested, read more, talk to your local anarchists, think things through. there is a lot to be getting on with.
can you think of a good excuse for not being an anarchist? right, then get on with it
