                         Section A - What is Anarchism?

   Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1)
   social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty,
   homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse,
   social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration
   of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2)
   destruction of the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex
   forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass
   destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.

   Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment "experts," mainstream
   media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable,
   each having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on
   a piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however,
   this "orthodox" approach isn't working, since the problems in question
   are getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are
   clearly headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological
   Armageddon, or a descent into urban savagery -- or all of the above.

   Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these
   crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the
   principle of hierarchical authority, which underlies the major
   institutions of all "civilised" societies, whether capitalist or
   "communist." Anarchist analysis therefore starts from the fact that all
   of our major institutions are in the form of hierarchies, i.e.
   organisations that concentrate power at the top of a pyramidal
   structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies, armies,
   political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. It then
   goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in such
   hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and culture.
   In the first part of this FAQ (sections A to E) we will present the
   anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and its negative effects
   in greater detail.

   It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of
   modern civilisation, just "negative" or "destructive." Because it is
   much more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free
   society. Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the "anarchist
   question" as follows: "The problem that confronts us today. . . is how
   to be one's self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with
   all human beings and still retain one's own characteristic qualities."
   [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 158-159] In other words, how can we create a
   society in which the potential for each individual is realised but not
   at the expense of others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision
   a society in which, instead of being controlled "from the top down"
   through hierarchical structures of centralised power, the affairs of
   humanity will, to quote Benjamin Tucker, "be managed by individuals or
   voluntary associations." [Anarchist Reader, p. 149] While later
   sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe anarchism's
   positive proposals for organising society in this way, "from the bottom
   up," some of the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in
   the earlier sections. The positive core of anarchism can even be seen
   in the anarchist critique of such flawed solutions to the social
   question as Marxism and right-wing "libertarianism" (sections F and H,
   respectively).

   As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "[l]ike all great ideas,
   anarchism is pretty simple when you get down to it -- human beings are
   at their best when they are living free of authority, deciding things
   among themselves rather than being ordered about." [Anarchy: A Graphic
   Guide, p. vii] Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore
   social freedom, anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that
   repress people:

     "Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all
     political and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of
     the development of a free humanity." [Rudolf Rocker,
     Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 9]

   As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their
   repressive nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.

   Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an
   ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you
   have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of
   ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and
   flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes
   and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of
   "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring
   reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by
   definition) correct. All such "fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny
   and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a
   Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in
   question -- Leninism, Objectivism, "Libertarianism," or whatever -- all
   will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in
   the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of
   some ruling elite. Or, as Michael Bakunin puts it:

     "Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody
     immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some
     pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national
     honour, historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty,
     public welfare." [God and the State, p. 59]

   Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of
   some dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or
   her ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living
   to bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The
   living should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis
   of critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of
   rules and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for
   ourselves.

   In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you
   the "correct" answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about
   what anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its
   modern forms and why we are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to
   provoke thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new
   ideology, then sorry, anarchism is not for you.

   While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not
   "reasonable" people. "Reasonable" people uncritically accept what the
   "experts" and "authorities" tell them is true, and so they will always
   remain slaves! Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote:

     "[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when
     he speaks and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the
     situation he may be in, he always knows what he must say and do. He
     may fall, but he cannot bring shame upon himself or his causes."
     [quoted in Albert Meltzer, I couldn't Paint Golden Angels, p. 2]

   What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is
   the power of freedom. We encourage you not to be "reasonable," not to
   accept what others tell you, but to think and act for yourself!

   One last point: to state the obvious, this is not the final word on
   anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written
   here, but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All
   we wish to do is indicate the basic ideas of anarchism and give our
   analysis of certain topics based on how we understand and apply these
   ideas. We are sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the
   core ideas we present, even if they may disagree with our application
   of them here and there.
