               I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?

   No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint" for a free
   society. "Anarchism", as Rocker correctly stressed, "is no patent
   solution for all human problems, no Utopia of a perfect social order,
   as it has so often been called, since on principle it rejects all
   absolute schemes and concepts. It does not believe in any absolute
   truth, or in definite final goals for human development, but in an
   unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements and human living
   conditions, which are always straining after higher forms of
   expression, and to which for this reason one can assign no definite
   terminus nor set any fixed goal." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 15]

   All we can do here is indicate those general features that we believe a
   free society must have in order to qualify as truly libertarian. For
   example, a society based on hierarchical management in the workplace
   (like capitalism) would not be libertarian and would soon see private
   or public states developing to protect the power of those at the top
   hierarchical positions. Beyond such general considerations, however,
   the specifics of how to structure a non-hierarchical society must
   remain open for discussion and experimentation:

     "Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse
     economic [and social] conditions, on the premise that these cannot
     imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty." [D.
     A. de Santillan, After the Revolution, p. 95]

   So, our comments should not be regarded as a detailed plan but rather a
   series of suggestions based on what anarchists have traditionally
   advocated as an alternative to capitalism combined with what has been
   tried in various social revolutions. Anarchists have always been
   reticent about spelling out their vision of the future in too much
   detail for it would be contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic
   about the precise forms the new society must take. Free people will
   create their own alternative institutions in response to conditions
   specific to their area as well as their needs, desires and hopes and it
   would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies
   in advance. As Kropotkin argued, once expropriation of social wealth by
   the masses has been achieved "then, after a period of groping, there
   will necessarily arise a new system of organising production and
   exchange . . . and that system will be a lot more attuned to popular
   aspirations and the requirements of co-existence and mutual relations
   than any theory, however splendid, devised by the thinking and
   imagination of reformers". This, however, did not stop him "predicting
   right now that" in some areas influenced by anarchists "the foundations
   of the new organisation will be the free federation of producers'
   groups and the free federation of Communes and groups in independent
   Communes." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 232]

   This is because what we think now will influence the future just as
   real experience will influence and change how we think. Given the
   libertarian critique of the state and capitalism, certain kinds of
   social organisation are implied. Thus, our recognition that wage-labour
   creates authoritarian social relationships and exploitation suggests a
   workplace in a free society can only be based on associated and
   co-operative labour (i.e., self-management). Similarly, given that the
   state is a centralised body which delegates power upwards it is not
   hard to imagine that a free society would have communal institutions
   which were federal and organised from the bottom-up.

   Moreover, given the ways in which our own unfree society has shaped our
   ways of thinking, it is probably impossible for us to imagine what new
   forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and creativity is unleashed
   by the removal of its present authoritarian fetters. Thus any attempts
   to paint a detailed picture of the future will be doomed to failure.
   Ultimately, anarchists think that "the new society should be organised
   with the direct participation of all concerned, from the periphery to
   the centre, freely and spontaneously, at the prompting of the sentiment
   of solidarity and under pressure of the natural needs of society." [E.
   Malatesta and A. Hamon, Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 20]

   Nevertheless, anarchists have been willing to specify some broad
   principles indicating the general framework within which they expect
   the institutions of the new society to grow. It is important to
   emphasise that these principles are not the arbitrary creations of
   intellectuals in ivory towers. Rather, they are based on the actual
   political, social and economic structures that have arisen
   spontaneously whenever working class people have attempted to throw off
   their chains during eras of heightened revolutionary activity, such as
   the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and
   the Hungarian uprising of 1956, France in 1968, the Argentinean revolt
   against neo-liberalism in 2001, to name just a few. It is clear, from
   these examples, that federations of self-managed workers' councils and
   community assemblies appear repeatedly in such popular revolts as
   people attempt to manage their own destinies directly, both
   economically and socially. While their names and specific
   organisational structures differ, these can be considered basic
   libertarian socialist forms, since they have appeared during all
   revolutionary periods. Ultimately, such organisations are the only
   alternatives to political, social and economic authority -- unless we
   make our own decisions ourselves, someone else will.

   So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just an
   attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no way an
   attempt to determine exactly what a free society would be like, for
   such a free society will be the result of the actions of all of
   society, not just anarchists. As Malatesta argued:

     "it is a question of freedom for everybody, freedom for each
     individual so long as he [or she] respects the equal freedom of
     others."

     "None can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is
     nearest to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the
     greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom, coupled by experience,
     is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there
     is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err." [Errico
     Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 49]

   And, of course, real life has a habit of over-turning even the most
   realistic sounding theories, ideas and ideologies. Marxism, Leninism,
   Monetarism, laissez-faire capitalism (among others) have proven time
   and time again that ideology applied to real life has effects not
   predicted by the theory before hand (although in all four cases, their
   negative effects where predicted by others; in the case of Marxism and
   Leninism by anarchists). Anarchists are aware of this, which is why we
   reject ideology in favour of theory and why we are hesitant to create
   blue-prints for the future. History has repeatedly proven Proudhon
   right when he stated that "every society declines the moment it falls
   into the hands of the ideologists." [System of Economical
   Contradictions, p. 115]

   Only life, as Bakunin stressed, can create and so life must inform
   theory -- and so if the theory is producing adverse results it is
   better to revise the theory than deny reality or justify the evil
   effects it creates on real people. Thus this section of the FAQ is not
   a blue print, rather it is a series of suggestions (suggestions drawn,
   we stress, from actual experiences of working class revolt and
   organisation). These suggestions may be right or wrong and informed by
   Malatesta's comments that:

     "We do not boast that we possess absolute truth, on the contrary, we
     believe that social truth is not a fixed quantity, good for all
     times, universally applicable or determinable in advance, but that
     instead, once freedom has been secured, mankind will go forward
     discovering and acting gradually with the least number of upheavals
     and with a minimum of friction. Thus our solutions always leave the
     door open to different and, one hopes, better solutions." [Op. Cit.,
     p.21]

   It is for this reason that anarchists, to quote Bakunin, think that the
   "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]
   Social problems will be solved in the interests of the working class
   only if working class people solve them themselves. This applies to a
   social revolution -- it will only liberate the working class if working
   class people make it themselves, using their own organisations and
   power. Indeed, it is the course of struggling for social change, to
   correct social problems, by, say, strikes, occupations, demonstrations
   and other forms of direct action, that people can transform their
   assumptions about what is possible, necessary and desirable. The
   necessity of organising their struggles and their actions ensures the
   development of assemblies and other organs of popular power in order to
   manage their activity. These create, potentially, an alternative means
   by which society can be organised. As Kropotkin argued, "[a]ny strike
   trains the participants for a common management of affairs." [quoted by
   Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p.
   233] The ability of people to manage their own lives, and so society,
   becomes increasingly apparent and the existence of hierarchical
   authority, the state, the boss or a ruling class, becomes clearly
   undesirable and unnecessary. Thus the framework of the free society
   will be created by the very process of class struggle, as working class
   people create the organisations required to fight for improvements and
   change within capitalism (see [1]section I.2.3).

   Thus, the actual framework of an anarchist society and how it develops
   and shapes itself is dependent on the needs and desires of those who
   live in such a society or are trying to create one. This is why
   anarchists stress the need for mass assemblies in both the community
   and workplace and their federation from the bottom up to manage common
   affairs. Anarchy can only be created by the active participation of the
   mass of people. In the words of Malatesta, an anarchist society would
   be based on "decisions taken at popular assemblies and carried out by
   groups and individuals who have volunteered or are duly delegated." The
   "success of the revolution" depends on "a large number of individuals
   with initiative and the ability to tackle practical tasks: by
   accustoming the masses not to leave the common cause in the hands of a
   few, and to delegate, when delegation is necessary, only for specific
   missions and for limited duration." [Op. Cit., p. 129] This
   self-management would be the basis on which an anarchist society would
   change and develop, with the new society created by those who live
   within it. Thus Bakunin:

     "revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme
     control must always belong to people organised into a free
     federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .
     organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary
     delegation." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 172]

   And, we must not forget that while we may be able to roughly guess the
   way an anarchist society could start initially, we cannot pretend to
   predict how it will develop in the long term. A social revolution is
   just the beginning of a process of social transformation.
   Unfortunately, we have to start where we are now, not where we hope to
   end up! Therefore our discussion will, by necessity, reflect the
   current society as this is the society we will be transforming. While,
   for some, this outlook may not be of a sufficient qualitative break
   with the world we now inhabit, it is essential. We need to offer and
   discuss suggestions for action in the here and now, not for some future
   pie in the sky world which can only possibly exist years, even decades,
   after a successful revolution.

   For example, the ultimate goal of anarchism, we stress, is not the
   self-management of existing workplaces or industries within the same
   industrial structure produced by capitalism. However, a revolution will
   undoubtedly see the occupation and placing under self-management much
   of existing industry and we start our discussion assuming a similar
   set-up as exists today. This does not mean that an anarchist society
   will continue to be like this, we simply present the initial stages
   using examples we are all familiar with. It is simply the first stage
   of transforming industry into something more ecologically safe,
   socially integrated and individually and collectively empowering for
   people.

   Some people seriously seem to think that after a social revolution
   working people will continue using the same technology, in the same old
   workplaces, in the same old ways and not change a single thing (except,
   perhaps, electing their managers). They simply transfer their own lack
   of imagination onto the rest of humanity. For anarchists, it is
   "certain, however, that, when they [the workers] find themselves their
   own masters, they will modify the old system to suit their convenience
   in a variety of ways . . . as common sense is likely to suggest to free
   men [and women]." [Charlotte M. Wilson, Anarchist Essays, p. 23] So we
   have little doubt that working people will quickly transform their
   work, workplaces and society into one suitable for human beings,
   rejecting the legacy of capitalism and create a society we simply
   cannot predict. The occupying of workplaces is, we stress, simply the
   first stage of the process of transforming them and the rest of
   society. These words of the strikers just before the 1919 Seattle
   General Strike expresses this perspective well:

     "Labour will not only SHUT DOWN the industries, but Labour will
     REOPEN, under the management of the appropriate trades, such
     activities as are needed to preserve public health and public peace.
     If the strike continues, Labour may feel led to avoid public
     suffering by reopening more and more activities,

     "UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT.

     "And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that leads --
     NO ONE KNOWS WHERE!"
     [quoted by Jeremy Brecher, Strike!, p. 110]

   People's lives in a post-revolutionary society will not centre around
   fixed jobs and workplaces as they do now. Productive activity will go
   on, but not in the alienated way it does today. Similarly, in their
   communities people will apply their imaginations, skills and hopes to
   transform them into better places to live (the beautification of the
   commune, as the CNT put it). The first stage, of course, will be to
   take over their existing communities and place them under community
   control. Therefore, it is essential to remember that our discussion can
   only provide an indication on how an anarchist society will operate in
   the months and years after a successful revolution, an anarchist
   society still marked by the legacy of capitalism. However, it would be
   a great mistake to think that anarchists do not seek to transform all
   aspects of society to eliminate that legacy and create a society fit
   for unique individuals to live in. As an anarchist society develops it
   will, we stress, transform society in ways we cannot guess at now,
   based on the talents, hopes, dreams and imaginations of those living in
   it.

   Lastly, it could be argued that we spend too much time discussing the
   "form" (i.e. the types of organisation and how they make decisions)
   rather than the "content" of an anarchist society (the nature of the
   decisions reached). Moreover, the implication of this distinction also
   extends to the organisations created in the class struggle that would,
   in all likelihood, become the framework of a free society. However,
   form is as, perhaps more, important than content. This is because
   "form" and "content" are inter-related -- a libertarian, participatory
   "form" of organisation allows the "content" of a decision, society or
   struggle to change. Self-management has an educational effect on those
   involved, as they are made aware of different ideas, think about them
   and decide between them (and, of course, formulate and present their
   own ones). Thus the nature of these decisions can and will evolve. Thus
   form has a decisive impact on "content" and so we make no apologies for
   discussing the form of a free society. As Murray Bookchin argued:

     "To assume that the forms of freedom can be treated merely as forms
     would be as absurd as to assume that legal concepts can be treated
     merely as questions of jurisprudence. The form and content of
     freedom, like law and society, are mutually determined. By the same
     token, there are forms of organisation that promote and forms that
     vitiate the goal of freedom . . . To one degree or another, these
     forms either alter the individual who uses them or inhibit his [or
     her] further development." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 89]

   And the content of decisions are determined by the individuals
   involved. Thus participatory, decentralised, self-managed organisations
   are essential for the development of the content of decisions because
   they develop the individuals who make them.

I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?

   Partly, in order to indicate why people should become anarchists. Most
   people do not like making jumps in the dark, so an indication of what
   anarchists think a desirable society could look like may help those
   people who are attracted to anarchism, inspiring them to become
   committed to its practical realisation. Partly, it's a case of learning
   from past mistakes. There have been numerous anarchistic social
   experiments on varying scales, and its useful to understand what
   happened, what worked and what did not. In that way, hopefully, we will
   not make the same mistakes twice.

   However, the most important reason for discussing what an anarchist
   society would look like is to ensure that the creation of such a
   society is the action of as many people as possible. As Errico
   Malatesta indicated in the middle of the Italian revolutionary "Two Red
   Years" (see [2]section A.5.5), "either we all apply our minds to
   thinking about social reorganisation, and right away, at the very same
   moment that the old structures are being swept away, and we shall have
   a more humane and more just society, open to future advances, or we
   shall leave such matters to the 'leaders' and we shall have a new
   government." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 69]

   Hence the importance of discussing what the future will be like in the
   here and now. The more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a
   free society would look like the easier it will be to create that
   society and ensure that no important matters are left to others to
   decide for us. The example of the Spanish Revolution comes to mind. For
   many years before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications
   discussing what an anarchist society would look like (for example,
   After the Revolution by Diego Abel de Santillan and Libertarian
   Communism by Isaac Puente), the end product of libertarians organising
   and educating in Spain for almost seventy years before the revolution.
   When it finally occurred, the millions of people who participated
   already shared a similar vision and started to build a society based on
   it, thus learning firsthand where their books were wrong and which
   areas of life they did not adequately cover.

   So, this discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is not
   a drawing up of blueprints, nor is it an attempt to force the future
   into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an
   attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like
   and to learn from previous experiments. However, as anarchists
   recognise the importance of building the new world in the shell of the
   old, our ideas of what a free society would be like can feed into how
   we organise and struggle today. And vice versa; for how we organise and
   struggle today will have an impact on the future.

   As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,
   for it is "absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed
   and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'
   without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what has
   to be done and who immediately set about doing it" for "social life, as
   the life of individuals, does not permit of interruption." He stressed
   that to "neglect all the problems of reconstruction or to pre-arrange
   complete and uniform plans are both errors, excesses which, by
   different routes, would led to our defeat as anarchists and to the
   victory of new or old authoritarian regime. The truth lies in the
   middle." [Op. Cit., p. 121]

   Moreover, the importance of discussing the future can help indicate
   whether our activities are actually creating a better world. After all,
   if Karl Marx had been more willing to discuss his vision of a socialist
   society then the Stalinists would have found it much harder to claim
   that their hellish system was, in fact, socialism. Given that
   anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin gave a board outline of their
   vision of a free society it would have been impossible for anarchism to
   be twisted as Marxism was. Most anarchists would agree with Chomsky's
   evaluation of the issue:

     "A movement of the left should distinguish with clarity between its
     long-range revolutionary aims and certain more immediate effects it
     can hope to achieve . . .

     "But in the long run, a movement of the left has no chance of
     success, and deserves none, unless it develops an understanding of
     contemporary society and a vision of a future social order that is
     persuasive to a large majority of the population. Its goals and
     organisational forms must take shape through their active
     participation in political struggle [in its widest sense] and social
     reconstruction. A genuine radical culture can be created only
     through the spiritual transformation of great masses of people the
     essential feature of any social revolution that is to extend the
     possibilities for human creativity and freedom . . . The cultural
     and intellectual level of any serious radical movement will have to
     be far higher than in the past . . . It will not be able to satisfy
     itself with a litany of forms of oppression and injustice. It will
     need to provide compelling answers to the question of how these
     evils can be overcome by revolution or large-scale reform. To
     accomplish this aim, the left will have to achieve and maintain a
     position of honesty and commitment to libertarian values." [Radical
     Priorities, pp. 189-90]

   We hope that this section of the FAQ, in its own small way, will
   encourage as many people as possible to discuss what a libertarian
   society would be like and use that discussion to bring it closer.

I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from
capitalism?

   Possibly, it depends what is meant by an anarchist society.

   If it is meant a fully classless society (what some people,
   inaccurately, would call a "utopia") then the answer is a clear "no,
   that would be impossible." Anarchists are well aware that "class
   difference do not vanish at the stroke of a pen whether that pen
   belongs to the theoreticians or to the pen-pushers who set out laws or
   decrees. Only action, that is to say direct action (not through
   government) expropriation by the proletarians, directed against the
   privileged class, can wipe out class difference." [Luigi Fabbri,
   "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49, The Poverty of
   Statism, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 30]

   As we discussed in [3]section H.2.5, few anarchists consider it likely
   that a perfectly functioning libertarian communist society would be the
   immediate effect of a social revolution. For anarchists a social
   revolution is a process and not an event (although, of course, a
   process marked by such events as general strikes, uprisings,
   insurrections and so on). As Kropotkin argued:

     "It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps five
     years that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution in the
     property system and in social organisation." [Words of a Rebel, p.
     72]

   His famous work The Conquest of Bread aimed, to use his words, at
   "prov[ing] that communism -- at least partial -- has more chance of
   being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking the
   lead" and tried "to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a
   large city -- if its inhabitants have accepted the idea -- could
   organise itself on the lines of free communism." [Anarchism, p. 298]
   The revolution, in other words, would progress towards communism after
   the initial revolt:

     "we know that an uprising can overthrow and change a government in
     one day, while a revolution needs three or four years of
     revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results . . . if we
     should expect the revolution, from its earliest insurrections, to
     have a communist character, we would have to relinquish the
     possibility of a revolution, since in that case there would be need
     of a strong majority to agree on carrying through a change in the
     direction of communism." [Kropotkin, quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short
     History of Anarchism, pp. 282-3]

   In addition, different areas will develop in different speeds and in
   different ways, depending on the influences dominant in the area. "Side
   by side with the revolutionised communes," argued Kropotkin, other
   areas "would remain in an expectant attitude, and would go on living on
   the Individualist system . . . revolution would break out everywhere,
   but revolution under different aspects; in one country State Socialism,
   in another Federation; everywhere more or less Socialism, not
   conforming to any particular rule." Thus "the Revolution will take a
   different character in each of the different European nations; the
   point attained in the socialisation of wealth will not be everywhere
   the same." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 81-2 and p. 81]

   Kropotkin was also aware that a revolution would face many problems,
   including the disruption of economic activity, civil war and isolation.
   He argued that it was "certain that the coming Revolution . . . will
   burst upon us in the middle of a great industrial crisis . . . There
   are millions of unemployed workers in Europe at this moment. It will be
   worse when Revolution has burst upon us . . . The number of the
   out-of-works will be doubled as soon as barricades are erected in
   Europe and the United States . . . we know that in time of Revolution
   exchange and industry suffer most from the general upheaval . . . A
   Revolution in Europe means, then, the unavoidable stoppage of at least
   half the factories and workshops." He stressed that there would be "the
   complete disorganisation" of the capitalist economy and that during a
   revolution "[i]nternational commerce will come to a standstill" and
   "the circulation of commodities and of provisions will be paralysed."
   This would, of course, have an impact on the development of a
   revolution and so the "circumstances will dictate the measures." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 69-70, p. 191 and p. 79]

   Thus we have anarcho-communism being introduced "during a revolutionary
   period" rather than instantly and the possibility that it will be
   "partial" in many, if not all areas, depending on the "circumstances"
   encountered. Therefore the (Marxist inspired) claim that anarchists
   think a fully communist society is possible overnight is simply false
   -- we recognise that a social revolution takes time to develop after it
   starts. As Malatesta put it, "after the revolution, that is after the
   defeat of the existing powers and the overwhelming victory of the
   forces of insurrection" then "gradualism really comes into operation.
   We shall have to study all the practical problems of life: production,
   exchange, the means of communication, relations between anarchist
   groupings and those living under some kind of authority, between
   communist collectives and those living in an individualistic way;
   relations between town and country . . . and so on." [Errico Malatesta:
   His Life and Ideas, p. 173] In other words, "each community will decide
   for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for
   the distribution of the products of associated labour." [James
   Guillaume, "On Building the New Social Order", pp. 356-79, Bakunin on
   Anarchism, p. 362]

   However, if by "anarchist society" it is meant a society that has
   abolished the state and started the process of transforming society
   from below then anarchists argue that such a society is not only
   possible after a successful revolution, it is essential. Thus the
   anarchist social revolution would be political (abolition of the
   state), economic (abolition of capitalism) and social (abolition of
   hierarchical social relationships). Or, more positively, the
   introduction of self-management into every aspect of life. In other
   words, "political transformation" and "economic transformation" must be
   "accomplished together and simultaneously." [Bakunin, The Basic
   Bakunin, p. 106] This transformation would be based upon the
   organisations created by working class people in their struggle against
   capitalism and the state (see [4]next section). Thus the framework of a
   free society would be created by the struggle for freedom itself, by
   the class struggle within but against hierarchical society. This
   revolution would come "from below" and would expropriate capital as
   well as smash the state (see [5]section H.2.4). Such a society, as
   Bakunin argued, will not be "perfect" by any means:

     "I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised from
     the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,
     confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced that
     what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands times
     better and more just than any existing organisation. Moreover, this
     . . . organisation, being on the one hand open to revolutionary
     propaganda . . . , and on the other, not petrified by the
     intervention of the State . . . will develop and perfect itself
     through free experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect
     in our times.

     "With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation
     of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development
     of each commune will take its point of departure the actual
     condition of its civilisation."
     [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 207]

   How far such a new social organisation will meet the all the ideals and
   hopes of communist-anarchists will vary according to objective
   circumstances and the influence of libertarian theory. As people start
   to liberate themselves they will under go an ethical and psychological
   transformation as they act to the end specific hierarchical social
   structures and relationships. It does not imply that people need to be
   "perfect" nor that a perfect anarchist society will come about
   "overnight. Rather, it means that while an anarchist society (i.e., one
   without a state or private property) would be created by revolution, it
   will be one initially marked by the society it came from and would
   require a period of self-activity by which individuals reshape and
   change themselves as they are reshaping and changing the world about
   them. Thus Malatesta:

     "And even after a successful insurrection, could we overnight
     realise all desires and pass from a governmental and capitalist hell
     to a libertarian-communist heaven which is the complete freedom of
     man within the wished-for community of interests with all men?

     "These are illusions which can take root among authoritarians who
     look upon the masses as the raw material which those who have power
     can, by decrees, supported by bullets and handcuffs, mould to their
     will. But these illusions have not taken among anarchists. We need
     the people's consensus, and therefore we must persuade by means of
     propaganda and example . . . to win over to our ideas an ever
     greater number of people." [Op. Cit., pp. 82-3]

   So, clearly, the idea of a "one-day revolution" is one rejected as a
   harmful fallacy by anarchists. We are aware that revolutions are a
   process and not an event (or series of events). However, one thing that
   anarchists do agree on is that it is essential for both the state and
   capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is true that, in
   the course of social revolution, we anarchists may not be able to stop
   a new state being created or the old one from surviving. It all depends
   on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the population and how
   willing people are to introduce them. There is no doubt, though, that
   for a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the state and capitalism
   must be destroyed and new forms of oppression and exploitation not put
   in their place. How quickly after such a destruction we move to a fully
   communist-anarchist society is a moot point, dependent on the
   conditions the revolution is facing and the ideas and wants of the
   people making it.

   So the degree which a society which has abolished the state can
   progress towards free communism depends on objective conditions and
   what a free people want. Bakunin and other collectivists doubted the
   possibility of introducing a communistic system instantly after a
   revolution. For Kropotkin and many other anarcho-communists,
   communistic anarchy can, and must, be introduced as far as possible and
   as soon as possible in order to ensure a successful revolution. We
   should mention here that some anarchists, like the individualists and
   mutualists, do not support the idea of revolution and instead see
   anarchist alternatives growing within capitalism and slowly replacing
   it.

   In other words anarchists agree that an anarchist society cannot be
   created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists
   could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian
   socialism can only be created from below, by people who want it and
   understand it, organising and liberating themselves. "Communist
   organisations," argued Kropotkin, "must be the work of all, a natural
   growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass.
   Communism cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even for a
   few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all did not uphold
   it. It must be free." [Anarchism, p. 140] The results of the Russian
   Revolution should have cleared away long ago any contrary illusions
   about how to create "socialist" societies. The lesson from every
   revolution is that the mistakes made by people in liberating themselves
   and transforming society are always minor compared to the results of
   creating authorities, who eliminate such "ideological errors" by
   destroying the freedom to make mistakes (and so freedom as such).
   Freedom is the only real basis on which socialism can be built
   ("Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth
   and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the
   freedom to be wrong." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 72]). Therefore, most
   anarchists would agree with Malatesta:

     "To organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it
     would be necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as
     methods of production, of exchange and consumption; and all this
     could not be achieved other than gradually, as the objective
     circumstances permitted and to the extent that the masses understood
     what advantages could be gained and were able to act for
     themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 36]

   This means that while the conditions necessary of a free society would
   be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be utopian
   to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. Few anarchists have
   argued that such a jump would be possible -- rather they have argued
   that revolutions create the conditions for the evolution towards an
   anarchist society by abolishing state and capitalism. "Besides," argued
   Alexander Berkman, "you must not confuse the social revolution with
   anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is a violent upheaval;
   anarchy is a social condition of freedom and peace. The revolution is
   the means of bringing anarchy about but it is not anarchy itself. It is
   to pave the road to anarchy, to establish conditions which will make a
   life of liberty possible." However, "to achieve its purpose the
   revolution must be imbued with and directed by the anarchist spirit and
   ideas. The end shapes the means . . . the social revolution must be
   anarchist in method as in aim." [What is Anarchism?, p. 231]

   This means that while acknowledging the possibility of a transitional
   society, anarchists reject the notion of a transitional state as
   confused in the extreme (and, as can be seen from the experience of
   Marxism, dangerous as well). An anarchist society can only be achieved
   by anarchist means. Hence French Syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier's
   comments:

     "Nobody believes or expects that the coming revolution . . . will
     realise unadulterated anarchist-communism. . . it will erupt, no
     doubt, before the work of anarchist education has been completed . .
     . [and as] a result . . . , while we do preach perfect communism, it
     is not in the certainty or expectation of [libertarian] communism's
     being the social form of the future: it is in order to further men's
     [and women's] education . . . so that, by the time of the day of
     conflagration comes, they will have attained maximum emancipation.
     But must the transitional state to be endured necessarily or
     inevitability be the collectivist [i.e. state socialist/capitalist]
     jail? Might it not consist of libertarian organisation confined to
     the needs of production and consumption alone, with all political
     institutions having been done away with?" [No Gods, No Masters, vol.
     2, p. 55]

   One thing is certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass movement
   will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists
   to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to
   face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo. An anarchist
   revolution or mass movement will face (and indeed has faced) such
   counter-revolutionary movements. However, this does not mean that the
   destruction of the state and capitalism need be put off until after the
   forces of reaction are defeated. For anarchists, a social revolution
   and free society can only be defended by anti-statist means (for more
   discussion of this important subject see [6]section J.7.6).

   So, given an anarchist revolution which destroys the state, the type
   and nature of the economic system created by it will depend on local
   circumstances and the level of awareness in society. The individualists
   are correct in the sense that what we do now will determine how the
   future develops. Obviously, any "transition period" starts in the here
   and now, as this helps determine the future. Thus, while social
   anarchists usually reject the idea that capitalism can be reformed
   away, we agree with the individualist and mutualist anarchists that it
   is essential for anarchists to be active today in constructing the
   ideas, ideals and new liberatory institutions of the future society
   within the current one. The notion of waiting for the "glorious day" of
   total revolution is not one held by anarchists -- just like the notion
   that we expect a perfect communist-anarchist society to emerge the day
   after a successful revolution. Neither position reflects anarchist
   ideas on social change.

I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?

   Anarchists do not abstractly compare a free society with the current
   one. Rather, we see an organic connection between what is and what
   could be. In other words, anarchists see the initial framework of an
   anarchist society as being created under statism and capitalism when
   working class people organise themselves to resist hierarchy. As
   Kropotkin argued:

     "To make a revolution it is not . . . enough that there should be .
     . . [popular] risings . . . It is necessary that after the risings
     there should be something new in the institutions [that make up
     society], which would permit new forms of life to be elaborated and
     established." [The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 200]

   Anarchists have seen these new institutions as being linked with the
   need of working class people to resist the evils of hierarchy,
   capitalism and statism, as being the product of the class struggle and
   attempts by working class people to resist authority, oppression and
   exploitation. Thus the struggle of working class people to protect and
   enhance their liberty under hierarchical society will be the basis for
   a society without hierarchy. This basic insight allowed anarchists like
   Bakunin and Proudhon to predict future developments in the class
   struggle such as workers' councils (such as those which developed
   during the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions). As Oskar Anweiler notes
   in his definitive work on the Russian Soviets (Workers' Councils):

     "Proudhon's views are often directly associated with the Russian
     councils . . . Bakunin . . ., much more than Proudhon, linked
     anarchist principles directly to revolutionary action, thus arriving
     at remarkable insights into the revolutionary process that
     contribute to an understanding of later events in Russia . . .

     "In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas as developed
     over twenty-five years can be summed up in the words:
     agricultural-industrial federation. All my political ideas boil down
     to a similar formula: political federation or decentralisation.' . .
     . Proudhon's conception of a self-governing state [sic!] founded on
     producers' corporations [i.e. federations of co-operatives], is
     certainly related to the idea of 'a democracy of producers' which
     emerged in the factory soviets. To this extent Proudhon can be
     regarded as an ideological precursor of the councils . . .

     "Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary committees
     with representatives from the barricades, the streets, and the city
     districts, who would be given binding mandates, held accountable to
     the masses, and subject to recall. These revolutionary deputies were
     to form the 'federation of the barricades,' organising a
     revolutionary commune to immediately unite with other centres of
     rebellion . . .

     "Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees to elect
     communal councils, and a pyramidal organisation of society 'through
     free federation from the bottom upward, the association of workers
     in industry and agriculture -- first in the communities, then
     through federation of communities into districts, districts into
     nations, and nations into international brotherhood.' These
     proposals are indeed strikingly similar to the structure of the
     subsequent Russian system of councils . . .

     "Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the revolution and
     the masses' capacity for elementary organisation undoubtedly were
     echoed in part by the subsequent soviet movement. . . Because
     Bakunin . . . was always very close to the reality of social
     struggle, he was able to foresee concrete aspects of the revolution.
     The council movement during the Russian Revolution, though not a
     result of Bakunin's theories, often corresponded in form and
     progress to his revolutionary concepts and predictions."
     [The Soviets, pp. 8-11]

   "As early as the 1860's and 1870's," Paul Avrich also noted, "the
   followers of Proudhon and Bakunin in the First International were
   proposing the formation of workers' councils designed both as a weapon
   of class struggle against capitalists and as the structural basis of
   the future libertarian society." [The Russian Anarchists, p. 73]

   In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal but rather an aspect of
   the current struggles against domination, oppression and exploitation
   (i.e. the class struggle, to use an all-embracing term, although we
   must stress that anarchists use this term to cover all struggles
   against domination). "Anarchism," argued Kropotkin, "is not a mere
   insight into a remote future. Already now, whatever the sphere of
   action of the individual, he [or she] can act, either in accordance
   with anarchist principles or on an opposite line." It was "born among
   the people -- in the struggles of real life" and "owes its origin to
   the constructive, creative activity of the people." [Anarchism, p. 75,
   p. 150 and p. 149] Thus, "Anarchism is not . . . a theory of the future
   to be realised by divine inspiration. It is a living force in the
   affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions." It "stands
   for the spirit of revolt" and so "[d]irect action against the authority
   in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, of direct
   action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is
   the logical, consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman, Anarchism
   and Other Essays, p. 63 and p. 66]

   Anarchism draws upon the autonomous self-activity and spontaneity of
   working class people in struggle to inform both its political theory
   and its vision of a free society. The struggle against hierarchy
   teaches us not only how to be anarchists but also gives us a glimpse of
   what an anarchist society would be like, what its initial framework
   could be and the experience of managing our own activities which is
   required for such a society to function successfully.

   Therefore, as is clear, anarchists have long had a clear vision of what
   an anarchist society would look like and, equally as important, where
   such a society would spring from (as we proved in [7]section H.1.4
   Lenin's assertion that anarchists "have absolutely no clear idea of
   what the proletariat will put in its [the states] place" is simply
   false). It would, therefore, be useful to give a quick summary of
   anarchist views on this subject.

   Proudhon, for example, looked to the self-activity of French workers,
   artisans and peasants and used that as the basis of his ideas on
   anarchism. While seeing such activity as essentially reformist in
   nature, like subsequent revolutionary anarchists he saw the germs of
   anarchy "generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths of
   labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop
   capital and the State and subjugate them" as "it is of no use to change
   the holders of power or introduce some variation into its workings: an
   agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of which
   power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [System of
   Economical Contradictions, p. 399 and p. 398] Workers should follow the
   example of those already creating co-operatives:

     "Do not the workmen's unions at this moment serve as the cradle for
     the social revolution . . . ? Are they not always the open school,
     both theoretical and practical, where the workman learns the science
     of the production and distribution of wealth, where he studies,
     without masters and without books, by his own experience solely, the
     laws of . . . industrial organisation . . . ?" [General Idea of the
     Revolution, p. 78]

   Attempts to form workers associations, therefore, "should be judged,
   not by the more or less successful results which they obtain, but only
   according to their silent tendency to assert and establish the social
   republic." The "importance of their work lies, not in their petty union
   interests, but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, money
   lenders and governments." They "should take over the great departments
   of industry, which are their natural inheritance." [Op. Cit., p. 98-9]

   This linking of the present and the future through the self-activity
   and self-organisation of working class people is also found in Bakunin.
   Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin stressed revolutionary activity and so he saw
   the militant labour movement, and the revolution itself, as providing
   the basic structure of a free society. As he put it, "the organisation
   of the trade sections and their representation in the Chambers of
   Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society
   which is to replace the old one. They are creating not only the ideas,
   but also the facts of the future itself." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p.
   255]

   The needs of the class struggle would create the framework of a new
   society, a federation of workers councils, as "strikes indicate a
   certain collective strength already, a certain understanding among the
   workers . . . each strike becomes the point of departure for the
   formation of new groups." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 149-50] This
   pre-revolutionary development would be accelerated by the revolution
   itself:

     "the revolution must set out from the first to radically and totally
     destroy the State . . . The natural and necessary consequence of
     this destruction will be . . . [among others, the] dissolution of
     army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and priesthood. . .
     confiscation of all productive capital and means of production on
     behalf of workers' associations, who are to put them to use . . .
     the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . .
     [will] constitute the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will be]
     composed of . . . delegates . . . vested with plenary but
     accountable and removable mandates. . . all provinces, communes and
     associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines . .
     . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations,
     communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force
     capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . . [The]
     revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme
     control must always belong to the people organised into a free
     federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .
     organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary
     delegation." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-2]

   Like Bakunin, Kropotkin stressed that revolution transformed those
   taking part in it. As he noted in his classic account of the French
   Revolution, "by degrees, the revolutionary education of the people was
   being accomplished by the revolution itself." Part of this process
   involved creating new organisations which allowed the mass of people to
   take part in the decision making of the revolution. He pointed to "the
   popular Commune," arguing that "the Revolution began by creating the
   Commune . . . and through this institution it gained . . . immense
   power." He stressed that it was "by means of the 'districts' [of the
   Communes] that . . . the masses, accustoming themselves to act without
   receiving orders from the national representatives, were practising
   what was to be described later as Direct Self-Government." Such a
   system did not imply isolation, for while "the districts strove to
   maintain their own independence" they also "sought for unity of action,
   not in subjection to a Central Committee, but in a federative union."
   The Commune "was thus made from below upward, by the federation of the
   district organisations; it spring up in a revolutionary way, from
   popular initiative." Thus the process of class struggle, of the needs
   of the fighting against the existing system, generated the framework of
   an anarchist society for "the districts of Paris laid the foundations
   of a new, free, social organisation." Little wonder he argued that "the
   principles of anarchism . . . already dated from 1789, and that they
   had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the deeds of
   the Great French Revolution" and that "the libertarians would no doubt
   do the same to-day." [The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 261, p.
   200, p. 203, p. 206, p. 204 and p. 206]

   Similarly, as we noted in [8]section H.2.6 we discover him arguing in
   Mutual Aid that strikes and labour unions were an expression of mutual
   aid in capitalist society. Elsewhere, Kropotkin argued that "labour
   combinations" like the "Sections" of French revolution were one of the
   "main popular anarchist currents" in history, expressing the "same
   popular resistance to the growing power of the few." [Anarchism, p.
   159] For Kropotkin, like Bakunin, libertarian labour unions were
   "natural organs for the direct struggle with capitalism and for the
   composition of the future social order." [quoted by Paul Avrich, The
   Russian Anarchists, p. 81]

   As can be seen, the major anarchist thinkers pointed to forms of
   organisation autonomously created and managed by the working class as
   the framework of an anarchist society. Both Bakunin and Kropotkin
   pointed to militant, direct action based labour unions while Proudhon
   pointed towards workers' experiments in co-operative production and
   mutual credit. Later anarchists followed them. The
   anarcho-syndicalists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin, pointed to the
   developing labour movement as the framework of an anarchist society, as
   providing the basis for the free federation of workers' associations
   which would constitute the commune. Others, such as the Russians
   Maximov, Arshinov, Voline and Makhno, saw the spontaneously created
   workers' councils (soviets) of 1905 and 1917 as the basis of a free
   society, as another example of Bakunin's federation of workers'
   associations.

   Thus, for all anarchists, the structural framework of an anarchist
   society was created by the class struggle, by the needs of working
   class people to resist oppression, exploitation and hierarchy. As
   Kropotkin stressed, "[d]uring a revolution new forms of life will
   always germinate on the ruins of the old forms . . . It is impossible
   to legislate for the future. All we can do is vaguely guess its
   essential tendencies and clear the road for it." [Evolution and
   Environment, pp. 101-2] These essential tendencies were discovered, in
   practice, by the needs of the class struggle. The necessity of
   practising mutual aid and solidarity to survive under capitalism (as in
   any other hostile environment) makes working people and other oppressed
   groups organise together to fight their oppressors and exploiters. Thus
   the co-operation necessary for a libertarian socialist society, like
   its organisational framework, would be generated by the need to resist
   oppression and exploitation under capitalism. The process of resistance
   produces organisation on a wider and wider scale which, in turn, can
   become the framework of a free society as the needs of the struggle
   promote libertarian forms of organisation such as decision making from
   the bottom up, autonomy, federalism, mandated delegates subject to
   instant recall and so on.

   For example, a strikers' assembly would be the basic decision-making
   forum in a struggle for improved wages and working conditions. It would
   create a strike committee to implement its decisions and send delegates
   to spread the strike. These delegates inspire other strikes, requiring
   a new organisation to co-ordinate the struggle. This results in
   delegates from all the strikes meeting and forming a federation (a
   workers' council). The strikers decide to occupy the workplace and the
   strike assemblies take over the means of production. The strike
   committees become the basis for factory committees which could
   administer the workplaces, based on workers' self-management via
   workplace assemblies (the former strikers' assemblies). The federation
   of strikers' delegates becomes the local communal council, replacing
   the existing state with a self-managed federation of workers'
   associations. In this way, the class struggle creates the framework of
   a free society.

   This, obviously, means that any suggestions of how an anarchist society
   would look like are based on the fact that the actual framework of a
   free society will be the product of actual struggles. This means that
   the form of the free society will be shaped by the process of social
   change and the organs it creates. This is an important point and worth
   repeating.

   So, as well as changing themselves while they change the world, a
   people in struggle also create the means by which they can manage
   society. By having to organise and manage their struggles, they become
   accustomed to self-management and self-activity and create the
   possibility of a free society and the organisations which will exist
   within it. Anarchy is not a jump into the dark but rather a natural
   progression of the struggle for freedom in an unfree society. The
   contours of a free society will be shaped by the process of creating it
   and, therefore, will not be an artificial construction imposed on
   society. Rather, it will be created from below up by society itself as
   working class people start to break free of hierarchy. The class
   struggle thus transforms those involved as well as society and creates
   the organisational structure and people required for a libertarian
   society.

   This clearly suggests that the means anarchists support are important
   as they are have a direct impact on the ends they create. In other
   words, means influence ends and so our means must reflect the ends we
   seek and empower those who use them. As the present state of affairs is
   based on the oppression, exploitation and alienation of the working
   class, any tactics used in the pursuit of a free society must be based
   on resisting and destroying those evils. This is why anarchists stress
   tactics and organisations which increase the power, confidence,
   autonomy, initiative, participation and self-activity of oppressed
   people. As we indicate in section J ([9]"What Do Anarchists Do?") this
   means supporting direct action, solidarity and self-managed
   organisations built and run from the bottom-up. Only by fighting our
   own battles, relying on ourselves and our own abilities and power, in
   organisations we create and run ourselves, can we gain the power and
   confidence and experience needed to change society for the better and,
   hopefully, create a new society in place of the current one.

   Needless to say, a revolutionary movement will never, at its start, be
   purely anarchist:

     "All of the workers' and peasants' movements which have taken place
     . . . have been movements within the limits of the capitalist
     regime, and have been more of less tinged with anarchism. This is
     perfectly natural and understandable. The working class do not act
     within a world of wishes, but in the real world where they are daily
     subjected to the physical and psychological blows of hostile forces
     . . . the workers continually feel the influence of all the real
     conditions of the capitalist regime and of intermediate groups . . .
     Consequently it is natural that the struggle which they undertake
     inevitably carries the stamp of various conditions and
     characteristics of contemporary society. The struggle can never be
     born in the finished and perfected anarchist form which would
     correspond to all the requirements of the ideas . . . When the
     popular masses engage in a struggle of large dimensions, they
     inevitably start by committing errors, they allow contradictions and
     deviations, and only through the process of this struggle do they
     direct their efforts in the direction of the ideal for which they
     are struggling." [Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist
     Movement, pp. 239-40]

   The role of anarchists is "to help the masses to take the right road in
   the struggle and in the construction of the new society" and "support
   their first constructive efforts, assist them intellectually." However,
   the working class "once it has mastered the struggle and begins its
   social construction, will no longer surrender to anyone the initiative
   in creative work. The working class will then direct itself by its own
   thought; it will create its society according to its own plans."
   [Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 240-1] All anarchists can do is help this
   process by being part of it, arguing our case and winning people over
   to anarchist ideas (see [10]section J.3 for more details). Thus the
   process of struggle and debate will, hopefully, turn a struggle against
   capitalism and statism into one for anarchism. In other words,
   anarchists seek to preserve and extend the anarchistic elements that
   exist in every struggle and to help them become consciously libertarian
   by discussion and debate as members of those struggles.

   Lastly, we must stress that it is only the initial framework of a free
   society which is created in the class struggle. As an anarchist society
   develops, it will start to change and develop in ways we cannot
   predict. The forms in which people express their freedom and their
   control over their own lives will, by necessity, change as these
   requirements and needs change. As Bakunin argued:

     "Even the most rational and profound science cannot divine the form
     social life will take in the future. It can only determine the
     negative conditions, which follow logically from a rigorous critique
     of existing society. Thus, by means of such a critique, social and
     economic science rejected hereditary individual property and,
     consequently, took the abstract and, so to speak, negative position
     of collective property as a necessary condition of the future social
     order. In the same way, it rejected the very idea of the state or
     statism, meaning government of society from above downward . . .
     Therefore, it took the opposite, or negative, position: anarchy,
     meaning the free and independent organisation of all the units and
     parts of the community and their voluntary federation from below
     upward, not by the orders of any authority, even an elected one, and
     not by the dictates of any scientific theory, but as the natural
     development of all the varied demands put forth by life itself.

     "Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define for
     himself how they will and must live on the morrow of the social
     revolution. That will be determined first by the situation of each
     people, and secondly by the desires that manifest themselves and
     operate most strongly within them."
     [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 198-9]

   So while it will be reasonable to conclude that, for example, the
   federation of strike/factory assemblies and their councils/committees
   will be the framework by which production will initially be organised,
   this framework will mutate to take into account changing production and
   social needs. The actual structures created will, by necessity, be
   transformed as industry is transformed from below upwards to meet the
   real needs of society and producers as both the structure and nature of
   work and industry developed under capitalism bears the marks of its
   economic class, hierarchies and power ("a radical social ecology not
   only raises traditional issues such as the reunion of agriculture with
   industry, but also questions the very structure of industry itself."
   [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 408]). Therefore, under
   workers' self-management industry, work and the whole structure and
   organisation of production will be transformed in ways we can only
   guess at today. We can point the general direction (i.e. self-managed,
   ecologically balanced, decentralised, federal, empowering, creative and
   so on) but that is all. Similarly, as cities and towns are transformed
   into ecologically integrated communes, the initial community assemblies
   and their federations will transform along with the transformation of
   our surroundings. What they will evolve into we cannot predict, but
   their fundamentals of instant recall, delegation over representation,
   decision making from the bottom up, and so on will remain.

   So, while anarchists see "the future in the present" as the initial
   framework of a free society, we recognise that such a society will
   evolve and change. However, the fundamental principles of a free
   society will not change and so it is useful to present a summary of how
   such a society could work, based on these principles.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci23
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca55
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech25
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci23
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech24
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html#secj76
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech26
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJcon.html
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html
