                J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?

   Yes. Anarchism, above all else, is a movement which aims to not only
   analyse the world but also to change it. Therefore anarchists aim to
   participate in and encourage social struggle. Social struggle includes
   strikes, marches, protests, demonstrations, boycotts, occupations and
   so on. Such activities show that the "spirit of revolt" is alive and
   well, that people are thinking and acting for themselves and against
   what authorities want them to do. This, in the eyes of anarchists,
   plays a key role in helping create the seeds of anarchy within
   capitalism.

   Anarchists consider socialistic tendencies to develop within society as
   people see the benefits of co-operation and particularly when mutual
   aid develops within the struggle against authority, oppression and
   exploitation. Anarchism, as Kropotkin argued, "originated in everyday
   struggles." [Environment and Revolution, p.58] Therefore, anarchists do
   not place anarchy abstractly against capitalism but see it as a
   tendency within and against the system -- a tendency created by
   struggle and which can be developed to such a degree that it can
   replace the dominant structures and social relationships with new, more
   liberatory and humane ones. This perspective indicates why anarchists
   are involved in social struggles -- they are an expression of these
   tendencies within but against capitalism which can ultimately replace
   it.

   However, there is another reason why anarchists are involved in social
   struggle -- namely the fact that we are part of the oppressed and, like
   other oppressed people, fight for our freedom and to make our life
   better in the here and now. It is not in some distant tomorrow that we
   want to see the end of oppression, exploitation and hierarchy. It is
   today, in our own life, that the anarchist wants to win our freedom, or
   at the very least, to improve our situation, reduce oppression,
   domination and exploitation as well as increasing individual liberty
   for "every blow given to the institutions of private property and to
   the government, every exaltation of the conscience of man, disruption
   of the present conditions, every lie unmasked, every part of human
   activity taken away from the control of the authorities, every
   augmentation of the spirit of solidarity and initiative is a step
   towards Anarchism." [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism, p. 75] We are
   aware that we often fail to do so, but the very process of struggle can
   help create a more libertarian aspect to society:

     "Whatever may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate
     gains, the greatest value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby
     workers [and other oppressed sections of society] learn that the
     bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot improve
     their conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except by
     uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses. If they succeed in
     getting what they demand, they will be better off: they will earn
     more, work fewer hours and will have more time and energy to reflect
     on the things that matter to them, and will immediately make greater
     demands and have greater needs. If they do not succeed they will be
     led to study the reasons of their failure and recognise the need for
     closer unity and greater activity and they will in the end
     understand that to make victory secure and definite, it is necessary
     to destroy capitalism. The revolutionary cause, the cause of moral
     elevation and emancipation of the workers [and other oppressed
     sections of society] must benefit by the fact that workers [and
     other oppressed people] unite and struggle for their interests."
     [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 191]

   Therefore, "we as anarchists and workers, must incite and encourage"
   workers and other oppressed people "to struggle, and join them in their
   struggle." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 190] This is for three reasons.
   Firstly, struggle helps generate libertarian ideas and movements which
   could help make existing society more anarchistic and less oppressive.
   Secondly, struggle creates people, movements and organisations which
   are libertarian in nature and which, potentially, can replace
   capitalism with a more humane society. Thirdly, because anarchists are
   part of the oppressed and so have an interest in taking part in and
   showing solidarity with struggles and movements that can improve our
   life in the here and now ("an injury to one is an injury to all").

   As we will see in [1]section J.2 anarchists encourage direct action
   within social struggles as well as arguing for anarchist ideas and
   theories. However, what is important to note here is that social
   struggle is a sign that people are thinking and acting for themselves
   and working together to change things. Howard Zinn is completely
   correct:

     "civil disobedience . . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil
     obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world
     have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have
     gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience
     . . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in
     the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and
     cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are
     full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are
     running the country. That's our problem." [Failure to Quit, p. 45]

   Therefore, social struggle is an important thing for anarchists and we
   take part in it as much as we can. Moreover, anarchists do more than
   just take part. We are fighting to get rid of the system that causes
   the problems which people fight against. We explain anarchism to those
   who are involved in struggle with us and seek to show the relevance of
   anarchism to people's everyday lives through such struggles and the
   popular organisations which they create. By so doing we try to
   popularise the ideas and methods of anarchism, namely solidarity,
   self-management and direct action.

   Anarchists do not engage in abstract propaganda (become an anarchist,
   wait for the revolution -- if we did that, in Malatesta's words, "that
   day would never come." [Op. Cit., p. 195]). We know that our ideas will
   only win a hearing and respect when we can show both their relevance to
   people's lives in the here and now and show that an anarchist world is
   both possible and desirable. In other words, social struggle is the
   "school" of anarchism, the means by which people become anarchists and
   anarchist ideas are applied in action. Hence the importance of social
   struggle and anarchist participation within it.

   Before discussing issues related to social struggle, it is important to
   point out here that anarchists are interested in struggles against all
   forms of oppression and do not limit ourselves to purely economic
   issues. The hierarchical and exploitative nature of the capitalist
   economy is only part of the story -- other forms of oppression are
   needed in order to keep it going (not to mention those associated with
   the state) and have resulted from its workings (in addition to those
   inherited from previous hierarchical and class systems). Domination,
   exploitation, hierarchy and oppression do not remain in the workplace.
   They infest our homes, our friendships and our communities. They need
   to be fought everywhere, not just in work.

   Therefore, anarchists are convinced that human life and the struggle
   against oppression cannot be reduced to mere money and, indeed, the
   "proclivity for economic reductionism is now actually obscurantist. It
   not only shares in the bourgeois tendency to render material egotism
   and class interest the centrepieces of history it also denigrates all
   attempts to transcend this image of humanity as a mere economic being .
   . . by depicting them as mere 'marginalia' at best, as
   'well-intentioned middle-class ideology' at worse, or sneeringly, as
   'diversionary,' 'utopian,' and 'unrealistic' . . . Capitalism, to be
   sure, did not create the 'economy' or 'class interest,' but it
   subverted all human traits -- be they speculative thought, love,
   community, friendship, art, or self-governance -- with the authority of
   economic calculation and the rule of quantity. Its 'bottom line' is the
   balance sheet's sum and its basic vocabulary consists of simple
   numbers." [Murray Bookchin, The Modern Crisis, pp. 125-126]

   In other words, issues such as freedom, justice, individual dignity,
   quality of life and so on cannot be reduced to the categories of
   capitalist economics. Anarchists think that any radical movement which
   does so fails to understand the nature of the system it is fighting
   against (indeed, economic reductionism plays into the hands of
   capitalist ideology). So, when anarchists take part in and encourage
   social struggle they do not aim to restrict or reduce them to economic
   issues (however important these are). The anarchist knows that the
   individual has more interests than just material ones and we consider
   it essential to take into account the needs of the emotions, mind and
   spirit just as much as those of the belly:

     "The class struggle does not centre around material exploitation
     alone but also around spiritual exploitation. In addition, entirely
     new issues emerge: coercive attitudes, the quality of work, ecology
     (or stated in more general terms, psychological and environmental
     oppression) . . . Terms like 'classes' and 'class struggle,'
     conceived of almost entirely as economic categories and relations,
     are too one-sided to express the universalisation of the struggle.
     Use these limited expressions if you like (the target is still a
     ruling class and a class society), but this terminology, with its
     traditional connotations, does not reflect the sweep and the
     multi-dimensional nature of the struggle . . . [and] fail to
     encompass the cultural and spiritual revolt that is taking place
     along with the economic struggle." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp.
     151-2]

   For anarchists, exploitation and class rule are just part of a wider
   system of domination and hierarchy. Material gains, therefore, can
   never completely make-up for oppressive social relationships. As the
   anarchist character created by anarchist science-fiction writer Ursula
   Le Guin put it, capitalists "think if people have enough things they
   will be content to live in prison." [The Dispossessed, p. 120]
   Anarchists disagree -- and the experience of social revolt in the
   "affluent" 1960s proves their case.

   This is unsurprising for, ultimately, the "antagonism [between classes]
   is spiritual rather than material. There will never be a sincere
   understanding between bosses and workers. . . because the bosses above
   all want to remain bosses and secure always more power at the expense
   of the workers, as well as by competition with other bosses, whereas
   the workers have had their fill of bosses and don't want any more."
   [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 79]

J.1.1 Why are social struggles important?

   Social struggle is an expression of the class struggle, namely the
   struggle of working class people against their exploitation, oppression
   and alienation and for their liberty from capitalist and state. It is
   what happens when one group of people have hierarchical power over
   another: where there is oppression, there is resistance and where there
   is resistance to authority you will see anarchy in action. For this
   reason anarchists are in favour of, and are involved within, social
   struggles. Ultimately they are a sign of individuals asserting their
   autonomy and disgust at an unfair system. As Howard Zinn stresses:

     "Both the source and the solution of our civil liberties problems
     are in the situations of every day: where we live, where we work,
     where we go to school, where we spend most of our hours. Our actual
     freedom is not determined by the Constitution or by [the Supreme]
     Court, but by the power the policeman has over us in the street or
     that of the local judge behind him; by the authority of our
     employers [if we are working]; by the power of teachers, principals,
     university president, and boards of trustees if we are students; by
     the welfare bureaucracy if we are poor [or unemployed]; by prison
     guards if we are in jail; by landlords if we are tenants; by the
     medical profession or hospital administration if we are physically
     or mentally ill.

     "Freedom and justice are local things, at hand, immediate. They are
     determined by power and money, whose authority over our daily lives
     is much less ambiguous than decisions of the Supreme Court. Whatever
     claim we . . . can make to liberty on the national level . . . on
     the local level we live at different times in different feudal
     fiefdoms where our subordination is clear." [Failure to Quit, pp.
     53-4]

   These realities of wealth and power will remain unshaken unless
   counter-forces appear on the very ground our liberty is restricted --
   on the street, in workplaces, at home, at school, in hospitals and so
   on. For the "only limit to the oppression of government is the power
   with which people show themselves capable of opposing it." [Malatesta,
   Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 196]

   Social struggles for improvements are also important indications of the
   spirit of revolt and of people supporting each other in the continual
   assertion of their (and our) freedom. They show people standing up for
   what they consider right and just, building alternative organisations,
   creating their own solutions to their problems - and are a slap in the
   face of all the paternal authorities which dare govern us. Hence their
   importance to anarchists and all people interested in extending
   freedom.

   In addition, social struggle helps break people from their hierarchical
   conditioning. Anarchists view people not as fixed objects to be
   classified and labelled, but as human beings engaged in making their
   own lives. We live, love, think, feel, hope, dream, and can change
   ourselves, our environment and social relationships. Social struggle is
   the way this is done collectively. Such struggle promotes attributes
   within people which are crushed by hierarchy (attributes such as
   imagination, organisational skills, self-assertion, self-management,
   critical thought, self-confidence and so on) as people come up against
   practical problems in their struggles and have to solve them
   themselves. This builds self-confidence and an awareness of individual
   and collective power. By seeing that their boss, the state and so on
   are against them they begin to realise that they live in a class
   ridden, hierarchical society that depends upon their submission to
   work. As such, social struggle is a politicising experience.

   Struggle allows those involved to develop their abilities for self-rule
   through practice and so begins the process by which individuals assert
   their ability to control their own lives and to participate in social
   life directly. These are all key elements of anarchism and are required
   for an anarchist society to work ("Self-management of the struggle
   comes first, then comes self-management of work and society" [Alfredo
   Bonnano, "Self-Management", pp. 35-37, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
   Armed, no. 48, p. 35]). So self-activity is a key factor in
   self-liberation, self-education and the creating of anarchists. In a
   nutshell, people learn in struggle:

     "In our opinion all action which is directed toward the destruction
     of economic and political oppression, which serves to raise the
     moral and intellectual level of the people; which gives them an
     awareness of their individual rights and their power, and persuades
     them themselves to act on their own behalf . . . brings us closer to
     our ends and is therefore a good thing. On the other hand all
     activity which tends to preserve the present state of affairs, that
     tends to sacrifice man against his will for the triumph of a
     principle, is bad because it is a denial of our ends. [Malatesta,
     Op. Cit., p. 69]

   A confident working class is an essential factor in making successful
   and libertarian improvements within the current system and, ultimately,
   in making a revolution. Without that self-confidence people tend to
   just follow "leaders" and we end up changing rulers rather than
   changing society. So part of our job as anarchists is to encourage
   people to fight for whatever small reforms are possible at present, to
   improve our/their conditions, to give people confidence in their
   ability to start taking control of their lives, and to point out that
   there is a limit to whatever (sometimes temporary) gains capitalism
   will or can concede. Hence the need for a revolutionary change.

   Only this can ensure that anarchist ideas are the most popular ones for
   if we think a movement is, all things considered, a positive or
   progressive one then we should not abstain but should seek to
   popularise anarchist ideas and strategies within it. In this way we
   create "schools of anarchy" within the current system and lay the
   foundations of something better. Revolutionary tendencies and
   movements, in other words, must create the organisations that contain,
   in embryo, the society of the future (see [2]section H.1.6). These
   organisations, in turn, further the progress of radical change by
   providing social spaces for the transformation of individuals (via the
   use of direct action, practising self-management and solidarity, and so
   on). Therefore, social struggle aids the creation of a free society by
   accustoming people to govern themselves within self-managed
   organisations and empowering the (officially) disempowered via the use
   of direct action and mutual aid.

   Hence the importance of social (or class) struggle for anarchists
   (which, we may add, goes on all the time and is a two-sided affair).
   Social struggle is the means of breaking the normality of capitalist
   and statist life, a means of developing the awareness for social change
   and the means of making life better under the current system. The
   moment that people refuse to bow to authority, its days are numbered.
   Social struggle indicates that some of the oppressed see that by using
   their power of disobedience they can challenge, perhaps eventually end,
   hierarchical power.

   Ultimately, anarchy is not just something you believe in, it is not a
   cool label you affix to yourself, it is something you do. You
   participate. If you stop doing it, anarchy crumbles. Social struggle is
   the means by which we ensure that anarchy becomes stronger and grows.

J.1.2 Are anarchists against reforms?

   No, we are not. While most anarchists are against reformism (namely the
   notion that we can somehow reform capitalism and the state away) we are
   most definitely in favour of reforms (i.e. improvements in the here and
   now). Anarchists are radicals; as such, we seek the root causes of
   societal problems. Reformists seek to ameliorate the symptoms of
   societal problems, while anarchists focus on the causes.

   This does not mean, however, that we ignore struggles for reforms in
   the here and now. The claim that anarchists are against such
   improvements are often put forth by opponents of anarchism in an effort
   to paint us as irrelevant extremists with no practical outlet for our
   ideas beyond abstract calls for revolution. This is not true.
   Libertarians are well aware that we can act to make our lives better
   while, at the same time, seeking to remove the root causes of the
   problems we face. (see, for example, Emma Goldman's account of her
   recognition of how false it was deny the need for short-term reforms in
   favour of revolution. [Living My Life, vol. 1, p. 52]). In the words of
   the revolutionary syndicalist Emile Pouget:

     "Trade union endeavour has a double aim: with tireless persistence,
     it must pursue betterment of the working class's current conditions.
     But, without letting themselves become obsessed with this passing
     concern, the workers should take care to make possible and imminent
     the essential act of comprehensive emancipation: the expropriation
     of capital.

     "At present, trade union action is designed to win partial and
     gradual improvements which, far from constituting a goal, can only
     be considered as a means of stepping up demands and wresting further
     improvements from capitalism . . .

     "This question of partial improvements served as the pretext for
     attempts to sow discord in the trades associations. Politicians . .
     . have tried to . . . stir up ill-feeling and to split the unions
     into two camps, by categorising workers as reformists and as
     revolutionaries. The better to discredit the latter, they have
     dubbed them 'the advocates of all or nothing' and they have falsely
     represented them as supposed adversaries of improvements achievable
     right now.

     "The most that can be said about this nonsense is that it is
     witless. There is not a worker . . . who, on grounds of principle or
     for reasons of tactics, would insist upon working ten hours for an
     employer instead of eight hours, while earning six francs instead of
     seven . . .

     "What appears to afford some credence to such chicanery is the fact
     that the unions, cured by the cruel lessons of experience from all
     hope in government intervention, are justifiably mistrustful of it.
     They know that the State, whose function is to act as capital's
     gendarme, is, by its very nature, inclined to tip the scales in
     favour of the employer side. So, whenever a reform is brought about
     by legal avenues, they do not fall upon it with the relish of a frog
     devouring the red rag that conceals the hook, they greet it with all
     due caution, especially as this reform is made effective only if the
     workers are organised to insist forcefully upon its implementation.

     "The trade unions are even more wary of gifts from the government
     because they have often found these to be poison gifts . . . Wanting
     real improvements . . . instead of waiting until the government is
     generous enough to bestow them, they wrest them in open battle,
     through direct action.

     "If, as sometimes is the case, the improvement they seek is subject
     to the law, the trade unions strive to obtain it through outside
     pressure brought to bear upon the authorities and not by trying to
     return specially mandated deputies to Parliament, a puerile pursuit
     that might drag on for centuries before there was a majority in
     favour of the yearned-for reform.

     "When the desired improvement is to be wrestled directly from the
     capitalist, the trades associations resort to vigorous pressure to
     convey their wishes. Their methods may well vary, although the
     direct action principle underlies them all . . .

     "But, whatever the improvement won, it must always represent a
     reduction in capitalist privileges and be a partial expropriation.
     So . . . the fine distinction between 'reformist' and
     'revolutionary' evaporates and one is led to the conclusion that the
     only really reformist workers are the revolutionary syndicalists."
     [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 71-3]

   Pouget was referring to revolutionary unions but his argument can be
   generalised to all social movements.

   By seeking improvements from below by direct action, solidarity and the
   organisation of those who directly suffer the injustice, anarchists can
   make reforms more substantial, effective and long lasting than
   "reforms" made from above by reformists. By recognising that the
   effectiveness of a reform is dependent on the power of the oppressed to
   resist those who would dominate them, anarchists seek change from the
   bottom-up and so make reforms real rather than just words gathering
   dust in the law books.

   For example, a reformist sees poverty and looks at ways to lessen the
   destructive and debilitating effects of it: this produced things like
   the minimum wage, affirmative action, the projects in the USA and
   similar reforms in other countries. An anarchist looks at poverty and
   says, "what causes this?" and attacks that source of poverty, rather
   than the symptoms. While reformists may succeed in the short run with
   their institutional panaceas, the festering problems remain untreated,
   dooming reform to eventual costly, inevitable failure -- measured in
   human lives, no less. Like a quack that treats the symptoms of a
   disease without getting rid of what causes it, all the reformist can
   promise is short-term improvements for a condition that never goes away
   and may ultimately kill the sufferer. The anarchist, like a real
   doctor, investigates the causes of the illness and treats them while
   fighting the symptoms.

   Therefore, anarchists are of the opinion that "[w]hile preaching
   against every kind of government, and demanding complete freedom, we
   must support all struggles for partial freedom, because we are
   convinced that one learns through struggle, and that once one begins to
   enjoy a little freedom one ends by wanting it all. We must always be
   with the people . . . [and] get them to understand . . . [what] they
   may demand should be obtained by their own efforts and that they should
   despise and detest whoever is part of, or aspires to, government."
   [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas p. 195]

   So, anarchists are not opposed to struggles for reforms and
   improvements in the here and now. Indeed, few anarchists think that an
   anarchist society will occur without a long period of anarchist
   activity encouraging and working within social struggle against
   injustice. Thus Malatesta's words:

     "the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow
     or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today,
     tomorrow and always." [Towards Anarchism, p. 75]

   So, when fighting for improvements anarchists do so in an anarchist
   way, one that encourages self-management, direct action and the
   creation of libertarian solutions and alternatives to both capitalism
   and the state.

J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?

   Firstly, it must be pointed out that the struggle for reforms within
   capitalism is not the same as reformism. Reformism is the idea that
   reforms within capitalism are enough in themselves and attempts to
   change the system are impossible (and not desirable). As such all
   anarchists are against this form of reformism -- we think that the
   system can be (and should be) changed and until that happens any
   reforms, no matter how essential, will not get to the root of social
   problems.

   In addition, particularly in the old social democratic labour movement,
   reformism also meant the belief that social reforms could be used to
   transform capitalism into socialism. In this sense, only Individualist
   anarchists and Mutualists can be considered reformist as they think
   their system of mutual banking can reform capitalism into a free
   system. However, in contrast to Social Democracy, such anarchists think
   that such reforms cannot come about via government action, but only by
   people creating their own alternatives and solutions by their own
   actions:

     "But experience testifies and philosophy demonstrates, contrary to
     that prejudice, that any revolution, to be effective, must be
     spontaneous and emanate, not from the heads of the authorities but
     from the bowels of the people: that government is reactionary rather
     than revolutionary: that it could not have any expertise in
     revolutions, given that society, to which that secret is alone
     revealed, does not show itself through legislative decree but rather
     through the spontaneity of its manifestations: that, ultimately, the
     only connection between government and labour is that labour, in
     organising itself, has the abrogation of government as its mission."
     [Proudhon, No Gods, No Master, vol. 1, p. 52]

   So, anarchists oppose reformism because it takes the steam out of
   revolutionary movements by providing easy, decidedly short-term
   "solutions" to deep social problems. In this way, reformists can
   present the public with they've done and say "look, all is better now.
   The system worked." Trouble is that over time, the problems will only
   continue to grow because the reforms did not tackle them in the first
   place. To use Alexander Berkman's excellent analogy:

     "If you should carry out [the reformers'] ideas in your personal
     life, you would not have a rotten tooth that aches pulled out all at
     once. You would have it pulled out a little to-day, some more next
     week, for several months or years, and by then you would be ready to
     pull it out altogether, so it should not hurt so much. That is the
     logic of the reformer. Don't be 'too hasty,' don't pull a bad tooth
     out all at once." [What is Anarchism?, p. 64]

   Rather than seek to change the root cause of the problems (namely in a
   hierarchical, oppressive and exploitative system), reformists try to
   make the symptoms better. In the words of Berkman again:

     "Suppose a pipe burst in your house. You can put a bucket under the
     break to catch the escaping water. You can keep on putting buckets
     there, but as long as you do not mend the broken pipe, the leakage
     will continue, no matter how much you may swear about it . . . until
     you repair the broken social pipe." [Op. Cit., pp. 67-8]

   What reformism fails to do is fix the underlying root causes of the
   real problems society faces. Therefore, reformists try to pass laws
   which reduce the level of pollution rather than work to end a system in
   which it makes economic sense to pollute. Or they pass laws to improve
   working conditions and safety while failing to get rid of the wage
   slavery which creates the bosses whose interests are served by them
   ignoring those laws and regulations. The list is endless. Ultimately,
   reformism fails because reformists "believe in good faith that it is
   possible to eliminate the existing social evils by recognising and
   respecting, in practice if not in theory, the basic political and
   economic institutions which are the cause of, as well as the prop that
   supports these evils." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and
   Ideas, p. 82]

   Revolutionaries, in contrast to reformists, fight both symptoms and the
   root causes. They recognise that as long as the cause of the evil
   remains, any attempts to fight the symptoms, however necessary, will
   never get to the root of the problem. There is no doubt that we have to
   fight the symptoms, however revolutionaries recognise that this
   struggle is not an end in itself and should be considered purely as a
   means of increasing working class strength and social power within
   society until such time as capitalism and the state (i.e. the root
   causes of most problems) can be abolished.

   Reformists also tend to objectify the people whom they are "helping":
   they envision them as helpless, formless masses who need the wisdom and
   guidance of the "best and the brightest" to lead them to the Promised
   Land. Reformists mean well, but this is altruism borne of ignorance,
   which is destructive over the long run. Freedom cannot be given and so
   any attempt to impose reforms from above cannot help but ensure that
   people are treated as children, incapable of making their own decisions
   and, ultimately, dependent on bureaucrats to govern them. This can be
   seen from public housing. As Colin Ward argues, the "whole tragedy of
   publicly provided non-profit housing for rent and the evolution of this
   form of tenure in Britain is that the local authorities have simply
   taken over, though less flexibly, the role of the landlord, together
   with all the dependency and resentment that it engenders." [Housing: An
   Anarchist Approach, p. 184] This feature of reformism was skilfully
   used by the right-wing to undermine publicly supported housing and
   other aspects of the welfare state. The reformist social-democrats
   reaped what they had sown.

   Reformism often amounts to little more than an altruistic contempt for
   the masses, who are considered as little more than victims who need to
   be provided for by state. The idea that we may have our own visions of
   what we want is ignored and replaced by the vision of the reformists
   who enact legislation for us and make "reforms" from the top-down.
   Little wonder such reforms can be counter-productive -- they cannot
   grasp the complexity of life and the needs of those subject to them.
   Reformists effectively say, "don't do anything, we'll do it for you."
   You can see why anarchists would loathe this sentiment; anarchists are
   the consummate do-it-yourselfers, and there's nothing reformists hate
   more than people who can take care of themselves, who will not let them
   "help" them.

   Reformists may mean well, but they do not grasp the larger picture --
   by focusing exclusively on narrow aspects of a problem, they choose to
   believe that is the whole problem. In this wilfully narrow examination
   of pressing social ills, reformists are, more often than not,
   counter-productive. The disaster of the urban rebuilding projects in
   the United States (and similar projects in Britain which moved
   inter-city working class communities into edge of town developments
   during the 1950s and 1960s) are an example of reformism at work: upset
   at the growing slums, reformists supported projects that destroyed the
   ghettos and built brand-new housing for working class people to live
   in. They looked nice (initially), but they did nothing to address the
   problem of poverty and indeed created more problems by breaking up
   communities and neighbourhoods.

   Logically, it makes no sense. Why dance around a problem when you can
   attack it directly? Reformists dilute social movements, softening and
   weakening them over time. The AFL-CIO labour unions in the USA, like
   the ones in Western Europe, killed the labour movement by narrowing and
   channelling labour activity and taking power from the workers
   themselves, where it belongs, and placing it the hands of a
   bureaucracy. The British Labour Party, after over 100 years of
   reformist practice, has done little more than manage capitalism, seen
   most of its reforms undermined by right-wing governments (and by the
   following Labour governments!) and the creation of a leadership of the
   party (in the shape of New Labour) which was in most ways as right-wing
   as the Conservative Party (if not more so, as shown once they were in
   power). Bakunin would not have been surprised.

   Also, it is funny to hear left-wing "revolutionaries" and "radicals"
   put forward the reformist line that the capitalist state can help
   working people (indeed be used to abolish itself!). Despite the fact
   that leftists blame the state and capitalism for most of the problems
   we face, they usually turn to the capitalist state to remedy the
   situation, not by leaving people alone, but by becoming more involved
   in people's lives. They support government housing, government jobs,
   welfare, government-funded and regulated child care, government-funded
   drug "treatment," and other government-centred programmes and
   activities. If a capitalist (and racist/sexist/authoritarian)
   government is the problem, how can it be depended upon to change things
   to the benefit of working class people or other oppressed sections of
   the population? Surely any reforms passed by the state will not solve
   the problem? As Malatesta suggested:

     "Governments and the privileged classes are naturally always guided
     by instincts of self-preservation, of consolidation and the
     development of their powers and privileges; and when they consent to
     reforms it is either because they consider that they will serve
     their ends or because they do not feel strong enough to resist, and
     give in, fearing what might otherwise be a worse alternative." [Op.
     Cit., p. 81]

   Therefore, reforms gained by direct action are of a different quality
   and nature than those passed by reformist politicians -- these latter
   will only serve the interests of the ruling class as they do not
   threaten their privileges while the former have the potential for real
   change.

   This is not to say that Anarchists oppose all state-based reforms nor
   that we join with the right in seeking to destroy them (or, for that
   matter, with "left" politicians in seeking to "reform" them, i.e.,
   reduce them). Without a popular social movement creating alternatives
   to state welfare, so-called "reform" by the state almost always means
   attacks on the most vulnerable elements in society in the interests of
   capital. As anarchists are against both state and capitalism, we can
   oppose such reforms without contradiction while, at the same time,
   arguing that welfare for the rich should be abolished long before
   welfare for the many is even thought about. See [3]section J.5.15 for
   more discussion on the welfare state and anarchist perspectives on it.

   Instead of encouraging working class people to organise themselves and
   create their own alternatives and solutions to their problem (which can
   supplement, and ultimately replace, whatever welfare state activity
   which is actually useful), reformists and other radicals urge people to
   get the state to act for them. However, the state is not the community
   and so whatever the state does for people you can be sure it will be in
   its interests, not theirs. As Kropotkin put it:

     "We maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to
     which the minorities resorted for establishing and organising their
     power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to
     destroy these privileges . . . the economic and political liberation
     of man will have to create new forms for its expression in life,
     instead of those established by the State.

     "Consequently, the chief aim of Anarchism is to awaken those
     constructive powers of the labouring masses of the people which at
     all great moments of history came forward to accomplish the
     necessary changes . . .

     "This is also why the Anarchists refuse to accept the functions of
     legislators or servants of the State. We know that the social
     revolution will not be accomplished by means of laws. Laws only
     follow the accomplished facts . . . a law remains a dead letter so
     long as there are not on the spot the living forces required for
     making of the tendencies expressed in the law an accomplished fact.

     "On the other hand . . . the Anarchists have always advised taking
     an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the
     direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, -- the
     State.

     "Such a struggle . . . better than any other indirect means, permits
     the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present
     conditions of work [and life in general], while it opens his [or
     her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that
     supports it, and wakes up his [or her] thoughts concerning the
     possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange
     without the intervention of the capitalist and the State."
     [Environment and Evolution, pp. 82-3]

   Therefore, while seeking reforms, anarchists are against reformism and
   reformists. Reforms are not seen as an end in themselves but rather a
   means of changing society from the bottom-up and a step in that
   direction:

     "Each step towards economic freedom, each victory won over
     Capitalism will be at the same time a step towards political liberty
     -- towards liberation from the yoke of the State . . . And each step
     towards taking from the State any one of its powers and attributes
     will be helping the masses to win a victory over Capitalism."
     [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 95]

   However, no matter what, anarchists "will never recognise the
   institutions; we will take or win all possible reforms with the same
   spirit that one tears occupied territory from the enemy's grasp in
   order to keep advancing, and we will always remain enemies of every
   government." Therefore, it is "not true to say" that anarchists "are
   systematically opposed to improvements, to reforms. They oppose the
   reformists on the one hand because their methods are less effective for
   securing reforms from government and employers, who only give in
   through fear, and because very often the reforms they prefer are those
   which not only bring doubtful immediate benefits, but also serve to
   consolidate the existing regime and to give the workers a vested
   interest in its continued existence." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 81 and
   p. 83]

   Only working class people, by our own actions and organisations,
   getting the state and capital out of the way can produce an improvement
   in our lives, indeed it is the only thing that will lead to real
   changes for the better. Encouraging people to rely on themselves
   instead of the state or capital can lead to self-sufficient,
   independent, and, hopefully, more rebellious people. Working class
   people, despite having fewer options in a number of areas in our lives,
   due both to hierarchy and restrictive laws, still are capable of making
   choices about our actions, organising our own lives and are responsible
   for the consequences of our decisions. We are also more than able to
   determine what is and is not a good reform to existing institutions and
   do not need politicians informing us what is in our best interests
   (particularly when it is the right seeking to abolish those parts of
   the state not geared purely to defending property). To think otherwise
   is to infantilise us, to consider us less fully human than other people
   and reproduce the classic capitalist vision of working class people as
   means of production, to be used, abused, and discarded as required.
   Such thinking lays the basis for paternalistic interventions in our
   lives by the state, ensuring our continued dependence and inequality --
   and the continued existence of capitalism and the state. Ultimately,
   there are two options:

     "The oppressed either ask for and welcome improvements as a benefit
     graciously conceded, recognise the legitimacy of the power which is
     over them, and so do more harm than good by helping to slow down, or
     divert . . . the processes of emancipation. Or instead they demand
     and impose improvements by their action, and welcome them as partial
     victories over the class enemy, using them as a spur to greater
     achievements, and thus a valid help and a preparation to the total
     overthrow of privilege, that is, for the revolution." [Malatesta,
     Op. Cit., p. 81]

   Reformism encourages the first attitude within people and so ensures
   the impoverishment of the human spirit. Anarchism encourages the second
   attitude and so ensures the enrichment of humanity and the possibility
   of meaningful change. Why think that ordinary people cannot arrange
   their lives for themselves as well as Government people can arrange it
   not for themselves but for others?

J.1.4 What attitude do anarchists take to "single-issue" campaigns?

   Firstly, we must note that anarchists do take part in "single-issue"
   campaigns, but do not nourish false hopes in them. This section
   explains what anarchists think of such campaigns.

   A "single-issue" campaign are usually run by a pressure group which
   concentrates on tackling issues one at a time. For example, C.N.D. (The
   Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) is a classic example of
   "single-issue" campaigning with the aim of getting rid of nuclear
   weapons as the be-all and end-all of its activity. For anarchists,
   however, single-issue campaigning can be seen as a source of false
   hopes. The possibilities of changing one aspect of a totally
   inter-related system and the belief that pressure groups can compete
   fairly with transnational corporations, the military and so forth, in
   their influence over decision making bodies can both be seen to be
   optimistic at best.

   In addition, many "single-issue" campaigns desire to be "apolitical",
   concentrating purely on the one issue which unites the campaign and so
   refuse to analyse or discuss wider issues and the root causes of the
   issue in question (almost always, the system we live under). This means
   that they end up accepting the system which causes the problems they
   are fighting against. At best, any changes achieved by the campaign
   must be acceptable to the establishment or be so watered down in
   content that no practical long-term good is done. This can be seen from
   the green movement, where groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the
   Earth accept the status quo as a given and limit themselves to working
   within it. This often leads to them tailoring their "solutions" to be
   "practical" within a fundamentally anti-ecological political and
   economic system, so slowing down (at best) ecological disruption.

   For anarchists these problems all stem from the fact that social
   problems cannot be solved as single issues. As Larry Law argued:

     "single issue politics . . . deals with the issue or problem in
     isolation. When one problem is separated from all other problems, a
     solution really is impossible. The more campaigning on an issue
     there is, the narrower its perspectives become . . . As the
     perspective of each issue narrows, the contradictions turn into
     absurdities . . . What single issue politics does is attend to
     'symptoms' but does not attack the 'disease' itself. It presents
     such issues as nuclear war, racial and sexual discrimination,
     poverty, starvation, pornography, etc., as if they were aberrations
     or faults in the system. In reality such problems are the inevitable
     consequence of a social order based on exploitation and hierarchical
     power . . . single issue campaigns lay their appeal for relief at
     the feet of the very system which oppresses them. By petitioning
     they acknowledge the right of those in power to exercise that power
     as they choose." [Bigger Cages, Longer Chains, pp. 17-20].

   Single issue politics often prolong the struggle for a free society by
   fostering illusions that it is just parts of the capitalist system
   which are wrong, not the whole of it, and that those at the top of the
   system can, and will, act in our interests. While such campaigns can do
   some good, practical, work and increase knowledge and education about
   social problems, they are limited by their very nature and can not lead
   to extensive improvements in the here and now, never mind a free
   society.

   Therefore, anarchists often support and work within single-issue
   campaigns, trying to get them to use effective methods of activity
   (such as direct action), work in an anarchistic manner (i.e. from the
   bottom up) and to try to "politicise" them into questioning the whole
   of the system. However, anarchists do not let themselves be limited to
   such activity as a social revolution or movement is not a group of
   single-issue campaigns but a mass movement which understands the
   inter-related nature of social problems and so the need to change every
   aspect of life.

J.1.5 Why do anarchists try to generalise social struggles?

   Basically, we do it in order to encourage and promote solidarity. This
   is the key to winning struggles in the here and now as well as creating
   the class consciousness necessary to create an anarchist society. At
   its most simple, generalising different struggles means increasing the
   chances of winning them. Take, for example, when one trade or one
   workplace goes on strike while the others continue to work:

     "Consider yourself how foolish and inefficient is the present form
     of labour organisation in which one trade or craft may be on strike
     while the other branches of the same industry continue to work. Is
     it not ridiculous that when the street car workers of New York, for
     instance, quit work, the employees of the subway, the cab and
     omnibus drivers remain on the job? . . . It is clear, then, that you
     compel compliance [from your bosses] only when you are determined,
     when your union is strong, when you are well organised, when you are
     united in such a manner that the boss cannot run his factory against
     your will. But the employer is usually some big . . . company that
     has mills or mines in various places. . . If it cannot operate . . .
     in Pennsylvania because of a strike, it will try to make good its
     losses by continuing . . . and increasing production [elsewhere] . .
     . In that way the company . . . breaks the strike." [Alexander
     Berkman, What is Anarchism?, pp. 199-200]

   By organising all workers in one union (after all they all have the
   same boss) it increases the power of each trade considerably. It may be
   easy for a boss to replace a few workers, but a whole workforce would
   be far more difficult. By organising all workers in the same industry,
   the power of each workplace is correspondingly increased. Extending
   this example to outside the workplace, its clear that by mutual support
   between different groups increases the chances of each group winning
   its fight. As the I.W.W. put it: "An injury to one is an injury to
   all." By generalising struggles, by practising mutual aid we can ensure
   that when we are fighting for our rights and against injustice we will
   not be isolated and alone. If we don't support each other, groups will
   be picked off one by one. and if we go into struggle, there will be no
   one there to support us and we are more likely to be defeated.

   Therefore, from an anarchist point of view, the best thing about
   generalising struggles is that as well as increasing the likilihood of
   success ("Solidarity is Strength") it leads to an increased spirit of
   solidarity, responsibility and class consciousness. This is because by
   working together and showing solidarity those involved get to
   understand their common interests and that the struggle is not against
   this injustice or that boss but against all injustice and all bosses.

   This sense of increased social awareness and solidarity can be seen
   from the experience of the C.N.T in Spain during the 1930s. The C.N.T.
   organised all workers in a given area into one big union. Each
   workplace was a union branch and were joined together in a local area
   confederation. The result was that the territorial basis of the unions
   brought all the workers from one area together and fomented class
   solidarity over and before industry-loyalties and interests. This can
   also be seen from the experiences of the syndicalist unions in Italy
   and France as well. The structure of such local federations also
   situates the workplace in the community where it really belongs.

   Also, by uniting struggles together, we can see that there are really
   no "single issues" -- that all various different problems are
   inter-linked. For example, ecological problems are not just that, but
   have a political and economic basis and that economic and social
   domination and exploitation spills into the environment. Inter-linking
   struggles means that they can be seen to be related to other struggles
   against capitalist exploitation and oppression and so encourage
   solidarity and mutual aid. What goes on in the environment, for
   instance, is directly related to questions of domination and inequality
   within human society, that pollution is often directly related to
   companies cutting corners to survive in the market or increase profits.
   Similarly, struggles against sexism or racism can be seen as part of a
   wider struggle against hierarchy, exploitation and oppression in all
   their forms. As such, uniting struggles has an important educational
   effect above and beyond the benefits in terms of winning struggles.

   Murray Bookchin presents a concrete example of this process of linking
   issues and widening the struggle:

     "Assume there is a struggle by welfare mothers to increase their
     allotments . . . Without losing sight of the concrete issues that
     initially motivated the struggle, revolutionaries would try to
     catalyse an order of relationships between the mothers entirely
     different from [existing ones] . . . They would try to foster a deep
     sense of community, a rounded human relationship that would
     transform the very subjectivity of the people involved . . .
     Personal relationships would be intimate, not merely
     issue-orientated. People would get to know each other, to confront
     each other; they would explore each other with a view of achieving
     the most complete, unalienated relationships. Women would discuss
     sexism, as well as their welfare allotments, child-rearing as well
     as harassment by landlords, their dreams and hopes as human beings
     as well as the cost of living.

     "From this intimacy there would grow, hopefully, a supportive system
     of kinship, mutual aid, sympathy and solidarity in daily life. The
     women might collaborate to establish a rotating system of baby
     sitters and child-care attendants, the co-operative buying of good
     food at greatly reduced prices, the common cooking and partaking of
     meals, the mutual learning of survival skills and the new social
     ideas, the fostering of creative talents, and many other shared
     experiences. Every aspect of life that could be explored and changed
     would be one part of the kind of relationships . . .

     "The struggle for increased allotments would expand beyond the
     welfare system to the schools, the hospitals, the police, the
     physical, cultural, aesthetic and recreational resources of the
     neighbourhood, the stores, the houses, the doctors and lawyers in
     the area, and so on -- into the very ecology of the district.

     "What I have said on this issue could be applied to every issue --
     unemployment, bad housing, racism, work conditions -- in which an
     insidious assimilation of bourgeois modes of functioning is masked
     as 'realism' and 'actuality.' The new order of relationships that
     could be developed from a welfare struggle . . . [can ensure that
     the] future penetrates the present; it recasts the way people
     'organise' and the goals for which they strive."
     [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 153-4]

   As the anarchist slogan puts it: "Resistance is Fertile." Planting the
   seed of autonomy, direct action and self-liberation can result,
   potentially, in the blossoming of free individuals due to the nature of
   struggle itself (see [4]section A.2.7) Therefore, the generalisation of
   social struggle is not only a key way of winning a specific fight, it
   can (and should) also spread into different aspects of life and society
   and play a key part in developing free individuals who reject hierarchy
   in all aspects of their life.

   Social problems are not isolated from each other and so struggles
   against them cannot be. The nature of struggle is such that once people
   start questioning one aspect of society, the questioning of the rest
   soon follows. So, anarchists seek to generalise struggles for these
   three reasons -- firstly, to ensure the solidarity required to win;
   secondly, to combat the many social problems we face as people and to
   show how they are inter-related; and, thirdly, to encourage the
   transformation of those involved into unique individuals in touch with
   their humanity, a humanity eroded by hierarchical society and
   domination.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech16
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj515
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca27
