textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp001366.txt

Thinking About Anarchism:

Democracy

ANARCHISM is about individual freedom.  But it is also 
about building a society that has a fair system of wealth 
distribution.  For this reason, anarchists consider themselves 
to be democrats.  As anarchists we don't believe that other 
people can bring about the changes that we need - we believe 
that we must do it for ourselves.  This means putting in 
place a type of decision making system in which all people 
can participate in - this is the best way to ensure equality.

Take one example - work.  Under anarchism, the workplace 
would be democratic.  Unlike now, workers would decide on 
the main matters in their own workplace:  What type of 
work should be done?  Where and how?  Under what type 
of working conditions?  Where should the profits from 
work go? 

In today's world, it is done the opposite way.  Most decisions 
about any place of work are taken by the management.  
These management's, in turn, are usually appointed by 
shareholders - people who do not work.  This situation 
would not be tolerated in an anarchist society.  Matters 
concerned with the workplace are for the workers alone to 
decide on.  Under anarchism it will the workers' assembly 
and not the (elected) manager who will be the supreme 
authority in any workplace.  This will be one of the major 
contrasts between today's world and a future anarchist 
society.

Simple

For some people, this general emphasis on democracy 
sounds like a tall order.  Many people agree that anarchism 
is a good idea, but a fair proportion don't accept that it is a 
practical option in today's world. Some people argue that 
society is getting more complex all the time.  Consequently 
the problems facing society are too large - and getting larger - 
for your ordinary person on the street to understand, let 
alone solve.  Anarchist style democracy simply wouldn't 
work, it is argued.   

Anarchists recognise these criticisms.  While being advocates 
of democracy, we are not blind to the problems of human 
society, or to the fact that a new society will bring with it new 
problems.  Our belief in human capacity is very strong, but 
we would be the first to accept that a revolutionary society 
will have some problems similar to now - competition 
between different individuals, or between factories or, even, 
between localities over the allocation of supplies.  These 
differences will have to be accommodated and sorted out, 
most importantly, in a peaceful manner.

Another problem is that lots of people and areas must co-
operate to provide some of the basic services that we depend 
on today.  For instance, a modern health service relies on 
hospital workers, on the ambulance service and on nurses 
and doctors. But, also, it relies generally on drugs and 
equipment that come from outside the immediate locality.  
A revolutionary society will have to provide these services 
too.  In many ways it will have to provide them in a better 
way than they are provided now - given the general 
problems of inequality and poverty that cut access to services 
under capitalism.  How then do anarchists propose to solve 
such issues?

Revolution

We can learn a lot from past experience.  Already, in the last 
one hundred years, there has been a good number of 
revolutions and near revolutions. Workers have had to face 
problems such as these before.  Past experience tells us this:

The operation of most industrial enterprises or social 
services is generally understood by the vast majority of its 
constituent work force.  For instance, the operation of a city 
wide transportation service is known to the drivers, 
mechanics, etc. who drive and maintain the service.  There 
is nothing particularly complicated about it.  Workers 
operate them now and, as is often the case, they have plenty 
of ideas on how improve these services further.  Moreover, 
past experience shows that revolutions usually release a 
great deal of human ability and talent that capitalism mostly 
shuts out or doesn't bother to avail of.  This can be a major 
bonus in a revolutionary society.

A problem area concerns matters traditionally covered by 
management under capitalism: co-ordination of work, 
future planning, financial budgeting, etc.  Under capitalism, 
workers are often excluded from these important areas.  This 
can be a major problem in a revolutionary society - 
particularly so in the early, transition period when it is 
important to provide the essentials of life.

The Best Place

So, there are two problems.  The first one is running the 
service, whatever that may be.  The second is running it in a 
democratic way.  After the revolution, more people will be 
involved in decision making, more people will have a say.  
Consequently more interests will have to be taken on board 
when decisions are taken.  It will no longer be case of saying: 
This is the way things are going to be done and you're fired if 
you don't agree.  Those days will be over for good - 
thankfully. 

What do anarchists propose?  Our solution to inexperience 
is to try and get as much experience as possible - confidence 
in one's ability can only be built in that way.   This is why 
anarchists are such strong advocates of democracy in the 
here and now.  The best place to gain experience about 
organisations and organising is along the road to change.  
Here there will be plenty of opportunities to learn.

In past times this is exactly what has been done - by workers, 
by students and by all those fighting back.  Building unions, 
building for strikes, organising community groups or 
building for campaigns is all about working with people and 
taking decisions - the very areas that we need to get 
experience in.  This work requires planning, administration, 
budgeting, etc. in abundance.  For reasons of experience 
alone we should conduct them in a democratic way.  That is 
what anarchists say.

Not all problems, of course, can be ironed out on this side of 
a revolution, but this is one area in which we can make 
inroads now.  Just as importantly, it raises the issue of 
democracy and what democracy should be about in a world 
that mostly ignores it.

Peter Sullivan