If communism is to be realised there are three main systems we need to examine. These are, in decreasing order of oppressive power, capitalism, the state, and organised religion. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fictional concept, built upon the delusion that power does not corrupt.
If communism is to be realised there are three main systems we need to examine. These are, in decreasing order of oppressive power, capitalism, the state, and organised religion. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fictional concept, built upon the delusion that power does not corrupt.
If communism is to be realised there are three main systems we need to examine. These are, in decreasing order of oppressive power, capitalism, the state, and organised religion. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fictional concept, built upon the delusion that power does not corrupt.
- An essay by Axel Stlnacke - 1 To August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, and Louis Lingg. "The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today." - August Spies 2 The, generally agreed upon, definition of communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, in which the means of production are owned collectively by the people, work is distributed based on ability, and the fruit of said work is distributed based on need; if it is to be realised there are three main systems we need to examine; more specifically three main hierarchies that have to be dismantled. These are, in decreasing order of oppressive power, or potential oppressive power, capitalism, the state, and organised religion. It is my belief that these would either have to be eliminated simultaneously, or one by one rapidly and in the order I mentioned them, and this is why. To be clear, what follows is just a short summary; all ideas will be developed, and new ones will be introduced. Consider first a world in which capitalism runs rampant, and is wholly without restrictions; a sort of anarcho-capitalistic, utopian paradise. This sort of society would of course be nothing but hierarchical, and also an unavoidable, and extreme hell for the proletariat, and the ideal for which it stands. People would effectively be forced into slavery through violence; all true liberty and autonomy would be lost; drained for the profit of the bourgeoisie. However; if we look at a statist society where capitalism has been abolished, it is virtually the same. As history has shown time and time again, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a fictional concept, built upon the delusion that power does not corrupt (the antithesis of which is indeed the very basis of the socialist movement); it is a fraudulent idea constructed by those who wish to be put in power, and to stay there. Every time someone has tried to dismantle capitalism, and capitalism only, whether it has been in Stalin's Soviet union, Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, it has in time, if not (as usually is the case) immediately turned from a rule of the people, to a rule over the people. All these revolutions have resulted in the supreme and unquestionable authority over, and enslavement of the human mind, instead of its emancipation. Our third scenario is one where capitalism and the state have both been abolished, but organised religion remains. This seems like a preferable solution, but on further examination it is not a solution at all. With no governments restricting them, and no corporate sponsors funding them, they, that is the churches, will soon try to increase their power through other means; probably through the concept of holy war; a battle fought not for goodness, but for the delusional claim of it. A jihad of all religious organisations; the result of which can only, and exclusively, mean the enslavement of the common man, rather than his liberation. A church without limits, is nothing but fascism. Because of this we can conclude that these three have to be dismantled simultaneously, or rapidly in the succession I have mentioned. This is why I believe that the only true communism, is that of us, the anarchists, as we oppose not only the large number of corrupted and failed states, but also the existence of a state that can be corrupted and, by extension, also failed. After the revolution, the work of the anarchist is, at least almost, over, while the work of the Marxist has only begun. As I have said; the state socialists; the Marxists, and the Leninist; base 3 their ideology upon the idea that power does not corrupt, the antithesis of which is, or at least should be, the pillar upon which all socialism stands. The bourgeoisie, and the statists, have created, not just the instance, but also the concept of mass media; it is, in effect, the new church; it has taken the spot of the temple as history's greatest propaganda machine. It tells people how to feel, and what to think, while at the same time urging them to give more money to the capitalists; its only purpose is the indoctrination of the people, and the funding of their oppressors. This has caused people to, not really support the system, but rather be indifferent to it. The statist capitalist society is presented as the only option, and because of this people assume its infallibility; socialism or, god forbid, anarchism are presented as utopian fantasy scenarios, or, as is often the case with anarchism, a fiery, and chaotic, wasteland in which everyone is permitted to do however they wish, and are therefore ignored rather than advocated for or against. These are their tactics; to make us apathetic; to make us mindless. They want us to follow, and follow we do; willingly, but not excitedly. To support fascism, you simply have to not oppose it. The mass media, in combination with the school system, also fosters a sort of cowardice, since all "dangerous" opinions, or in the case of school all opinions but the teacher's, are dumbed down; if you question this you're a militant, a fundie; your own government even considers you a potential terrorist, as demonstrated by the Swedish SPO. Mass media only allows for a very narrow "map" of discussionary topics, but allow for loads of debate within that map; the map is that of the statists, and the capitalists (in effect, the ruling class), and I can assure you that none of its locations are in your interests. An anarchist is portrayed as a bandit, as a terrorist, or most commonly, as a public joke not just by mass media, but also by almost every other hierarchical institution (which is of course natural, since anarchy would result in their elimination); in school you may espouse anarchist views, but your opinions are viewed through a kind of comedic lens, instead of the seriousness it deserves. Your direct action is viewed as childish, rather than responsible; that is another technique by which they seek to push us down. The only ones to question the king's authority are the traitors and the clowns, as that is how you are treated. You become either a threat; a terrorist; a lawless bandit with no regard for collaboration or rules, or you become a jester, whose arguments are reduced to just jumping, dancing, waving, and laughing, and by no group of people is this ridiculing greater than in that of the AnCaps; that is the Anarcho- Capitalists. Anarcho-Capitalists label us, the anarchists, as frauds; as idealists, and as opposers of freedom. What they do not seem to realise is that opposition to freedom requires support of, or ambivalence in the face of, unjustified hierarchy and authority, and in this respect we are certainly not anti-freedom. They argue that the continued existence of the capitalist system offers greater amounts of freedom than the initiation of communism, or similar socialist systems; this is of course just blatantly, and obviously, false. Capitalism, especially when unrestricted, is engineered so that 4 those with a lot of capital are going to have a lot of power; that is the foundation of the capitalist system. I give you stuff; you give me power; this does, of course, result in what can only be described as an all powerful aristocracy (or plutocracy, if you will), that will do mostly anything to ensure the prolonging of its own power. They want a sort of social darwinistic, Thatcherite society, and we give them the enormously generous title of anarchist? The "anarchy" of the AnCaps is a hell, where the world is cleansed of those who are disobedient; where your boss decides whether or not you'll starve; where there are no restrictions to what corporations can do to the environment; where your social class is, not just can be but is, of absolute importance, and can be the difference between life and death; where poverty is ignored, and atrocities are forgiven because they are marked with dollar signs. A dystopia, desirable only to the pseudo-fascistic aristocrats at the top of the social, and economic, hierarchy. AnCaps are either selfish, psychopathic monsters, with no regard for their fellow men and comrades, or they're deluded crackpots, who are so brainwashed by the corporate mass media that they'd even accept Nazism if it could be shown to make a net profit for the ruling class; I would even argue that AnCaps are technically statists. Why is this, you ask? In short, and I mean really short, the capitalists in favour of the state's existence, the neo-liberals, the conservatives, et cetera, argue that there should be one state protecting and "controlling" all the corporations, and their workers, in a given area. AnCaps argue that there should be many, individually owned states, protecting one's own area. Let's elaborate; what is a state? A state is an institution that has monopoly on the use of violence within a specific area, and that seeks to prolong its existence through means of coercion; that, I believe, is it. What do the AnCaps, or voluntaryists, argue for? They argue that they, and only they, should be allowed to protect their own land, and corporate power, through whichever means they find necessary; if they need to shoot someone, or hire someone to shoot someone, then so be it. They are demanding that they be granted monopoly on the use of violence on their own land, on which, mind you, they get to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate the "non-aggression principle" that they, in their navet, believe will counter-act, and eliminate all selfishness, all egoism, all hate, all bigotry, all exploitation, all slavery, and all mindless profit seeking, for profit's sake; it is like putting a dog's leash on a dreadnought-type battleship, instead of actually stripping it of its cannons, and engines. AnCaps don't want to abolish the state; they want to become it, and they want less restrictions placed upon it. They have no need, or want, for constitution, or liability to there subordinates. They simply want more capital; more profit; man the machines, fill up my pockets, and shut up. Such is the nature of their ideology. The fact that this is called anarchism is disgraceful, and disgusting! It is nothing of the ilk; the AnCaps do nothing but mock the entire concept of liberty, and accept, whole heartedly and with open arms, the soulless hierarchy that proceeds said mockery. They are not, and I repeat 5 not, anarchists; not just in the selfish, hierarchy-loving sort of way, but in the statist sort of way. As I have now torn the AnCaps to metaphorical shreds, it seems only fair that I'd do the same to the statist left. The state communists and the AnCaps have at least one thing in common, whether they know it or not; they both support tyranny. The AnCaps in the form of unregulated capitalism, and the Marxist-Leninists, in the form of a "capitalist" state. Allow me to elaborate; a capitalist state is one that has technically abolished capitalism, but now serves in its stead. The people don't own the means of production; the state does. Workplaces aren't organised through workers' self management; they are organised by, and through, the state. It is essentially socialist aristocracy. One people; one goal; one leader/elite. An argument often heard to support this position is that the state is required after the revolution, to manage things (just for a while) and slowly dismantle by itself; the problem is that it's never going to work; it never, in fact, can work, because it is based upon a false assumption. It is based on the assumption that power does not corrupt (the antithesis of which all socialism relies upon). It is an interesting position, as it is so fantastically contradictory; if power did, indeed, not corrupt, capitalism would not be a problem. How would this Marxist system work, exactly; voting is clearly out of the question; they have, much like us, seen the dangers of representative democracy, and do not wish to see them again. They know that if voting is reinitiated, the bourgeoisie will immediately rise to power again, so they need another way to keep the state alive; to perpetuate its existence (because anarchy is just a tiny bit too radical for them), so what do they do? Well, after the revolution a, so-called, dictatorship of the proletariat is put into effect; already we've a problem. The purpose of this "dictatorship" is to empower the people, and disempower the elite; the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to function under Marxist principles and then slowly dismantle, but the problem is that if you give a small group of people a large amount of power, this power will, inevitably, be abused, and thusly the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a dictatorship over the proletariat. There are a few other similarities between AnCaps and authoritarian socialists, one of which is the general duality of supporters. There are, as I've said, two kinds; the power hungry, and the deluded; the tyrant, and the nutter, if you will. A more centralised capitalism does not interest me in the slightest, nor does a more individual statism; I do not wish to be freer, I which to be free. All kinds of statism and capitalism are toxic to liberty, because they are both, essentially, the same. They are both aristocracy; they just justify, and fund this aristocracy through different means. Because of this I'd argue that state communists are not communists, just as anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. It seems I have now painted myself into a corner, from which I shall have to intellectually obliterate organised religion, and perhaps even religion as a whole * . Religion, while detestable, is no more than the personal embrace of * Do excuse my arrogance, whenever it may show itself in this essay. 6 irrationality; organised religion takes it a bit further. Organised religion claims authority over, basically, the entire universe and attempt to justify this authority using the public's embrace of irrationality; it is the social embodiment of the two things I despise the most; authoritarianism, and delusion. My position is, and has always been, that all social problems stem from these societal ills. Religion can, when kept on a personal level, make a man commit atrocities believing himself to be in the right; organised religion can have the same effect on thousands upon thousands of people, who are usually controlled by a greedy aristocrat concerned only with prolonging his own reign and keeping the stupid stupid, all while thinking he is enacting the plan of the lord. It is sickening. Not just the unfair, and evil concept of god (which inevitably reduces all of mankind to slaves), but all of religion. The religious claim authority, not just over their own lives, but also over the lives of others based on the idea that a god (in effect a totalitarian statist) has entrusted the responsibility upon them; that freedom needs to be compromised because the guy upstairs says so; that their schizophrenic delusions, and hallucinations, makes them qualified to rule. If the absurdity of this claim is not immediately realised by everyone, perhaps there is indeed no hope for our, that is the anarchist, cause. Religion was our first (and necessarily also worst, given the nature of progress) attempt at natural science, at literature, at philosophy; organised religion was our first attempt at oppression. The theocracy is probably one of the oldest governmental forms in history (surpassed only by that of the patriarchy), yet it persists; still it deludes, and poisons, and kills, and though its political influence may be steadily decreasing, its respect is not. We are always told; no not told; that would be an understatement in the most extreme of character; we are always commanded to respect the religious beliefs of others; respect the continuous oppression of your friends, and, more importantly, respect their aristocratic, and delusional, oppressors. I feel I need to further contrast the extreme differences between personal religion, and organised religion just to show how much more despicable and disgusting the latter really is (and knowing my opinions on personal religion, that does say quite a lot). Despite my hate for the delusion, irrationality, and willful slavery of the personal religion, I realise that it had its genesis in bravery, scientific inquiry, solidarity, and perhaps even emancipation (taking power from the patriarch and putting it in the hands of someone who, though not existent, knows better), and even though it is now obsolete, I can respect that origin. I cannot, however, respect even the origin of organised religion. It is an evil, exploitative, coercive, oppressive, intolerant and totalitarian societal system; it is the worst, and most unfounded of the social aristocracies, and it will always remain so. There is nothing, and I repeat, nothing that poisons the autonomy of any given individual so extremely as organised religion; not only does it claim the right to rule, but it carries with it the second most sophisticated propaganda machine humanity has ever constructed; the temple. Organised religion was only, and exclusively, created to 7 enslave the working class; it serves no other purpose than morphing those who could potentially be intelligent into mindless sheep who, like ants, sacrifice themselves for the good of their lords and masters. It corrupts the minds of humanity; molds them into sheep like, authority-abiding machines, and then proceed to use them as their personal arsenal, in their crusades, milkhemet mitzvahs, and jihads. It's not about enlightenment; it's about power. Power which must be dismantled. Almost all serious denominations of the left, which of course does not include the liberals of America, or the social democrats of Scandinavia, agree upon the society they wish to achieve. Everyone wants an egalitarian, socialist society (although there are many variations upon that notion); what we do not agree upon is the means of achieving such a society. I'm not referring to the chasm between Marxist vanguardism and more anarchic transitional tactics; the choice between those is clear to anyone with even the slightest understanding of power, and how it corrupts. What I wish to address is rather the dichotomy between reform, and revolution. Believe it or not, I have encountered people who agree, wholeheartedly, that an anarchist society would not only be possible, but also preferable, yet still reject the ideology because it relies upon revolutionary ideas; they argue that violence against the hierarchies cannot be justified, as the system, the establishment, the machine, does not use violence against us, and that revolution, because of the reasons stated, is nothing more than the glorification of violence. This claim is plainly, and obviously, ridiculous; nothing could be further from the truth. Have you seen the world? Have you actually examined our society? Everyone who dies in war has died because of hierarchical power relations; because the capitalist masters of the military industrial complex need more and more economic power, and by extension, more political power. Everyone who's being denied health care, and is subsequently left to die in the streets, is being murdered by the ruling class. Women being refused full wages; immigrants being deported to war and death and starvation; children forced into prostitution; hundreds of thousands of people turning to psychoactive substances, desperate for a distraction from the meaningless, boring, and unfulfilling lives they lead; millions getting thrown out on the streets every day, and the millions who already live there; workers in the entire world, slaving for a tiny, unrecognisably small part of what they've earned for the corporation; the denial, in both industrialised countries and developing ones, of the right to privacy; billions around the world joining in collective hypnosis around televisions, newspapers, and radios, constantly listening to the masters telling them to do nothing, except eating, sleeping, working, and dying. Is this not violence? Perhaps not direct, and active violence, but violence non the less. The revolution is not a glorification of violence; rather it is the denial of it. If you are not willing to fight against the extreme coercion and force of the ruling class (with violence if necessary) you are no real anarchist; an exclusively philosophical anarchist is useless to the movement. The only ones who reject the struggle are either defeatists, or cowards. 8 The latter is understandable; the previous one is not. Some claim that, as history shows, a successful socialist revolution can only lead to dictatorship, and coercion. This is not only historically false * , but theoretically as well. The revolutions of Marxist-Leninists, and Maoists, are classified as political ones; anarchist revolutions, though undoubtedly political, do not belong to the same category. The political revolution entails the burning of books, and replacement of banners and leaders; the anarchist revolution is a social one. It values all people equally, and can, because of this. not allow anyone to take power once it has taken its course. We seek not to put a new man into power, but to put a new system into effect. The political revolution is the march of the coordinator class, while the social revolution is the dance of the people. The third serious objection to revolutionary change is the claim that our goals can be reached through normal, parliamentary methods. The idea is that society has always moved towards greater amounts of liberty, and political involvement of the working class. There are two main points that counter this notion; firstly, the only liberty that has increased in society is the economic one (in the since that we are slowly moving towards neo-liberalism), which of course just means the increased freedom of corporations to limit the freedom of people. I grant you that we have distanced ourselves from the more socially conservative ideologies, but politically it is still the rich who make the decisions. Though bribes are illegal, "campaign contributions" are not. Related to this is the fact that the class chasm is as wide now as it was about 100 years ago, the wage difference between the genders are as big, and wages, when compared with prices, are lower. Furthermore, the ruling class won't let us vote their power away, even if we calmly, and obediently, put a little cross in a box representing that option. Ballots are nothing but indicators of what populist mask the political class should wear next. To quote the anarcho-communist thinker, and activist, Emma Goldman (1869-1940): "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." The second negation of parliamentary measures is that even if I grant you that it is possible; that the rich will agree to the abolition of their power, and that decentralisation can be decided upon by a centralised organ of power, it will still take a long time. Not just mere decades, or centuries even, but eons. Can we really allow the perpetuation of war, racism, sexism, wage slavery, violence, et cetera, just because we fear to pick up arms, if needed? If that is us; if that is how our solution is structured; are we really better than the ruling class itself? To be clear, I am not arguing against reform. While we are still locked in this plutocratic, and violent, system, reform is essential; it is * See the Ukrainian revolution (1918) and the Spanish revolution (1936). 9 what has given us the eight hour work day, and it is also what has extended undeniable human rights to non-white, non-straight, non-rich, and non-male parts of the population (although that is still what one might call a work in progress). My arguments merely concern its inadequacy on a larger scale. I am against reformism; not reform. Likewise, though completely unrelated, I have nothing against the anarcho-capitalist concept of the Non-Aggression Principle (or NAP); I just consider it inadequate as it does not prevent structural, systemic violence. From this I think we can safely draw the conclusion that the social revolution that I, and most other anarchist, propose is not only justified, but probably necessary. Social reform is a method that has been tried again, and again, and again, yet it always seems to fail. In the words of the anarcho-syndicalist thinker Mikhail Bakunin: It is time to have done with all popes and priests; we want them no longer, even if they call themselves Social Democrats. When social democracy fails, bring forth the revolution! How, when, and where this revolution is to be carried out is, of course, a separate issue, and I do acknowledge that it does have a few prerequisites. Among them are mass understanding of the anarchist ideology (and its subcategories), and mass support of it, along with mass understanding of the corruptive urges that come with being in a position of power. Almost all despicable, and oppressive, systems are based either upon egoism, or delusion; this delusion is a particular one that I would like to analyse further. It is the idea of the benevolent dictator, and it is a toxic one; it proposes that hierarchy can, absolutely, work if we only put the right people in power. To that I say: "Bull. Fucking. Shite." As I said the benevolent dictator is fictional; he does not, and cannot, exist, yet he remains so prominent in the thinking, not only of priests, bourgeoisies, and the Bolsheviks, but of the masses that follow them. All catholics grant this honour to at least two characters (one of them non-existent); the first is Jesus Christ, and the second is the pope. The most problematic of the two is the latter. A normal, mortal and fallible man being given such extreme amounts of authority, and trust, can only ever end in chaos; why is this, you may ask; because the benevolent dictator does not exist. Fascism is, too, predicated upon this notion; the leader is infallible and omnibenevolent, and I would absolutely argue that with this mental, crackpot idea you cannot have freedom. As long as people put their faith (faith meaning irrational belief which has its basis... Well, nowhere) in this idea; the idea of the infallible, or at least empathetic and compassionate, leader; the idea that problems will just be magically solved if one special person, or a special group of people, gets put on top of the hierarchical mountains of our 10 society; as long as this delusion persists, freedom too will be a delusion. It is essential to smash misunderstandings like this one, while at the same time explaining the importance, and plausibility of the anarchist system. There are several ways for any given individual to spread the understanding, and support, of anarchism in their everyday life, one of which is not talked about, or valued highly, enough; what I am talking about is art, in all of its forms. Oscar Wilde does, in his essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism, stress the importance of art within an anarcho-communist society, but fails to show its importance in the struggle for said society. Art is extremely important as it has not only one purpose, but many. One of the most important of these is the deconversion, of the indoctrinated masses, from the religion of neo-liberalism, with its worship of the non-existant Invisible Hand. Who has not, while watching Chaplin's The Great Dictator, been moved by the touching, and eloquent, critique of hierarchy offered by the poor Jewish barber? Who has not felt raging hate boil up, along with great sadness, when reading, in the Hunger Games, about how the Capitol mercilessly prepare the children of Panem to slaughter each other until only one remains? Almost all forms of art include, and focus upon, an act of rebellion; the crushing of a cruel leader, by an oppressed majority, with the odds stacked against them. We just have to make people realise that the dire conditions found in various forms of art are nothing but foggy mirrors of reality. Is that not the purpose of art? To enhance the clarity of reality? When interviewed about his work, V for Vendetta, Alan Moore stated (and I am paraphrasing) that his story, as with any story that takes place in a dystopic future, was not actually about the circumstances of the future, but rather just exaggerating the ones of the present, and that is how art is, and should be, viewed. Working under the assumption that this is how art should be interpreted, it is essential that we, or the ones of us who are artists, focus on creating, through means of writing, drawing, speaking, or whatever other talents one might have, convincing (yet, as stressed in The Soul of Man Under Socialism, fulfilling) arguments; arguments disguised as paintings, songs, or novels. Another important purpose of art is to motivate those of us who have already woken up; the creation, and spreading, of what can only be called propaganda is important, not because it lights a revolutionary fire within the uninitiated, but because it puts more logs upon our own. We need to constantly be reminded about the injustice around us if we do not wish to become unmotivated, and apathetic. As we have discussed, an apathetic individual is equal to one supporting the system; the same applies to those who are only anarchists by principle, and reject the active class struggle. Anarchist posters, and slogans, are important not only in the sense that they might be helpful in keeping the rebellious fires of active anarchists burning, but also in that they might increase the reach, and severity, of fires within exclusively philosophical anarchists; that is its only convertional power (that is is power to convert); the power to turn a mere philosopher into an activist. I am, as with so many other 11 things, not critisising philosophy, in and of itself, but rather just pointing out its inadequacy when dealing with the concrete world in which we live. The illegal arts, that is various forms of "defacing" public infra-structure, are also very important, and in scenarios like these I think that propaganda, even with its lack of argumentative substance, can be of great importance; illegal acts gain attention, and attention gains interest. It is, of course, better if the work of art is aesthetically pleasing, as it is then more likely to gain the sympathy of the people. No one will defend a circle-a, hastily spray painted upon an ATM machine, but perhaps the same would not be true for a genuine work of spray can art, or a well designed propaganda poster. This is a brilliant combination of art and "recruitment" through direct action. Even I am, with this essay, attempting to, through a merging of theory and art, try to convince people of anarchist ideas, and actions, and I urge you to do the same, through whichever artistic field you are the most familiar with. It is undoubtedly needed in contrast to the extreme propaganda of the statist, and capitalist, mass media, and on this note we should discuss the issue of debate, and discussion, as a way to increase the understanding, and support, of anarchism. It may not seem as such, but personal discussion with friends, family, and generally whomever will listen, on the topics of hierarchy, state violence, capitalist crime, and anarchism, could very well, when conducted on a mass scale, result in the (in lack of a better term) conversion of many to the libertarian socialist point of view. It is important to try to dismantle misconceptions about the ideology, such as it pertaining only to mass chaos, death, and a war of all against all, while at the same time explaining the need for, and purpose of, more insurrectionary methods. The importance of more structured debates against Marxists, liberals, and pretty much anyone else, with exception of fascists. If anyone offers to organise a debate between an anarchist and a person of an opposing point of view, the anarchist should, if he/she feels up to the intellectual challenge, accept said offer, since it is a forum that is taken seriously by most people. If we partake in more serious, and, unfortunately, by extension more strictly organised, debates there is a chance that our ideology may be taken more seriously. For this exact reason it is important to also focus on the creation, and perpetuated existence, of alternative, and anarchist, media; media that comments upon things from the perspective of the oppressed, and whose lens is not covered with the smudges of privilege that can be found upon television screens; media that is organised no- hierarchically, and that anyone who wishes to can be a part of. A perfect example of what is needed is the, now cancelled (as of December 2009), Swedish magazine Lsarnas Fria, or the Readers' Free, which was built entirely upon the concept of guerilla journalism (or citizen journalism); anyone who wanted to could write news articles, stories, or things similar in nature. Likewise the presence of things like LibCom.org, RevLeft.net, AnarchistCollective on YouTube, and various other anarchist Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, tumblogs, and YouTube channels are extremely 12 important, as they provide great discussion, art, propaganda, and an anarchist perspective on news stories, both popular and less noticeable. No act of rebellion can be overlooked, wherever it may take place, and whatever authority it may occur against. One could argue that the place where it is most needed is the classroom. Schools are just another cog in the hierarchical, societal machine; a sand paper to smooth whatever pointy edges may be found upon the intellect of its victims, the students. Its only purpose, as with organised religion, is the indoctrination, and demotivation, of the people. In the words of the anarchist activist, and professor of linguistics, Noam Chomsky: The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions. In school your value lies in your grade, which they say is based upon your knowledge about, and understanding of, whatever the subject in question may be; this is however not the truth. The system by which the modern system of education (which is actually entirely based on the older, Prussian system) is extremely inefficient; at least if its purpose is the student's increased interest in, and understanding of, the world around him/her. You are supposed to read about a certain topic, but not in the hopes of actually understanding it, but rather in the hopes of memorising it, and its details. Remembering dates, and connections, and then check the correct boxes, or write a clever analysis that follows a very strict pattern. Once you've passed the test you forget about what you've supposedly learnt. It's not about knowledge, or understanding; it's about obedience. They simply want you to sit down, read your book, write your answers, and shut up; never mind the fact that your idiot teacher couldn't even think his/her way out of a paper bag! Never mind the fact that whatever knowledge he/she may have about any given topic was supplied to her by the ruling class! And then, for not following every single order; for standing up for what is actually right; for refusing to mindlessly follow the structure they have drawn out, you are labeled immature, ignorant, and lacking in manners and respect. Doing what is right, no matter what the establishment would have you believe, is exactly what will give you a lower grade and push you down the societal pyramid. Mindless obedience is rewarded, while rebellious individualism is punished; it's sickening, and totally contrary to every possible human instinct, or impulse. Why do you think that so many children hate going to school? It's because they hate having their creative, and intellectual, impulses smashed, and degraded. To have a child pass through a machine, and let them leave once they've received a label, is an extremely insulting, and dehumanising process, which needs to be stopped. 13 School is of great importance in the struggle against the machine; firstly because it gives you, as an advocate, a forum in which most people have experience a sort of social coercion. They may find your views relatable, and join in the battle for our cause. Secondly, it is important because it is in desperate need of evolution. There are alternatives to the current education models, that slaughter creativity, and individualism, and at the same time fosters a feeling of competition; the new spirit of the age (that is gain wealth, forgetting all but self) is extremely prominent in today's academic establishments; the most popular, and well known, alternatives are the democratic schools. Democratic education, though not perfect, is several orders of magnitude better than more conventional education; in democratic schools the students get to choose which subjects they do, and which the do not, which to study. The education is more personalised, and any student can choose to either skip lessons, or change their schedules entirely, if any issues should come up. Rules are decided upon through democratic means, in which both the students and the teachers, have equal power to change things; there is no possibility to coerce anyone else. Does this, as critics may point out, not result in the children not studying at all, or studying exclusively the subjects they find interesting? Yes, to a certain extent, but this argument relies upon the notion that children do not find most subjects interesting, which has been proven false by the existence, and success, of democratically run schools; children will voluntarily study most, if not all, subjects presented to hem out of sheer curiosity. It is an insulting, and toxic delusion that children have a natural aversion to learning; it is not the (supposedly existing) learning that makes school boring, but rather the structures by which it happens. Since these structures are eliminated, and replaced with ones radically different, students at democratic schools find their work interesting and engaging; a student at a conventional school will, when asked about whether or not they enjoy school, respond that they enjoy a small selection of subjects, or perhaps meeting their friends; the same does not happen with students on democratic schools. Children who have been brought up within an educational system that fosters solidarity, critical thinking, and individualism, actually find the entirety of school enjoyable, and the academic levels they reach are the same as the ones reached at conventional schools. Should our aim not be to educate the people while keeping them happy? Several studies shows that competition, rather than being the healthy force which capitalists claim it to be, is actually extremely psychologically destructive. We should base our society, and our thoughts about building it, upon solidarity and cooperation, and if that is to be achieved we need a free school system. It is said that it is through education of history that we can assure that we do not allow the repeating of past atrocities, and I hold that to be true; in order to avoid future tyrannies we must observe the ones of the past and fight back when we see signs of them rising again. Fascism is, in certain aspects, more like a religion than an ideology; it usually glorifies certain individuals to the 14 level of perceived divinity, and it is almost entirely based upon faith (faith being defined as belief without evidence). The fascist never even attempts to show any reasons as to why his ideas about race, authoritarianism, militarism, et.c. are correct; he simply asserts it, and refers you to whomever holds the rank above him. You cannot argue with a fascist, because their views are not based on arguments or observation; they're based on nothing. The only basis for their views are the views themselves. This arguably makes them more dangerous as there is no real way to convince them that they are wrong. We have to fight them. If we do not fight back (with violence if necessary) we risk the imprisonment and the brutal murdering of thousands, if not millions, combined with a horrible regress in the social conditions of the remaining population; anti-fascist violence is self- defense, despite the ruling class's insistence that it's not; that all violence is equal when examined from within a moral framework moral. They mean that the anti-fascist movement is as bad as the fascist one, ignoring the fact that the difference lies not just in ideology, but also in 14 dead bodies in the last 12 years (and that's just in Sweden); 14 families and countless friends are weeping because no one stopped the fascists. To argue that we are morally the same to them; that we are equal to these murderers, is not only insulting to us, but to their victims as well. The mainstream political media (and all of its followers) argues that the use of violence can only be classified as self-defense if it is a response to a direct attack; this is clearly false. If someone takes your freedom, or at least attempts to, are you not allowed to fight to reclaim that freedom? Is your liberty to live life as you see fit, and do whatever fulfills your creative and intellectual desires, not more important than the fascist's right to trample you into the ground? Is your right to love, and enter into consensual relationships with, whomever you wish not more important than the homophobe's right to impose his bronze age values upon you? Is the transphobe more correct in the insulting assertion that the possession of a penis always means that you are male, than you are when assessing the question yourself and coming to a different conclusion? Is the sexist more entitled to push you into a prepackaged gender role, than you are to compose the nature of your life and future yourself? How does their freedom of expression, and action, trump our freedom to live? To explore the world through any and all means available to us? Violence against these movements is not only justified, but often necessary; the idea that we can argue a fascist out of stabbing someone is unrealistic in the extreme. Self-defense against fascist attacks is necessary, and as we've established, anti-fascist violence is always self-defense. It is always self-defense because fascists will not back down when provoked. But do these phenomena really manifest themselves in the world today? Is fascism a real threat? There are two main things we need to examine here; the first one is the actions of individual fascists, or individual fascist organisations; the second one is the potential rise to power of fascists. The first one is demonstrably real, and dangerous. Fascism hasn't been this prominent since its 15 defeat after the second world war; it has sneaked back onto the social and political arena, feeling empowered by the rise of nationalist movements all over the world, and with Sweden as an example we can clearly see that the increased popularity of the Sweden Democrats (a party of nationalists; basically politically correct skinheads in suits) has been proportional to that of militant and outright fascist, and nazi organisations; organisations that will not hesitate to beat and murder someone because of skin colour or ethnical origin. These smaller organisations are not just motivated by the popularity and defense of nationalism, but also by successful acts of political violence against their opposition; only by making them realise that we do not, and will never, tolerate them can we push them back. Violence will be a necessary component in that process, as words alone cannot stop a bat or a knife. The second possibility that needs examining, that is the potential rise to power of fascist political parties, is more debatable, but I would argue that does exist and that it is dangerously close. It is, and has almost always been; we have just been scared into ignoring it; scared by the possibility that it might come back, but we must be scared no longer! We must open our eyes to what is happening; the Party of the Swedes (hereby referred to as SvP), a party that is (by most people) accepted as being not just nationalist, but national-socialist, is currently growing in most parts of Sweden, likely motivated by the rise of the Sweden Democrats and nazi movements like the SMR (the Swedish Resistance Movement). SvP currently holds seats in several Swedish city councils, and are on they way into several more; they may be a fringe group, but fringe groups have become successful in the past. Most successful political revolutions started with fringe groups, and so did the reign of the German Nazi Party themselves. We cannot ignore SvP; the fact that they are small now does not mean that they cannot grow; my language makes it sound like this case is a very specific one, but I assure you it is not. UKIP in the UK, Golden Dawn in Greece, and even accepted political parties such as the GOP in the US (and the Sweden Democrats in Sweden) are partly, if not entirely, fascist. This is a global evolution, and it has to be stopped. I believe that the best way to put an end to these movements is to strike them at their lowest possible hierarchical levels; we must stop their propaganda, whether by word or by deed (I am, in no way, trying to downplay the significance and horrible fact of the murders comitted by groups like the SMR). If we do not allow them to speak their wile delusions; if we ensure that they cannot get any popular support, we can stop their pseudo-religious ideologies being realised. This coin has two sides, the first one being silencing the fascists, and the other one being exposing them; these two are not mutually exclusive, and can be deployed at the same time. How, then, can we do this? There are several methods which should all be deployed as much as possible. The first one is the constant, and relentless, ridicule of fascists and their movements. This is effective as it can turn those who may convert to the vile religion of fascism away from said path, and it would also allow society, as a whole, to focus more 16 on the issue; it is, however, important that our ridicule does not have the effect of making the fascists seem harmless or easily dealt with. We must ridicule their ideas and their actions, while still avoiding making them seem less dangerous than they are. Our purpose is to shed light upon the absurdity of their thoughts, and through this method rile people up against them, so that we, the people, are ready to strike back if an organised fascist attack should ever come. Ridiculing the fascists can almost only be done through satire within the arts. Another artistic method to weaken the fascist movement is to expose their crimes and horrible views in a manner that shows how evil they really are; we need to make people understand how important freedom really is and how incredibly evil and malevolent one would have to be to rob you of that. In this way arguing for anarchism, and the freedom it supports, becomes equal to arguing against fascism, and its doctrines of uniformity, violence, and submission. If you are artistically inclined, whether it be in the fields of music, film, visual arts, or literature, I encourage you to create at least a few anti-fascist pieces. Another important part of the active opposition to fascism is frequent and inclusive anti-racist and anti-fascist demonstrations; the more inclusive, the better. As much as we may want to exclude the pacifistic liberals from our actions, the inclusion of them weakens the fascist movement as it mobilises the entirety of society against it. Even if we cannot convince everyone of anarchism, we should try to convince everyone of anti-fascism. These events can be both violent, such as Black Blocs and other types of insurrectionary activities, and peaceful, such as concerts, or other more culturally themed types events. The important thing is that everyone present should feel motivated, included, and united in the societal battle against fascism. Do not let conversations or topics stray from this theme; anti-fascism should be the central and most important part of the gathering. Within this category lies also the organisation against fascist demonstrations, whenever they may occur. The hindering of their march is essential; we must show that we will not allow them to voice their vile hatred. One method of stopping these sort of events is the forming of blockades, not letting the nazis through; no pasarn! If they are successful in the spreading of their intolerance, they will become more motivated and stronger. I would also argue that destruction of fascist infra-structure (whether personal or institutional) can have a positive effect, as it shows that we will not ever tolerate fascism in our society. During these demonstrations, the possibility of fascist resistance is very real, and should be prepared for. If you are to be part of an event like the ones I'm describing you must make sure that you take the proper precautions, and get ready to defend yourself; this is where I may lose some of you, as what I'm describing is active violence. The importance of your safety, however, cannot be overstated, and if an active counter-attack against the fascists increases said safety it is the right thing to do; fascists wish nothing for us but a slow starvation of oxygen. Our counter-attacks against them is, and always will be, self-defense. Then there are of course the 17 obvious things; tear down posters and stickers, engage in discussion, spread propaganda, and speak out! As I have said time and time again; someone who does not actively work against forces of capitalism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, ageism, et.c might as well be working for them. They are of no use to the movement; philosophy is good, but inadequate. The importance of doing cannot be overstated, for as the scientist and anarchist philosopher and writer Peter Kropotkin once said: Idlers do not make history, they suffer it With this established I think that we can say, with the greatest amount of surety possible, that the initiation of an anarchist society is very much necessary, as a lack of hierarchical power is the only way to ensure that fascist organisations don't gain any amounts of attraction with the public; or at least not enough attention to make them dangerous. This is, however, only one of the benefits of living in a society based on anarchist principles; as the title of this essay suggests, the consequences are many and the descriptions of their positive effects can be expanded upon into absurdity. One which is talked a lot about by Oscar Wilde in his essay The Soul of Man under Socialism is the effect of our liberation on art; under the current system an artist cannot create his art for the sake of his/her own artistic impulses. If he/she is to focus on his/her passion, the art has to be commodified and sold in the name of capitalist greed and narcissism. Art becomes no more than a means to show one's status in the capitalist structure; originals, especially when it comes to painting or drawing, are valued highly, while copies with the exact same qualities, the exact same attention to detail or vividness of colour, are considered worthless. It is not the image itself that matters, but its authenticity. Is this even art? Perhaps it is, but it certainly isn't viewed as such; if the Mona Lisa was considered an actual work of art you wouldn't need to have it locked up in the Louvre, as a copy, or a print of it, would have given you the exact same feelings of wonder and awe. It is plainly ridiculous to claim that art has intrinsic value in this society; the evidence clearly shows that reality is very different. The ruling class does not admire the Mona Lisa for its quality; they value it for its exclusivity. As with everything else in the capitalist system, it can only be valued in the medium of money, and something's monetary worth is usually proportional to its rarity. Can this phenomenon be found throughout the entirety of art? To answer this question you just have to ask yourself if you would pay the same amount of money for a pirated film, as you would for a mass produced and licensed one. For some of you, the answer to that question will be yes, but for the vast majority (and certainly for the state and the bourgeoisie which it represents) the answer is yes. The endless search 18 for more capital has murdered art. This can be seen in music as well; the actually good and meaningful music is the music that has been written because of one's actual passions, while music that has been created for the explicit purpose of monetary growth is almost always vapid, if not outright harmful. Social hierarchy also ruins art in the aspect that it censors that which it does not like; not by an outright ban, but simply by defunding, and disallowing that which the ruling class does not wish to be seen. A large corporation can easily stop the popularisation of an artistic campaign against themselves and their practices by bribing anyone who has the aspiration to broadcast said campaign, while states and political parties think they have the right to bend whatever honest art remains into reactionary propaganda material. Art has also become elitist and undemocratic; it is only a select few that can get any amounts of attention for the art that they produce, and even they are massively influenced by the sandpaper of capital. Oscar Wilde's idea that art ceases to be art when it is involuntarily acted upon by outside parties rings true still. You may remember what I wrote about art as a part of revolutionary struggles, and that my description of it was that of a tool; a sort of societal magnifying glass. The purpose of art before the revolution should be to draw a caricature of the corrupted and oppressive society, in order to open the eyes of its inhabitants. I would say that Wilde's definition is only applicable once an anarchist society has been reached, and until then all art will either be created in the purpose of monetary gain or for revolutionary struggle. How, then, would anarchism solve this, and what might we expect to see post-revolution? For one, we would see the death of celebrity followed by a great democratic movement towards a sort of artistic egalitarianism; we would no longer view a small number of bland (supposed) artists selected by capitalists to produce meaningless material, lacking in actual purpose, as having a monopoly on the creation and distribution of art. Instead artistry, just like the rest of society, would be available to anyone who would wish to be part of it; not only available, but encouraged to a far greater degree than it is today. Everyone would also have an equal opportunity to show their skills at museums, concerts, theaters, and whatever other scenes one may wish to reside upon. It will no longer be a matter of the stage being given to whomever happens to be the highest bidder, but a matter of sharing said stage between us, and welcoming unto it anyone who wishes. Under anarchism art would also become a much more prominent part of our everyday lives, as the laws prohibiting them would be eliminated; graffiti art would be a more common sight in city settings; not what usually gets referred to as graffiti, but actual art; massive spray paintings using the walls of our cities as the canvases. Street musicians would increase in number as they would no longer need the approval of authorities to play their music, and said musicians would probably also diverge from the usual styles as they are no longer scared of losing the support of the capitalist machine; through this we would constantly be introduced to new, and more exciting, genres and 19 types of art and entertainment. What new forms of art may emerge under anarchism is impossible to even imagine under the grey and bleak conditions we are forced to live under today. Another thing we'd see more of under anarchism is public forums for the discussion, and creation, of various types art, including bars or cafs with participatory entertainment, that is the possibility of any given person to display their talents spontaneously, should they which to. This too would have a democratising effect, as it would give everyone an equal ability to show their creative abilities, and also give each one of these people the same potential for praise. It is however not just the arts that would benefit from the initiation of anarcho-communism; perhaps the most important of the areas affected by a potential future revolution would be that of labour. As I am sure you're aware, socialism is centered around the liberation of the working class, that is those who lack administrative power over the means of production and their use, from the wealthy elite, the capitalists; as I have explained, anarchists put these people in the same category as the politicians, as the groups often overlap and even if they don't the positions often (if not always) come with the same types, and amounts, of privilege. Under our current system the working class is being exploited to the highest possible degrees while their opinions and ideas are pushed down into insignificance; it is only through the very limited reach and ability of labour unions that we have any chance to increase our standard of living, and even this power is being gradually stripped away by our societal masters. On a larger scale, we cannot even have any say in the organisation of our, supposedly democratic, society; through means of campaign contribution and donations (in effect, legal bribes) giant corporations can manipulate the political scene to their interest, and even if a nation takes steps to avoid this, the ideas written into law by those who claim to be our representatives still favour the wealthy. This is mainly because of two reasons; the first one is that you cannot prohibit the bribing of politicians by capitalists, however firmly you wish to discourage it, as our leaders, who by virtue of being in a position of political power are necessarily corrupt, will look to their own interests before the interests of the majority of the actual population, and the very, very rich are necessarily the only ones who can give these leaders a more explicit lifestyle than they already lead. The second reason is that politicians, almost universally, are part of the super rich themselves; if they do not reach economic superiority through corporate means they, as mentioned earlier, reach it through means of politically correct bribes. Any successful politician will oppose the interests of the population because they will, by and large, be against capitalist oppression and in favour of policies closer to the ones that would be in effect under socialism. The second reason is a direct result of the first one, and the first one is based on one of the most obvious attributes of human society, namely the corruptive nature of power. Work in its current form is also based on the concept of wage labour, that is the selling of one's labour to one's employer; this is, however, a form 20 of slavery. A slave is forced to work for an owner, a ruler, a boss, et.c. with his only reward being the essentials of life (food to eat and a roof over his head); if a slave refuses to work, for whatever reason, his owner can decide to beat him, starve him, make him do more even more degrading work, or simply kill him. He has no chance to revolt that would not be detrimental to his own existence if failed. He is a just another commodity to be bought, sold, and exploited by the aristocracy. His opinions on how work should be conducted are ignored and should he request help with any particular task, he will not receive it. The slave works only to make sure he lives a little longer, and because he has no power of it, he is not fulfilled by it. Though wage slavery is definitely not as bad as its ancestor, the two still share a large number of qualities; as a worker in a capitalist system you are, in effect, selling your labour and, by extension, yourself to companies. You become dependent on these companies, and you are forced to perform physically or mentally strenous and mundane tasks in order to receive to receive money; money that you will later use to acquire food, a household, some means of transportation, et.c. You cannot rebel, for if you do you might get fired, or be pushed down a pin from your place on the corporate success ladder, or see a decrease in wage; the idea of striking is not an alternative as your dissatisfaction with the conditions of your workplace may be seen as a threat, or a problem, and you will be eliminated from the company. There are also extreme cases where the position of a wage slave is the exact same as that of an ordinary slave, and these things usually occur in huge, multibillion dollar corporations; a few years ago the Coca-Cola Company was accused of hiring death squads in order to assassinate union leaders, the purpose of which was obviously being able to force their workers into harder living, and working, conditions; a poor worker is a desperate, and a desperate worker will be scared, and as long as the workers are scared, the threat, to the regimes, of revolution is small. Another issue inherent in the capitalist model is the undemocratic organisation of the workplace; the process of selling your labour, and by extension yourself, in combination of the capitalist idea of property as being something you have complete dominion over, your bosses essentially have complete power over you and over how you conduct yourself; corporations are always very hierarchically structured, with leaders at the top and various boards of directors and bosses ranging all the way down to the lonely proletarian at the bottom. The organisation of your work will always be decided upon by someone else, instead of being based on through workers' self management and democracy. There is nothing that says that the people above you are necessarily better at organising work than you are; their contributions to the workplace are entirely useless, if not harmful. Jobs are also carefully distributed so that some people will never, and can never, have any chance to work, and will subsequently end up in the streets; this is done through the manufactured scarcity of jobs. Capitalists always talk about solving this issue through the creation of new jobs, through the 21 expanding of business, the building of more cubicles and conveyor belts in, and along, which more useless administrative issues will be dealt with, and more papers will be filled out, and more mobile phones will be assembled, and more useless apps will be programmed, and so on, and so on. The problem is that work, in fact, is not scarce. If we were to shorten the amount of work any given individual had to perform, whatever work remained could be shared between those who are currently unemployed; the automation of a large amount of mundane and repetitive tasks could decrease the amount of work even further, and if more workers were needed they could come from the unnecessary groups of administrators, directors, and bosses. Capitalism can, however, not allow this. It cannot allow for the decrease in work hours or days because companies strive to have the smallest amount of employees possible, as that also means that the amount of money that has to spent on wages will be minimised, it cannot allow for the mass automation of boring, repetitive tasks, because if the proletariat starts enjoying its work, it may want to control it, and it cannot allow for that to happen, because companies are built on hierarchy, and if there is no hierarchy in the organisation, there is no justification for the hierarchy in distribution. The only thing that matters under capitalism is monetary growth. Why? Because it is, and that's all you need to know. The fact that large corporations accumulate masses of wealth so large that no one could ever use them all up doesn't matter; you just need to know that working is good, and that giving the fruits of said work to the rich is better. This would all be radically different in a libertarian socialist society. As anarcho-communism is a type on socialism, all the attributes inherent to socialism are obvoiusly inherent to anarcho-communism as well. In principal, the Marxists and the anarchists have the same economic goal, the difference between them being that the Marxists, because of the corruptive nature of power, seldom (if not never) reach it. Under anarcho-communism the profit motive is eliminated, which means that production can, and will, focus on perfecting the products, instead of maximising profits through a focus on marketing or similar things. This does, of course, eliminte the utility of advertisement, which results in the fact that those who are vitually slaving under ideas perpetuated in commercials and other types of corporate proaganda will be freed from these mental chackles; this allows for people to develop into their own persons, without the elites deciding what should be socially acceptable for them to wear, use, listen to, et.c. This does of course also do away with the extreme sexualisation of women that is being continued in the name of increasing profits (through advertisment), which will minimise, if not eliminate, much of the sexual objectification we see in society as a whole. In fact, much of today's prejudices against various groups in society, whether they be minorities or not, are continued and taken to further extremes in the name of private economic growth, and the abolition of capital will obviously solve that. Anarcho- communism also proposes the evolution of the workplace from its current, totalitarian, and 22 dictatorial format into a democratic and horizontally planned one; all descisions of the workplace would, as with the rest of society, be made through discussion, and direct consensus democracy. This, along with the collective ownership of the means of production, results in the absolute guarantee that the development of economic elites will stop. The end of this authoritarian relationship between the worker and the boss, along with the abolition of the wage system, would result in the majority of workers being more satisfied, and more engaged, with the little amount of work that they would have to do. The little amount of work? Yes. Through the elimination of workplace hierarchy, there will no longer be bosses, or administrators, or directors; this would not only give us the equality that we need to be happy in work related situations, but also a larger amount of potential workers; this, in combination with the automation of certain jobs, would allow us to make the amount of work a single person had to perform a lot smaller than it is today; we would simply share the tasks between all people, and as the focus on acquiring larger and larger amounts of capital is gone, everyone can actually get not only what they need to survive, but rather what they need to live. I think that is an important distinction. They would get more than food and a roof over their heads; they would get whatever they needed to fulfill themselves as persons. The basic principle of communism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his need; this does however not mean that you would only be provided with the bare minimum which is needed for your survival. Need, in this context, can be used interchangably with need to survive and to live, where survival is the basic act of staying alive, while living is the acting out of your personal dreams and ambitions, or living life as one sees fit without actively hurting another human being. Thus an anarcho-communist society that gave you whatever you needed would provide you with pencils, computers, paint brushes, various styles of clothing, musical instruments, et.c, if those were the things you desired. The minimised amount of work also means that people will have more time to do whatever they wish to do, and this will result in a generally happier society; not to say that you could not work more; if working is something that motivates you or fulfills you as a human being, you are allowed to work more (or indeed less) than your recommended work time. The replacement of capitalistic competition with voluntary cooperation would end the corporate hinderence of the develoment of science and technology, which would allow the end of many deadly diseases, and the solving of many problems within the areas of communication- and information technology. As we know that the competition that currently runs rampant through our society (not least in our workplaces) is usually extremely psychologically destructive to most people, an anarcho-communist society would in all likelyhood see an increase in the quality of general mental health. Under anarcho-communism there would also be no justification, nor motivation, for the horrible and extreme anti-enviormentalism that our current 23 world is perpetuating; instead we, as a society, would work to come up with alternative and enviormentally sound solutions to questions that our currently society answers with loud drills, large collections of carbon dioxide clouds, or the exploitation of the dangerous qualities of uranium. Another consequence related to the topic of labour, though not necessarily part of it, is that of poverty, and its death. In today's world the manufactured and (to anyone who has studied the structure of capitalism) clearly false scarcity of work causes some people (some of them for specific reasons such as ethicity or sexual orientation, others in cruel jokes played upon them by fate) to be excluded from the system of wage slavery. Initially this may sound like a good thing. In fact, is not the abolition of the selling of labour not what I have been advocating through the entirety of this essay? How joyous must it not be for those who are placed outside of this system, whether due to prejudice, or due to the odds not playing out in one's favour? I need not point out to you that this idea is a nave delusion, fashioned from the same materials as the lies of Capitalist society's inherent freedoms and democracies. Under capitalism your wage does, and must, determine your living standards, and those placed outside the human market by the governing forces of the world are left with no wage, and subsequently a living standard that would be abhorrent to anyone not already accustomed to it. Indeed millions, if not billinos, of proletarians live in poverty (whether extreme, or slight), constantly forced further and further down the societal status stair, lowering the already slim chances of acuiring the right to rent oneself (which is, though degrading, one's only chance of salvation). In cases of prejudices, whatever they may be against, the process works as follows; a certain person of whom some may hold some prejudices will, in all likelyhood, be treated badly in his childhood, resulting in some mental scars that may hinder the person's educational motivation; the issues of school, whether perpetuated in the purpose of teaching or the purpose of indoctrinating, seem irrelevant and small when compared to those of bullying or discrimination. These issues can because of this cause the person in question to receive lower grades. The very same mental scars can also lead to the purputrating of petty crimes, such as shoplifting. If the issue of prejudice is still a relevant one (which I assure you it often is) the person now has three forces working against them in the persuit of work, and by extension, bread. If the person is denied a job he will slowly, but surely, glide down the towering hierarchical heights of society until he reaches their very bottom, where the rest of society steps over him, and occasionally tosses him a coin to relieve their feelings of guilt. The process is about the same for the ones naturally more privileged, with the exception of the discrimination; instead this person may never have learnt to comply, and to do whatever was asked of him whenever the authorities wanted, or he may just be a normal person who, through an unfair stroke of bad luck, was filtered out of the existence of the capitalist machine, ending up on the streets despite his respect and awe of the hands that feed him, despite 24 them also bing the hands that beat him to the ground. And is he really even fed? No, the poor are always left on the streets to be kicked upon, especially if the poor person happens to be born outside of the arbitrary lines defining the nation inside of which he currently recides * . Poverty itself comes with a lot of horrible consequences that I do not even wish to go into at this hour; the only conclusion we need to know to continue this argument is that poverty, with its starvation and general degradation of mind and motivation, is horrible. It can however be prevented. Under anarcho-communism the false rarity of jobs would be dismantled, not only giving everyone a chance to spend much less of their time on this planet on work, and focus instead on that which interests them (and thus comes the explosion of art and the democracy of labour), but also illustrating that capital was what created poverty. As communism is based primarily on the distribution of resources based on need, and as the current mode of organisation, that is hierarchical competition for capital (through whatever means are to our avail), will be replaced with a new one based upon democratic and voluntary cooperation for the good of the human race, and the planet upon which it recides, economic equality will be absolute. This will be complemented by the fact that the illusion of scarcity (that is scarcity of resources and not of jobs) would finally disappear from human conscientiousness, and allow us to work, through cooperation, to develop methods of feeding every mouth presented to us (more on that can be found in Murray Bookchin's essay collection Post-Scarcity Anarchism). The state of communist society would be the giving of everything to everyone. Economic egalitarianism is the only feasible way to destroy poverty, and the social and practical horrors it carries with it, thus allowing every person to join the ranks of great artists and workers. Economic egalitarianism is also what assures the political egalitarianism in a communist society. The collective ownership and management of the means of production, and by extention the distributing to anyone whatever they may need, necessarily implies the end of oligarchy as no one would have the means to coerce anyone else; this leads to the initiation of actual democracy. The capitalist liberal thinkers of the world (some of them leaders, some of them no more than mere writers of editorials) speak highly of democracy, but the democracy they glorify is no more than a deformed and sick carricature; in their minds democracy entails being passive and obedient, while silently and respectfully listening to mainstream politicians, whatever banners they may hoist, and subsequently putting a tiny cross on a ballot, signing away the rule of one's own life to capitalist forces. This is, however, not democracy; this is oppression. The oppression of the mind and, perhaps more importantly, of the voice; the idea that we should just stand in silent acceptance of capitalist exploitation or racism, disguised as a matter of economic prioritisation, is a cruel and oppressiove one. Surely, if they have the right to spread their lies, and their insults, and their hate, * Nationalities are a lie and nationalism is discrimination based on said lie. 25 we must have the right to object? To defend ourselves? In Sweden a current wave of demonstrations against the fascist Sweden Democrats (hereby referred to as the SD) has taken place; these demonstrations have taken two main forms. One aggressive and loud, disturbing the SD through the playing of vuvuzelas or shouting into megaphones, and one more calm consisting of anti-fascists attending speeches in mass and turning their backs to the leader as he begins to spread his propaganda. Both of these phenomena, dispite them being nothing more than harmless responses, the retorts of the people, have been labeled anti-democratic, or even violent. That is a plainly ridiculous claim to make; these movements are a direct result of the strife for democracy. The SD are not being silenced; they are simply met with opposition. Furthermore the SD are representing what can only be described as anti-democratic sentiments, and even if they manage to work their way through the parlimenary system, their rise to power would still not be democratic. The claims of these people is that democracy is only the rule of the people over society (which still is not what we have), but in my mind this cannot be the entire truth, because that would mean that fascism could be democratic. That nazism could be democratic. The slavery, even, could be democratic. This is not an idea that I am willing to accept. I would propose that democracy must hold at least one other function; the assurance that oppression cannot take place. It is, in my mind, only democracy if no one is oppressed, and if we are working under this definition our current society is certainly not democratic. How then may democracy be organised under anarchism, and what might its results be? Democracy under anarchism would be absolute and all inclusive; what we would see in an anarcho-communist world is the organisation of larger areas into smaller communes, all ruled independenty from each other by the people who live within them. 26