This FAQ is an open project that anyone can submit suggestions to, check out the Enrager Anarchist FAQ Thread.

What is Anarchism?
Anarchism is one of a very few words which has two almost precisely opposed meanings (look it up in the dictionary if you're sceptical).

In the case discussed here, Anarchists are:

* Pro-mutual aid.
* Anti-bosses and the state.

Mutual Aid?
You know when people voluntarily organise things that benefit their community? That's mutual aid. When an earthquake goes off in Turkey, and thousands of people help out saving the victims without getting paid, it's mutual aid in action. On a smaller level, it's local groups voluntarily organising everything from music recitals to self-help seminars.

Mutual aid is also the basis for Anarchist 'economics'. Instead of having a money based system of exchange, everyone creates for themselves andeveryone else voluntarily.

For example: A farmer will give his vegetables freely to a watchmaker even though he doesn't need a watch, because he does need things like fertilizer, and the guy who makes the fertilizer maker might well need a watch.

Things are therefore produced according to need, not profit, resulting in higher quality goods, less work for all and no overproduction/consumption to cause boom and bust. I'll go into this more later.

How does that tie in with bombing things and revolutionary slogans?
Most Anarchists don't bomb things - in fact I'd guess most Anarchists have never even seen a bomb let alone blown one up. Anarchists are not killers, nor are they mindless thugs. You've probably seen the Mayday riots, and it's true that the police have a nasty habit of starting fights with us, but in the main we are no more or less violent than anyone else - and we do not fight without a very good reason. As with any 'extremist' group we do sometimes attract nutters, but these aren't taken seriously by real Anarchists.

Revolutionary is also misleading. Anarchists come in all shapes, from all-out 'I want it now' revolutionary to gradual reformist, and it is entirely up to you to decide which one makes most sense. What is agreed on by all is the end result, which is the introduction of a kinder, freer and more equal society. In those terms only is Anarchism revolutionary.

When you say you're anti-state though...
That's often taken to mean we're also anti- the people in the state. We aren't. People tell you all the time you should be more proud of 'our' nation, but since when has a national policy been helpful except by accident? People work around national decrees, not because of them. We're far more interested in letting local people decide what's best. You have way more knowledge and experience of what works for your community than any smartarse in Whitehall could ever do.

But it sounds like you're just saying lets get rid of law and order and leave everyone to it. It'd be... Well... Anarchy.
This is the bit most people have trouble with. Yes we are anti-law, but we aren't anti-order. Anarchists believe that laws are a) Used in 90 per cent of cases to prop up the government and big business and b) In all other cases pretty much useless.

Taking the example of murder, tinkering with the law has not made the slightest difference to the actual murder rate - reducing sentences from death, to life, to five years out in three has not led to an explosion of killings. Changes in the economy however have had a massive impact.

Given that an Anarchist society wouldn't be subject to the kind of boom and bust you see today, this suggests that the crime rate would almost certainly be substantially lower in an anarchist society.

But getting rid of law altogether there'd be nothing to tell people what's acceptable...
Well this is where mutual aid, and habit, come in to take up the slack.

Habit? What the hell has that got to do with anything?
You've heard of the Nature versus Nurture debate? Despite all the science we have no-one is entirely sure how much of a part genetics, as opposed to upbringing, plays in shaping the adults we become.

Anarchists, and most unaffiliated scientists, come down on the side of the latter. A habit is what everybody recognises as unwritten law, like flushing the loo before you leave. If you don't do it the police wont cart you away but it's unsociable and people will disapprove. The result is that the vast majority of people - particularly if they're know about bacteria and disease - flush and get angry if other people don't.

We believe that if habits are changed to encourage mutual aid and discourage anti-social behaviour, this combined with proper education and a stateless and equal community will be more than adequate to replace the school of criminality that is prison.

Well it might be fine for making people flush the loo, but we're talking madmen and murderers here. You can't stop them just by saying 'this is bad'.
No you can't stop the insane from comitting crimes, but as has already been pointed out, neither does the law. At best it keeps them away from the people they might hurt for a while by putting them all in jail.

Anarchists would argue however that if you put all of these people in one place where the norm is violent/irrational behaviour this will not reduce the number of psychotics in the long run but actually increase it, by putting people who might otherwise be saved in a situation where violence is an accepted part of life.

Anarchism doesn't claim to have all the answers to questions like this, no-one can, but we do notice when an existing system is failing to make any difference. For the sake of completeness there is a theory that says care in the community is the most effective idea, because it normalises them. There are various cases of violent, mentally maladjusted people who became docile when placed into a community of people who knew how to deal with them.

And what about people who are just bad to the bone? How can you possibly deal with them?
Again, without knowing the specific circumstances it's difficult to say how that sort of situation should be dealt with. What is true is that the vast majority of 'evil' people have a past based in poverty, abuse, similarly 'evil' parents or all three, and this is something that would be drastically reduced in a society based on mutual aid running without a profit motive.

What is also true is that there is no reason why a society should not defend itself against that sort of person shoud they try to take advantage. Anarchists are pro-freedom but we aren't stupid. There will always be times when you have to defend against your liberties being taken away by someone else, and this includes the freedom to live without fear.

What about the greedy, and lazy? Why would people work in a world where no-one has to?

Again this comes down to habit and mutual aid. As was mentioned earlier, if people feel there is a need for something they'll generally go out and do it, whether they're offered money or not. This is an instinct we all share. The selfish desire to do no work is something our society encourages, but even today, it is a social stigma if you don't work - if you've ever been dole scum or a student layabout, you'll know all about this.

In an Anarchist society the emphasis on working for a living would actually be far greater than it is now, because if you are taking things for free off other people but give nothing back you will very quickly find yourself out of favour with everybody. In places where 'unorganised' groups have taken control, such as in Argentina, it is noticable that factory output has actually gone up, despite decreased hours.

What's wrong with hierarchy? Surely if people are in charge it's because they're best for the job?
We think it's wrong to assume that a small group of people are so much wiser that they deserve to lead everyone else. Politicians may be smart, and in some cases the Trotskyists and Leninists* are too, but that doesn't make them clever enough to run a land full of millions of people, nor does it make them immune to corruption.

A quick question back to you though. You've never met politicians, you probably never will, they don't know the first thing about you, your family or your community, yet you're prepared to let them run most of your life. Given that you sometimes help out your mates over people you don't know, are you not in the least bit worried that they'll give preferential treatment to the people and places they're part of?

That's different. I'm not running a country.
So? You think the amount of corruption you have now is likely to get smaller when you're wielding far greater power? I know I wouldn't trust myself to have that sort of self control. Anarchists are at heart extremely cynical people. We recognise that humans are a flawed race, and we don't handle power well. The only way to get around this is to take that possibility out of the equation.

This also explains why we're against Left and Right fairly equally. They're as bad as each other when it comes to the crunch. With the Left just look at China, or the USSR, or Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea. The majority got Left behind (narf). If you haven't noticed the tendency of this society with its one in five poor in the UK alone to screw the poor and empower the rich, I'm not sure why you'd be reading this in the first place.

Okay fine you've said how it could be run, and why it should be done, but how? Most people aren't interested or ready to live without a government.
True enough, and not only is this the point at which we part ways with the Left, it's something we are constantly arguing about. Some Anarchists believe in revolution, some in reform and there are even some who advocate a return to 'barbarism'. There's no one easy answer and it's not something that can be solved in a FAQ; I'm afraid you'll have to come to a conlusion on that through your own experience and learning.

It just seems so useless when everyone around me is so uninterested, what's the point?
The point should not be that everyone else is uninterested, it's that you personally should be Anarchist. This can be done in any number of ways, and again it wouldn't be very Anarchist to dictate these to you.

As examples though, commonly used tactics include practicing Mutual Aid in your own community, promoting the virtues of Anarchism to others and undermining big business by always trying to buy small and local. There is also Direct Action, or going out and fighting directly for things that are good for your community.

If you have no other choice (for example with buying water/electricity from massive utility companies) there's no shame in not doing something 'Anarchist' in that particular case - only you know what you can and can't do to help out. But crying defeat before you've even begun is simply not the answer.

------
*Trots and Leninists are the ones who keep telling you the only way to a better future is to let them lead you to it, because they know all about Marx and stuff. Good for them, I'm sure they'd be welcome in the Soviet Union but I suspect most Russians today would like to give them a good kicking for ruining the country.

 http://www.enrager.net/faq