Introduction

to Anarchist
Communism
Anarchist
Federation
Anarchist Communist Editions. pamphlet no. 21.
March 2010
 Introduction
to Anarchist
Communism

Contents
Introduction ......................................................1
What we’re fighting: capitalism & hierarchy.....3
Who we are and what we believe.....................10
How we fight....................................................24
There is no conclusion......................................36
Anarchist Federation Aims & Principles..........37

te
How to use this pamphlet
This pamphlet is made up of two parts
that run alongside each other. The main
text lays out the fundamental ideas of
anarchist communism in plain black
text. There’s also a series of black boxes
that look like this one which give
examples from history to illustrate the
ideas described in the main section.
 Introduction
T here’s a lot to be angry about. The massacre of thousands every year in wars around
the world. The starvation of yet more thousands every day while food rots in ware-
houses across the globe. The extinction of species after species as our environment is slowly
wrecked. The millions of people abused in sweatshops until their bodies and spirits are bro-
ken and they’re thrown on the scrapheap. The tens of millions of women who will be raped
and beaten in their lives by the men who claim to love them.

And these are just the shocking headlines. The main story is what happens to each and
every one of us day after day. If we work we give up our time and our energy to the whims
of some company and its managers. We have no control over what we do day after day, no
stake in what we produce. If we don’t work, we rely on inadequate benefits doled out by
people trained to hate us as work-shy and lazy. Our lives are controlled by what we can and
can’t afford and by whatever pointless schemes the government insists we go on to prove
that we’re not ‘scrounging’. As housewives we get no credit for the hours of work we do, as
unemployed people we’re punished for something that is not our fault. As workers we are
ordered around, watched every second we’re on the job and left too tired at the end of the day
to really enjoy any time we have for ourselves.

On the one hand, death and destruction on a grand scale. On the other, the crushing bore-
dom and alienation of everyday life. All of these various horrors are tied together, different
faces of a single system. It’s a system designed from the ground up to set us at each others’
throats. It exploits and exaggerates every tiny little difference between us, making us compete
for scraps and hate each other as we fight while a tiny minority enjoy all the benefits. This
system is global capitalism, a pattern of economic and political exploitation that reaches into
every aspect of our lives. It uses sexism, racism, homophobia and all the other petty hatreds
and prejudices around us to protect itself. It creates hierarchies of power and wealth to divide
all of the people it exploits against ourselves.

Capitalism is the problem. All of us that it exploits and degrades are the solution. As we unite
through our common exploitation we can become a force that capitalism cannot control, can-
not crush. We can create a whole new society that serves the needs of all of us, not a minority.

In the Anarchist Federation we believe that we can be one part of this fight. We see ourselves
as part of a tradition that stretches back throughout the history of resistance to capitalism, a
tradition that can be called anarchist communist although not everyone involved in it would
have seen themselves that way. We believe that this set of ideas and ways of organising is our
best hope of destroying capitalism and creating something better.
2

As the first of our aims and principles says, we are ‘an organisation of revolutionary class
struggle anarchists. We aim for the abolition of all hierarchy, and work for the creation of
a world-wide classless society: anarchist communism.’ This pamphlet sets out to explain
what all this means and how we think we can do it.
 What we’re fighting:
Capitalism and Hierarchy

Capitalism

M any influential people, from newspaper editors to economics professors, will tell you
that capitalism is ‘natural’. Human beings are greedy, selfish and competitive and so
any economic system must be based on greed, selfishness and competition. According to
them, capitalism is a system that uses our natural urge to compete and dominate to benefit
everyone, even the ‘losers’ in the competition. The economy grows because ruthless com-
petition between firms forces them to innovate and expand, creating wealth out of nothing
which then ‘trickles down’ through society.

These propagandists, because that’s what they are, disagree with each other over whether
this can happen completely ‘naturally’ or whether governments should intervene to
smooth the process. Some argue that everything should be open to competition – hospitals,
schools, the lot – so that the benefits of growth can spread everywhere. Others, sometimes
even calling themselves socialists, argue that some things like health care and education
should be run by the government. This creates a healthier and better educated workforce
for the capitalist firms and so makes them more competitive.

These arguments are sometimes fierce, but in the end the two sides agree about everything
that is important. Some people should own and control the factories, services and land that
are the basis of the economy. These people should make all the decisions and should get
most of the wealth that these businesses create. Other people should work in these places
under the control of the managers. They should take orders, not make decisions and should
get a wage for what they do.

This is the essence of capitalism. One small group of people controls the places that we
work in, the land that produces our food, the factories that make our clothes and everything
that makes life possible. These people are the ruling class and their power comes from
their control over the means of production, the resources and equipment that are needed to
produce the things we need to live. Everyone else must work in the fields and the factories,
the call centres and the office blocks. We are the working class and in this system we oper-
ate the means of production. We provide the labour that allows these fields and factories,
call centres and offices to produce goods and services, commodities, for the ruling class to
sell at a profit.
4

Capitalism, then, is a system of exploitation. It is a class system where a majority, the

working class, is exploited by a minority, the ruling class. The ruling class are the people
who own or control the places where we work. They make the decisions about what kinds
of products the factories make or what kinds of services are provided, and they make the
decisions about how this work is organised. The working class are all the people who are
forced to work in these places in order to get the money that they need to live. We, the
working class, build and provide everything society needs to function. They, the ruling
class, suck profit out of our work. We are the body of society; they are parasites sucking us
dry.

Class Struggle
In the capitalist system the interests of the ruling class and the working class are always
opposed. The ruling class seek to tighten their grip on us, to gain more control, to get more
profit. The working class seek to get out from under our bosses and our governments,
to gain control over our own lives. There will always be conflict between these groups,
whether on a small or a mass scale.

This conflict takes many forms. Most obviously it happens in the places where we work.
Strikes over wages and working practices clearly pit the interests of a group of bosses
against a group of workers. However, class struggle is much more that this. Capitalism
seeks to control and profit from all aspects of life. Our homes are bought, sold and rented
for profit. The food we eat and the water we drink is privately owned and controlled. Our
environment becomes a vast dumping ground for industry, valued only for profit not for
the way it enables and enriches our lives. Whenever we struggle for control over some
aspect of our lives, we are engaging in class struggle. When we fight for our communities
or our environment we are fighting the class struggle.

It follows from this that we don’t use the idea of class in the same way as many peo-
ple, particularly in the press. Class is not about the fact that some people earn more
money than others or that some people go to different kinds of schools. These basically
sociological definitions of class, definitions loved by advertisers, managers and so on,
are used to hide the real nature of class. We don’t just see the working class as being
people with traditional manual or industrial jobs - if someone is not currently working,
but dependent on pitiful state benefits (and so under continual pressure to find work),
in education (training for work) or living on their pension (deferred wages), then their
situation is obviously very different from that of the ‘idle rich’ who are able to live a
comfortable life off the backs of others, such as landlords. Equally, many people in jobs
that are traditionally seen as ‘middle class’, such as teachers, have no real control over
their lives or the work they do and are forced to struggle against their employers just like
the rest of the working class.
 5

This confusion about the idea of class is part of a wider set of tactics that the ruling class
use to disguise the reality of class from the people that it exploits. Capitalism needs work-
ers in a way workers simply do not need capitalism. If the working class unites around
its common interests then it can do away with the ruling class and run society itself. We
don’t need them, but they need us. Because of this, the ruling class works hard to divide us
against each other. It does this in two ways, partly through trying to control ideas and the
way we think about ourselves, and partly through creating small differences in power and
wealth that set working class people against each other.

Things like nationalism, the idea that we should be loyal to the state in one country simply
because we were born there, or a ‘work ethic’, the idea that we owe a ‘fair day’s work’ to
the boss that’s exploiting us, are used by the ruling class to divide the working class and
make some of us feel more loyal to the bosses than to the people around us. Nationalism
splits workers in one country off from workers in another and lies at the root of racism that
splits workers along lines of skin colour. The work ethic ties us to the boss instead of each
other and makes people despise the ‘lazy’ unemployed rather than putting the blame where
it really belongs.

The use of these ideas to split the working class is reinforced by creating differences in
power and wealth to back them up. On a large scale, workers in the west are made to
compete with workers in the global south for jobs as factories move in search of the cheap-
est labour costs. On smaller scales, individual workers are given a little bit more pay to
become supervisors and end up shafting those around them just to keep that little bit extra.
This kind of thing happens in many different ways but the end result is always the same.
Working class people compete for scraps while the ruling class skims vast profits off the
top and throws us a few leftovers to keep us fighting each other rather than them.

To fight the class struggle, then, is to try and overcome the false differences that the ruling
class creates and unite as one class against the people that exploit us. This is a process that
goes on all the time. Sometimes we become strong and united as a class and are able to get
concessions like shorter working days, healthcare and so on. The ruling class fights back
and exploits our divisions to break this unity, weakening the class and undoing what gains
we have made, or even worse, turning them against us. This push and pull between the rul-
ing class and the working class will go on until capitalism disappears.

The State

One of the things that makes exploitation possible, and one of the major tools in keep-
ing the working class divided, is the state. The state is made up of all the institutions of
government. Parliament, the civil service, the courts, tax collectors and so on are all parts
of the state. These are institutions that regulate and control the lives of ‘citizens’, that is
6

you and me, for the benefit of capitalism. The state is the organised face of capitalism. It is
the political representation of the economic power of the capitalist ruling class. When the
so-called free market can’t achieve something that capital needs to grow, the state steps in
and makes it happen.

There are many ways it can do this. Parliament passes laws that protect the property of
the rich whilst restricting the ability of the poor to fight back. It acts as umpire in dis-
putes between different capitalist firms, setting rules for trade so that different companies
can trust each other. Tax money is used to create the services that business relies upon
but can’t build for itself – road and transport systems, schools to train workers, electric-
ity grids and sewage systems (which can be sold off later for private profit) – all the
things that make business possible. It can destroy the economies of developing countries
using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank so that firms have a
ready pool of new resources and workers to exploit. From building the legal and physi-
cal infrastructure that capitalism needs to directly attacking workers seeking to improve
their position, the state is an essential tool of the capitalist class.

Importantly, the state controls organisations that directly control and coerce working
class people. The army and the police most obviously use direct force to keep people in
line, with the police breaking strikes and heads at home and the army enforcing capital-
ism abroad. Schools, whilst providing an important service, also indoctrinate children
and prepare them for a life as workers rather than as human beings. Prisons, immigration
authorities, dole offices and on and on and on, all intrude into our lives and control our
actions. Some of these things, like schools, hospitals and welfare benefits, we some-
times depend on for our lives. It is often this very dependence that these organisations
use to control us. Benefits come with conditions that dictate what you can and can’t do.
Schools give us the knowledge we need to understand the world but also train us to ac-
cept discipline and being bored all day because some authority figure tells us we have to
be.

Some people argue that the state behaves in this way because it is under the control of
capitalists. They argue that if the state were under the control of a group that represented
the working class, usually a revolutionary party of some kind, then it would behave
differently. This ignores one important aspect of the state that can be seen in all of the
organisations that it controls. The state is designed to govern from above, it is, by its
very nature, hierarchical. This means that it always concentrates power in the hands of
a minority. A small number of people give orders and a large number obey. We can see
this in the army and in the police with the huge differences in power between ranks and
orders that must be obeyed absolutely and without question. But this is also true in all
the other arms of the state.
Governing Ourselves:
The Spanish Revolution

T he revolution in Spain between 1936 and 1939 was contradictory,

under constant attack, and ultimately defeated, not just by the fas-
cists but also by the ‘anti-fascists’ within its own ranks. Despite all of
this, however, for a short space of time the Spanish working class, under
the influence of anarchist communist ideas, was able to achieve the
most far-reaching revolution of the 20th century.

In the face of an attempted fascist military coup the workers and peas-
ants of Spain went on strike and took up arms. In many working class
urban areas, such as Barcelona and Madrid, and in rural areas with an
anarchist-influenced peasantry, such as Aragon, Castille and the Levant,
the attempted coup was put down. The people controlled the streets and
the fields.

In the republican zone, the influence of anarchism through the anarcho-

syndicalist CNT, the largest Spanish union federation, led the workers’
movement to spontaneously collectivise industry under workers’ control,
in many cases making it more efficient. The woodworking and carpentry
industry was completely socialised, as was the baking industry in Barce-
lona. The same was true of the railways, while workers’ control was won
in telecommunications, utilities, cinemas, the buses and trams and fac-
tories and workshops of all kinds. In the countryside the revolution was
even more wide-ranging, with rural collectives doing away with private
property and in many cases declaring libertarian communism. Up to 7
million peasants were involved in the social upheaval. In both the towns
and cities a wide range of forms of collectivisation existed – in some in-
stances money was abolished, in others it was kept, in others still labour
tokens were introduced in exchange for work.

All this was too much for the more conservative elements in the Repub-
lican government and certainly too much for their Soviet backers. Laws
were passed attacking collectivisation and the centralised republican
army was used against anarchist militias and more radical sections of
the working class. Many in the anarchist movement, seeing no alterna-
tive, supported joining the government. This mistake was to no avail,
and many fine militants died in Stalinist prison cells. The revolution in
Spain was defeated before the fascists managed to militarily defeat the
republicans.
8

For this reason any group taking over the state will automatically find itself ruling instead
of freeing the people they claim to represent. That is what states do. A state is a machine for
controlling people and can never be anything else. This is not just because of the repressive
and manipulative organisations it controls, although these are far more important to the state
than some would have us believe. It is because the state is always hierarchical and as a result
will end up furthering rather than destroying all the other hierarchies in society.

Hierarchy
Hierarchy is one of the key tools that the state and capitalism use to control people. It is
implicated in both the repressive and the manipulative arms of the state, but it is most de-
structive when it is used to manipulate people. A hierarchy is any system where power over
others is concentrated in the hands of a minority. All capitalist workplaces, for example, are
hierarchies, with bosses at the top and everyone else below. Often there are tiny differences
in responsibility that give some people just a tiny bit of power over others. Board members
control managers, who control more managers, who control supervisors, who control more
supervisors, who eventually end up ‘managing’ six people for an extra 10p an hour.

This is one important way that capitalism creates and uses hierarchy to divide working class
people. We are given a small amount of power over each other so that we end up fighting
each other rather than fighting the bosses.

However, there are hierarchies in society that were not created by capitalism and which have
their own separate existence and history. The oppression of women is thousands of years
old and has shown up in different ways in hundreds of different societies. This is known as
patriarchy, a system of oppression and exploitation that sees women placed under the control
of men in a variety of different ways. The oppression of gay, lesbian and transgender people,
indeed of anyone who doesn’t fit a straight, monogamous, gendered norm, is age old. It’s
often even more brutal than patriarchy, seeking not just to control but to exterminate people
who don’t fit. Racism and ideas of white supremacy are younger but no less vicious, with a
legacy of slavery and exploitation that has destroyed the lives of millions.

All of these systems of oppression and exploitation, and the many others that hang off them,
must be fought on their own terms by the people that suffer them. Just as only the working
class can fight capitalism because we are the ones being directly exploited, so only women,
gay people and those attacked by racism (which can change from place to place and period to
period) can destroy patriarchy, heterosexism and white supremacy. We can all support each
other in these different fights, but it is vital that those directly attacked chose the form and
structure of their own response. Organisations of women, gay peopleand of black and ethic
minority people (who are often, in reality, majorities) are absolutely vital in resisting and
destroying various systems of hierarchy.
 9

However, we should also remember that all of these systems of oppression work
together to create the world as we know it. Capitalism is propped up by patriarchy
which divides the working class (men against women), gives some workers power
over others (men are more likely to get higher paid and supervisory jobs), and forces
people to do untold hours of unpaid but essential work (housework and the raising of
children are essential to the economy but mostly done for free by women). Patriarchy
is propped up by capitalism as the media pump out stereotypes of women to sell cos-
metics and perfumes and businesses create the role of the housewife to force unwanted
women out of the workplace and create a new market for consumer goods. Racism
allows capitalist states to justify invading and pillaging different countries for raw
materials and new markets and divides the working class at home between black and
white, immigrant and native. All these forms of exploitation and oppression, all these
hierarchies, reinforce and amplify each other, until they are impossible to untangle
from each other.

For this reason it is impossible to just fight capitalism or racism or sexism and so on
and so on. Gains made against one system will be eaten up by another. For example,
women’s fight for equal rights at work has often ended up with women working a
‘double day’, with housework at home and long hours at work. The rebellion of black
people in the 1960s won political equality, but also created a new black leadership
who became part of the ruling class while everyone else was left to rot.

Capitalism then is more than just a class system. The power of the ruling class comes
from their control of the means of production, but they keep that control by manipu-
lating a whole series of different systems of oppression and exploitation, different
hierarchies. These systems give some of the working class more power than others,
they make us complicit in our own exploitation. Back in the 19th century there was
a slogan: ‘workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.’ The
way that capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and other systems of hierarchy work
together means that this is not true. These systems give large sections of the work-
ing class just a little bit of privilege. This is enough to turn them against the people
they should be uniting with, enough to make them defend the ruling class against the
claims of women, LGBT people, black and ethnic minority/majority people and on
and on and on.

To get past this we need a revolutionary movement made up of many different organi-
sations. We need many different ways in which people can take control of their own
lives and fight the different oppressions that push them down. We need to completely
transform society and ourselves. In the Anarchist Federation we believe that the ideas
of anarchist communism offer the best chance of doing this. The next section lays out
what these ideas are.
 Who we are and what we
believe: Revolution and
Anarchist Communism

Revolution and Revolutionaries

R evolutionaries believe that the societies we live in are basically unjust and
unfair. It is not just a matter of this injustice or that unfairness – it is the whole
way that society works that is unjust and unfair. Poverty, war, racism, sexism and
all the rest of the problems we face are not exceptions to the rule – they are the rule.
Capitalism cannot exist without creating poverty, without fighting wars, without op-
pressing people because of their race or gender.

We believe that capitalism must be destroyed and a new society – an anarchist com-
munist society – must be built. This is the revolution. Both the destruction of what
exists now and the construction of something new are part of the revolution. As
revolutionaries we work to encourage both – supporting people who are opposing
those in power as well as supporting people who are trying to build alternatives.

Because capitalism is basically unfair and unjust, revolutionaries do not believe in

change through gradual reform. This is reformism. This is not to say that a minimum
wage or a shorter working day or the right to abortion on demand are not important.
These reforms and many others have made life better for ordinary people. Revolu-
tionaries are not trying to say that life has not improved since Victorian times – that
would be silly. What we do say are two things.

Firstly, no reform is permanent. Any reform can and will be undone by politicians
and bosses whenever they get the chance. The attacks on civil liberties, on working
conditions and on public services over the last few years should be enough to prove
this.

Secondly, reforms are only granted by governments when they are scared of some-
thing worse – a mass movement of ordinary, working class people. Time and time
again it has taken the actions of millions of people organising together to get even
the most basic reforms. The ten hour day, rights for women and children, even the
welfare state were all forced concessions from governments challenged by mass
movements. There is nothing governments are more scared of than people ignoring
 11

them and simply doing things for themselves. This is direct action, when people act
for themselves without waiting for permission from any higher authority. Govern-
ments will make almost any concession to stop such movements.

Because of this, revolutionaries are often attacked as utopian, as imagining unre-

alistic perfect worlds that can never be. ‘You should be practical,’ these people tell
us. ‘Focus on getting results here and now, not on some imaginary cloud cuckoo
land in the future.’ When people say things like this, when we are told to be
‘practical’ or ‘realistic’, we are usually being told to abandon our principles. New
Labour attacks public services in the name of ‘pragmatism’, the unions sell out to
management because it’s ‘practical’, authoritarian revolutionaries like the Social-
ist Workers Party lie to their members and the public because they’re ‘realistic’.

If this is what being practical means then that would already be enough to reject it.
But there’s more to it than this. Being ‘practical’ in this way, making compromises
and deals with bosses and politicians, is a sure-fire way of making sure that you
don’t get what you want. Any deals done with capitalism are bound to backfire, as
we’ve seen time and time again. You don’t make progress by negotiating with the
bosses. You make progress by terrifying them. Anarchist communists believe that
it is better to fight for what we want, even if we don’t get it straight away, rather
than fighting for something we don’t want, and getting it.

Mass movements making demands based on their own needs are much more scary
to the ruling class than any number of snivelling bureaucrats being ‘realistic’ and
asking nicely for a few scraps from the boss’s table. We don’t want the scraps - we
want the whole meal, and the kitchen that cooked it, and the house it was served
in, and the fields it was grown in, and the factories that made the plates and so on
and so on. Everything the ruling class has, it has because the working class made
it and they stole it. We refuse to ask nicely for things that are already ours. This is
not just a matter of principle, it is practical. People that beg for scraps get nothing
else, and often not even that. If we work to take what is already ours, the ruling
class will be forced to concede far more than just scraps.

Anarchism and Anarchists

Anarchism is a set of revolutionary ideas that have been around in one form or
another for centuries. They are, at root, very simple. Anarchists believe that people
are quite capable of looking after themselves. No leader can know what you need
better than you do. No government can represent the interests of a community
better than the community itself. We believe that everyone should take part in
decisions that affect them, whether at work, in the community or at home. Only in
12

this way can we have a fair and just society, in which everyone has the chance to
fulfil themselves. Everything in anarchist ways of thinking follows from this basic
principle.

Obviously, this is not how society works now. At work we do what we’re told or we
get the sack. At home, the police, the tax man and other arms of the state snoop into
our business and tell us what we can and can’t do. We do not take decisions about how
we work, about how our taxes are spent, what laws are passed and on and on and on.

For anarchists, taking back control over our own lives is the revolution. We see two
ways of working as being key to being able to do this: direct action and self-organ-
isation. Direct action is when those directly affected by something take action to fix
it themselves, rather than asking someone else to do it for them. A strike that forces
management to make concessions or face losing money is direct action where lob-
bying an MP or going through union negotiations is not. Squatting derelict land and
turning it into a community garden is direct action, whereas pressuring the council to
clean up vacant lots is not. When people act by themselves to achieve something that
they need then they are taking direct action – whether that’s sharing food with others
or fighting the police in a riot.

For direct action to be possible then there also needs to be self organisation. This is or-
ganising without leaders or phoney ‘representatives’, and it allows ordinary people to
take back the power to make their own decisions. Self organisation allows us to break
down and overcome the hierarchies that separate us. In self-organised groups everyone
has an equal say and no one is given the right to represent anyone else. This kind of
group is capable of deciding its own needs and taking direct action to meet them in a
way that any hierarchical group based on representatives – like a political party or a
trade union – cannot.

Because of this we reject the use of the state – that is government, parliament, the
courts, the police and so on – to bring about revolution. No one can free anyone else.
We all have to free ourselves by acting together. No government, even a ‘socialist’ or
‘revolutionary’ government, can do this. Any group or party taking over the state sim-
ply becomes a new set of leaders, exploiting us in the name of ‘socialism’ rather than
‘capitalism’. This is what happened in so-called ‘communist’ Russia. Only by destroy-
ing the state, not taking it over, can we free ourselves.

For anarchists, direct action and self organisation are essential tools for freeing our-
selves. They are the way that working class people can confront the problems in their
own lives in a collective way, the way in which it is possible for us to work together
against the whole system of capitalism and the ways it tries to divide us.
 13

Anarchist Communism
These ideas have not just been plucked out of thin air. They have been developed by mil-
lions of people throughout the last few hundred years as they have fought back against
the exploitation they have faced. This tradition of resistance often, but not always,
described itself as communist. Anarchist communism is a living working class tradition
that has worked in ways large and small throughout the history of capitalism. It does
not come out of the abstract ideas of a few intellectuals but from the concrete actions of
millions of people.

For many, the word communism is associated only with the tyranny of Soviet Russia or
so-called Communist China. These societies were and are some of the worst tyrannies
the world has ever seen, killing millions of people through famine, war and execution.
As anarchists we don’t forget the prison camps, the slave labour, the unjust trials and
executions – indeed anarchists were often the first people to suffer these attacks.

However, unlike the press who use the example of ‘communist’ Russia to claim that
revolutionary change is impossible, anarchists also refuse to forget the example of the
millions of ordinary people who fought against tyranny in Russia and all over the world
in the name of true communism. These people organised themselves, without leaders,
into groups that used direct democracy, meaning that everyone had an equal say in how
things were run. They used direct action, first against the state and capitalism, and then
against the new Soviet tyranny.

The true communism that they fought for is the extension of these ways of working into
every aspect of life. The communist slogan ‘from each according to their ability, to each
according to their need’ sums up the idea. Nobody should be short of anything that they
need. Individuals receive goods and services because of how much they need them, not
because of how much they can pay or how much they deserve them. People give back to
society, through the work they do, according to what they want and are able to do. Eve-
ryone will have the chance to do interesting and creative work, instead of just a minority
while everyone else is stuck with boring drudge work.

This society would be organised through local collectives and councils, organising
themselves to make the decisions that need making and to do the work that needs doing.
Everyone gets a say in decisions that concern them. We believe that in fighting for this
kind of future we are fighting for the full freedom and equality of all. Only this will give
everyone the chance to be whatever they can be.

It is the many examples of people organising and resisting in this way that we call the
communist tradition. The workers’ councils of revolutionary Spain, Germany, Russia,
Workers’ Councils:
Organising the Revolution

O ne of the most important things we refer to when we talk about the

communist tradition are workers’ councils. Wherever there has been
revolutionary struggle there have been workers’ councils. Wherever revo-
lutions have been beaten, the crushing of the councils has been a key
defeat.

Workers’ councils are mass assemblies of workers in revolt that take over
the running of most aspects of daily life when the state and the bosses
have been defeated or are in retreat. The major 20th century examples
occurred in Russia, Germany, Hungary, Spain and many, many other more
minor examples. However, the history of resistance to exploitation is full
of similar examples. The Paris Commune of 1871, the Parisian sections
during the revolution of 1789 and the years that followed, even the ‘rings’
of German peasants during the peasant wars of the 16th century, all have
a lot in common with 20th century workers’ councils.

These mass assemblies are the arenas in which revolutionary workers de-
bate their actions, come up with plans and proposals and decide how to
move forward. They involve everyone present in every stage of decision
making and have proved capable of running complex societies perfectly
well. They exist at many different levels which federate together in order
to cooperate. For example, the Kronstadt soviet was made up of mandated
delegates from each ship, crew and workplace who all held their own
smaller meetings before contributing to larger decisions. These decisions
were informed by less formal mass meetings held constantly in public
squares which debated key issues facing the revolutionaries. Every single
person could be involved in the decisions that affected them. The military
defeat of the Kronstadt soviet by the Bolsheviks was one of the final nails
in the coffin of any hope of a real revolution in Russia.

The practice of hundreds of workers’ councils in dozens of struggles show

us that not only is it possible for everyone affected by a decision to be
involved in making it, but that millions of people will risk their lives to live
like that. When it has the chance, the working class invents new social
forms to meet its own needs and it is these forms that should inspire us
today.
 15

Hungary, France, Mexico and on and on and on are the many examples that we look
to when we think about how we can free ourselves and fight capitalism. Time and time
again the world has seen ordinary people using direct action, self organisation and
direct democracy to build new societies and lives for themselves. It is the ideas and
successes of these people that we try to build on in today’s fight against exploitation.

Anarchist communism is more than an abstract vision of the future and it is more than
a nostalgia for the revolutionary movements of the past. It is a living working class
tradition that lays the foundations for the future society in the here and now. Every-
thing we will be after capitalism we must learn under it and through the fight against
it. The revolution is not and never can be year zero – that way lie the corpses piled
up by ‘revolutionary’ terror in France and Russia and China and on and on and on.
Instead, revolution must be built out of the materials to hand by people alive today.

Ends and Means

The most important part of the working class tradition that we call communism is the
refusal to make a distinction between ends and means. The organisations that we build
while fighting capitalism will be the basis of anything that comes after the revolution.
If those organisations do not embody the principles of the society that we want to see
then that society will not come about. If we want a future where everyone contributes
to the decisions that affect them, then we have to build organisations now in which
this happens. The Anarchist Federation is one such organisation.

This is known as prefiguration and is one of the central ideas of anarchism. The idea is
summed up by one important slogan: ‘building the new society in the shell of the old’.
What this means is that our struggle is not simply against capitalism. We also fight,
as far as is possible, to live as we wish to right now, to build alternatives to capitalism
right under its nose.

In terms of organisation, this means that whatever we are involved in we try to push
that group in the direction of direct democracy and full participation by all involved.
Whether this is a residents’ group or a political campaign, a strike committee or a
community allotment, we push for organisation without leaders or hierarchy.

We believe that not only will this make these groups more effective in achieving their im-
mediate goals, but it will also increase the self confidence of the people involved and give
them the tools they need to resist elsewhere in their lives. Over many different struggles and
many different organisations this will build up a broad culture of resistance amongst ordinary
people. It is from people steeped in this culture that revolutionary struggles will arise.
However, prefiguration has its limits. For many people building alternatives to
16

capitalism in the here and now means one of two things: either a lifestyle or individu-
alist response, or an attempt to create a dual power situation. Whilst the AF is often
sympathetic to these approaches and doesn’t reject them completely, we do not believe
that they can lead to revolution on their own. We also have some serious criticisms of
both of them.

The Limits of Prefiguration: Lifestylism

The labels ‘lifestylist’ and ‘individualist’ are often used, frequently unfairly, as
insults and so we have to be very careful when we use them. When we talk about
‘lifestyle’ politics we’re talking about a kind of politics that focuses in some way
on ‘dropping out’ of capitalism, on getting ‘off the grid’ and living without relying
on capitalist exploitation. This can mean many things. It can be something small
scale like living in squats and surviving by stealing from supermarkets or taking
the perfectly good food that they throw out (‘skipping’ or ‘dumpster diving’). Or it
can be something much larger like a project to communally farm a piece of land or
establish a new community.

The reasons that people have for doing this kind of thing are very good ones. They
see the harm that capitalism does every day and want no part of it. By stealing or
taking what is thrown away they try to stop giving support back to the bosses that
exploit us and people all over the world. By going back to the land and trying to be
self-sufficient in food and power they try to live with as few links to global capital-
ism as possible. More than this, often these kind of political lifestyle choices involve
building and living in communities based on solidarity and mutual respect. Many
involved in this kind of activity would argue that this is ‘building the new society in
the shell of the old’.

Whilst we respect many people who make these personal lifestyle choices, we reject
this as a useful form of political action. The main reason for this is that it is not
something that the majority of people can easily involve themselves in. Those with
significant debts, dependants, health problems or any number of other things that
limit their freedom of action find it very difficult, if not impossible, to ‘drop out’.
There is no possibility for building a lifestylist mass movement. Indeed, lifestylism
does not attempt to overthrow or destroy capitalism; it only attempts to wash its own
hands clean of the blood.

This is, in fact, a huge political problem with lifestyle responses to capitalism. Often
this form of politics leads to a kind of elitism and snobbery on the part of people liv-
ing ‘political’ lifestyles. Ordinary people become ‘sheeple’, hopelessly brainwashed
by their jobs and the media and as much part of the problem as the people that own
 17

and run the economy. In its most extreme forms, such as primitivism, this leads
people to openly call for the extermination of the majority of the human race and a
return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle.

This kind of attitude is not an inevitable consequence of dropping out, but it is very
common, and it is the result of an individualist way of looking at capitalism. Capi-
talism does not exploit us as individuals: it exploits us as classes or groups. We are
exploited as workers, as women, as non-white minorities or even majorities. We are
oppressed as gay or transgender, as professionals with some perks, or temporary work-
ers with none, as ‘consumers’ in the west and as disposable labourers in the global
south.

If we respond to the damage that capitalism does to us as individuals then the only
logical answer is to abstain. You live without a job, without shopping, without relying
on the systems of exploitation that surround us. If this is impossible, then you mini-
mise your impact. You get an ‘ethical’ job, buy ‘ethical’ products and reduce your
contribution to exploitation that way. From here it’s only a short step to despising the
people who aren’t as ‘enlightened’ as you, who keep capitalism going by ‘refusing’ to
abstain.

However, if you respond to capitalism as a member of a broader exploited class, then

the logical response is collective. You show solidarity with people in the same situa-
tion as you, you fight where you are for better conditions, and for more control over
the conditions of life. A collective response like this is always oppositional. It always
has to fight capitalism rather than trying to go round it. It is, in potential, the beginning
of a mass movement and the basis of a new society based on the recognition of our
common interests.

In the end, it is this that the ruling class are afraid of, not people dropping out, and it is
this that we should be looking to try and build.

The Limits of Prefiguration: Dual Power

The other typical approach to prefigurative politics is trying to build dual power. This
means trying to build organisations in the here and now that will eventually replace
capitalism. These can be anything from cooperatives of various kinds that organise
to produce or to sell some product in a non-hierarchical way, to mass revolutionary
unions that aim to take over the running of industry.

The idea is that by building organisations through which people run their own lives
now, a point of ‘dual power’ can be reached. This is a situation where both capitalism
18

and potential alternatives exist side by side, where there are two systems of economic,
social and political organisation in direct competition with each other. For people who
argue this way, this is how revolution happens. People build an alternative which in-
creasing numbers of people join until it is strong enough to confront capitalism directly
and replace it.

There are a number of different approaches to dual power strategies. Some see them-
selves as providing examples that can be taken up by other people and perhaps even-
tually become state policy. Things like the transition town movement at the moment,
or various alternative education movements work in this way. These are rarely very
confrontational about their ideas and see themselves as reformist rather than revolution-
ary. They do, however, see the need to build an alternative base of power outside the
state and capitalism.

Others seek to build entire alternative economies through cooperatives, credit unions,
local trading systems (LETS schemes as they are often called) and the like. These, they
argue, could eventually reach the point where many people are in effect living outside
the capitalist economy. People in this tradition often, but not always, describe them-
selves as mutualist.

A variation on this idea sees building alternative centres of political rather than economic
power as the key. There are two main traditions here. Some focus on building com-
munity assemblies to take local decisions and sometimes seek to take over local town
halls and council chambers through elections. These people often, but again not always,
describe themselves as municipalist. Others focus on building revolutionary trade unions
which will confront management in the workplace to get immediate gains. They will
also, just as importantly, be run by direct democracy, giving workers experience of tak-
ing decisions and organising. These unions are then seen as able to take over industry in
its entirety replacing capitalism as they do so. This is usually described as syndicalism.

All these approaches, and they often work in combination, see themselves as building
a political and economic alternative to capitalism right under its nose. They argue that
these alternatives are able to grow to the point where either capitalism withers away
or there is a confrontation between the two systems which leads to revolution and the
destruction of capitalism.

There are many positive things about these approaches. They encourage self organisa-
tion and direct action by ordinary people. They provide important lessons in collective
working and experience of direct democracy for those involved. The AF does not reject
any of these approaches out of hand and members often involve themselves in this kind
of project.
 19

However, there are important weaknesses in these approaches that limit their use-
fulness. These kinds of projects are highly vulnerable to attacks by the state. Laws
can be passed that make most cooperatives illegal or at least very difficult to set
up. Community assemblies can be denied resources, or even attacked directly by
the police and the army. People who pursue dual power strategies are often very
over-optimistic about their ability to avoid repression. Capitalism and the state
tend to attack any threat sooner rather than later.

It is not, however, direct attacks by the state that are the biggest problem with dual
power strategies. The biggest problem is the risk of co-option. What this means is
that movements and organisations which start out trying to provide an alternative
are often ‘captured’ by capitalism. They become part of it rather than an alterna-
tive, helping capitalism to manage people’s exploitation rather than challenging
it. For example, cooperatives often become employers in their own right, with
full cooperative members becoming managers and their new employees exploited
workers like any others. Community groups are approached by local councils,
given funding and access to some power and end up administering the council
policies they set out to oppose. Housing co-ops become landlords, credit unions
become banks (building societies in the UK started out as community schemes),
syndicalist unions negotiate with management and crack down on wildcat strikes.
Ordinary people who start out trying to build alternatives end up becoming the
thing they hate.

Any potential alternative to capitalism in the here and now will have to interact
with the things that it is trying to replace. A co-operative store will have to buy
stock from capitalist suppliers. A community assembly will have to negotiate with
the local council if it is to secure resources. Even syndicalist unions, a highly con-
frontational way of working, find themselves having to negotiate with managers.

This does not mean that we should reject completely all these ways of doing
things. What it does mean, however, is that none of these is a road to revolution
on its own. Instead of seeing these ways of working as a way of creating replace-
ments for capitalism, we should see them as one way amongst others of creating a
culture of resistance. It is this culture and not any particular organisation that it is
important for us to build.

A Culture of Resistance
Anarchist communists believe that people are perfectly capable of looking after
themselves. We believe that everyone should be involved in the decisions that
affect them, that everyone is capable of making the most complex choices that are
20

needed to run a society. We believe that these decisions will be better than those
made by elites as they will be decisions which take into account the needs of the
whole community not just those of a small minority of exploiters.

More than this, we believe that the only people capable of destroying capitalism
and creating a world in which everyone has control over their own life are those
directly exploited by capital today. As we’ve pointed out, the ruling class know
this and they work very hard to keep the working class divided and lacking in the
skills that it needs to make this change. This is something that has to be overcome
before revolution is possible. We have to ‘build the new society in the shell of the
old’. However, history shows that organisations built by working class people for
their own benefit are often co-opted and turned against them. Trade unions, credit
unions, cooperative traders and manufacturers – all of these and more have been
used to defend rather than destroy capitalism.

Authoritarian revolutionaries use this problem as an excuse to take over. Accord-

ing to them, the working class is only capable of a ‘trade union consciousness’, of
haggling over wages and perks instead of toppling capitalism and building some-
thing new. What is needed, they claim, is leadership. They will be the cause of the
revolution, leading the poor stupid masses into the light kicking and screaming.
History shows us that this leads only into new tyrannies.

The alternative is more difficult to imagine, because it is something that is delib-

erately discouraged and hidden in a capitalist world. The alternative is a culture
of resistance, a set of bonds of solidarity and understanding between many dif-
ferent people in many different places. These new relationships give people the
confidence and the resources that they need to fight back wherever they are. This
culture becomes a mass of tinder which is able to turn the spark from one struggle
or another into a flame which can spread. From this culture revolutionary situa-
tions will seem to come from nowhere, surprising governments and professional
revolutionaries alike. This culture is not a particular organisation or set of princi-
ples or anything like that. It is composed of many different organisations and more
than this of ideas, practices and attitudes that reveal to us our power as exploited
but necessary parts of the capitalist system. This culture is as much about the self
image and self belief or ordinary people as it is about any particular set of ideas or
organisations.

This all sounds very nice, and it can be the stuff of stirring speeches and articles,
but it can also be vague and woolly. It is a fact that the revolutions of the past
have surprised those that took part in them, often seeming to come from nowhere.
Women rioting over the price of bread in Russia never expected to overthrow the
 Defending the Revolution:
The Krondstadt Uprising

T he Kronstadt Soviet was one of the most radical organisations of

the Russian revolution. A naval base connected to Petrograd, it very
quickly kicked out its officers and became a hotbed of revolutionary
action and debate. The Soviet, a council made up of delegates from
all over the base, cheerfully participated militarily and politically in
the early days of the revolution, both in February 1917 when the Tsar
was overthrown and in October 1917 when a revolutionary rather than
moderate government was installed.

As time went on, however, the Kronstadt Soviet became a problem for
the ruling Bolsheviks. In the years immediately following the revolution
the Bolsheviks deliberately set out centralise power in their own hands.
They arrested and killed opponents, unleashed the secret police on the
population and suppressed many of the revolutionary organs that they
has supported in order to get into power. The factory committees that
ran workplaces on directly democratic lines were dissolved, the Soviets
were reduced to rubber stamps and the peasantry were attacked and
brutalised in order to secure grain. All of this provoked resistance and
strikes and disorder became common, all of which were met with brutal
force.

On March 21st 1921, while workers’ unrest was threatening to turn to a

general strike in Petrograd, the Kronstadt sailors issued a proclamation
demanding an end to the political repression against workers and peas-
ants, anarchists and members of other left parties, to return the control
of the army and the press to the workers and the release of all political
prisoners from the worker’s movement. The Bolsheviks responded in
the only way they knew how, sending hand picked regiments of party
loyalists (even the brutally disciplined Red Army could not be trusted
to crush the popular Kronstadt sailors) to attack the base. After brutal
fighting the Kronstadt Soviet was crushed.

To this day, Leninist parties spread lies about what happened. They
know that the facts show how bankrupt their way of doing things is,
how often parties and representatives, however revolutionary they may
claim to be, betray the working class to seek their own power.
22

Tsar a few months later. Students protesting over the way their universities were
run in 1960s France never expected to be part of a movement of millions. And yet
all this and much more in countless different examples is exactly what happened.

It is tempting to define a culture of resistance in a vague way in order to deal with this
fact. We can see it as a kind of seed bed for revolutions, with the remains of smaller
struggles falling as fertiliser on the soil until it is rich and black enough for the riotous
shoots of an uprising to spring forth. This, however, is not enough. It makes us think in
abstractions and metaphors and so hides the real activities of the real people who build
a culture of resistance. We need to be more concrete to do real justice to the struggle
of millions of ordinary people.

A culture of resistance is in some way the sum of all the things that people do to
survive and resist under capitalism. It is the big things like strikes and riots, occupa-
tions of factories and public buildings and huge organisations that fight for something
in particular. Just as importantly, it is the small things as well. The little scams at work
and the community and residents’ groups that make life a little bit more bearable at
home. It’s hatred of the police and the bosses and pride in who you are and the com-
munity you live in.

What all of these things have in common is that they create connections between
people. They make spaces where people can meet and talk together without being in
competition with each other. They create bonds of trust. The scam at work relies on
your workmates keeping quiet, the huge strike relies on each person sacrificing their
pay for the benefit of everyone.

These connections of trust and common purpose between people work against the
everyday logic of capitalism. Capitalism splits us off from one another. We are given
orders instead of taking part in decisions. When we buy something, whatever it is, all
we know is its price not who made it and why. The media tells us to fear immigrants
and outsiders who they claim are trying to take what little we have. We are forced at
every turn to cut ourselves off from the world, to be blind to the connections that we
have with other people.

A culture of resistance restores those connections, making visible what capitalism

tries to hide from us. Every object we use in our lives is made by other human beings.
Every piece of food we eat, every bit of power we use, every cup of water we drink is
there because other people made it possible. Capitalism hides this behind prices and
company names. It takes the credit for making life possible by hiding the very things
that connect us to everyone else in the world. A culture of resistance shows us how
connected we are to other working class people. It rolls back the deceptions of capital-
 23

ism and shows us how powerful we really are. It is not some abstract ideal, but instead
it reveals the concrete reality that connects us all and blows away the abstractions and
lies that capitalism uses to isolate us.

A culture of resistance grows in the belly of capitalism and uses the connections
between workers that capitalism in some cases creates to build the beginnings of an
alternative. A culture of resistance builds structures and ideas of cooperation and soli-
darity that prefigure the world to come. A culture of resistance is the school in which
we learn how to be free, how we become through the fight against capitalism every-
thing that we will be after it.

Through organising ourselves without leaders, through taking direct action against our
enemies, through making decisions in which everyone involved gets a say we learn
how to live as free human beings. An anarchist communist world in which we control
our own lives and the things that make them possible can only be built by people who
have taught themselves how to be free. A culture of resistance composed of many dif-
ferent kinds of organisation is how we do that.

A culture of resistance operates in many different ways and in many different areas of
life. It is created by the actions of millions and will always be surprising and exciting
in the new ideas and the new ways of fighting back that it creates. However, it is pos-
sible to give a broad outline of the kinds of things that are possible and of the sorts of
struggle that can take place. The next section lays out some of these ideas and explains
why we think the Anarchist Federation can be part of this.
 How We Fight:
Building a Culture
of Resistance

A s we’ve said, a culture of resistance is built of many different organisations

working in many different ways. When people organise themselves without
leaders or representatives to take direct action against the things that exploit and
oppress them then they are taking part in creating a culture of resistance which
in the end is what will overthrow capitalism and create a new, free, society. It is
impossible to tell in advance what forms this culture of resistance will take. The
needs and the imaginations of the people involved will dictate what happens and
how.

However, it is possible to lay out the very broadest outline of how people can or-
ganise themselves and fight back. We can look at what has worked in the past and
what people are doing now and point out how direct action and self organisation
can be applied to a number of areas of everyday life. There can be no complete
list, but in this section we’re going to look at how people can fight at work and,
in different ways, in their communities. We will also look at what role minority
revolutionary organisations like the AF can play in this.

Resistance in the Workplace

At work the confrontation between workers and bosses is at its most obvious.
Workers want to work as little as possible for as much money as they can get,
whereas bosses want as much work for as little pay. This is the nature of capital-
ism. Bosses exploit workers and workers resist exploitation. It is for this reason
that when we are at work, we are watched and controlled more closely than
anywhere else. The amount of work we do is measured, the kind of work we do is
strictly defined. We are told when we can eat and when we can go to the toilet. We
are watched every minute of every day by bosses and managers whose job it is to
make sure that every minute we are being paid we are working for the company.

However, the amount of effort management makes to control people at work

points to something else. At work we are incredibly powerful. When we work for
a wage we create the profits that the ruling class needs to exist. They need us to do
what we are told in order to exist at all. We don’t need them. When workers dis-
rupt the smooth running of a workplace through strike action or sabotage and so
 25

on, we directly disrupt the ability of the ruling class to make the profits it depends
on. For this reason, resistance at work always has revolutionary potential, however
small scale it is. When we refuse to make profits for our bosses we threaten their
very existence.

There is a constant conflict between the interests of management and the interests of
workers which is shown in many different ways. On a small scale, individual, level
are theft and slacking off where workers find ways round the control mechanisms that
management uses. On a larger, more collective, level are strikes and sabotage where
workers seek to force concessions from management. In these kinds of struggles
there are two things at stake. Firstly, workers seek to get a bigger slice of the profits
management make by exploiting them, either through theft or through wage claims.
Secondly, workers seek to resist the control of management, to get more freedom on
the job. Both sets of demands are important, but it is the second set that leads in direc-
tions that are very dangerous to the ruling class.

When management are faced with a militant workforce that is disrupting their ability
to make profits they will try and negotiate. However, they will always negotiate over
wages, working hours or something similar. That is they will negotiate the level of
exploitation, never the fact of it. They will never negotiate away control of the work-
place, indeed, they will pay a great deal of money to retain and expand that control.

This is the difference between revolutionary and reformist struggle at work. Reformist
struggles tackle the level of exploitation, seeking a ‘fairer’ deal between workers and
management. Revolutionary struggles challenge exploitation altogether and seek to
take control away from management. Whenever we fight at work, both kinds of strug-
gle are there as potential. It is the way that we fight and the kinds of organisations that
exist that determine whether a strugglewill take a reformist or revolutionary direction.

The most common kind of working class organisation in the workplace is the trade
union. As discussed above, this is one kind of organisation that is more often than not
completely co-opted by the ruling class. As a result of past struggles which threatened
management’s power, the trade union is invited to the negotiating table. In return for
ensuring that workers don’t behave unpredictably – taking wildcat strike action or
sabotaging equipment for example – the union is given a place in the management of
capitalism, a little slice of the power that management has. The way that most unions
are organised as hierarchies, with leaders and so called ‘representatives’ means that
this power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people who become as
much part of the ruling class as the managers that they supposedly oppose. It is the
form of trade union organisation – based on negotiation and representatives rather than
direct action and full involvement by the membership, hierarchical rather than partici-
The Ungovernable Factory:
British Industrial Struggle
in the 1970s

F or a brief time in the 1970s the bosses were very close to losing
control of the factories that made them their fortunes. Thatcher’s
1980s rhetoric about the threat to ‘management’s right to manage’
was not just the usual politician’s guff. From the late 1960s right
through to the defeat of the miners’ strike in 1984 a mass movement
of militant workers challenged management not just for better pay but
over how the workplace would be run.

Workers in the car industry were particularly militant, but ‘the English
disease’ as widespread strike action was known spread throughout
the economy. At its peak in 1979 29.4 million working days were
‘lost’ to strikes and disputes frequently escalated into occupations
and open confrontation. To take just one example, workers at the
Halewood Ford plant on Merseyside struck repeatedly throughout the
1970s. They fought for pay rises and against attacks on their working
conditions. Speed up on the line and other attacks were repeatedly
defeated. More than this, workers eventually started rejecting work
altogether. Friday night was strike night as the late shift downed tools
every week to go out drinking instead.

Importantly, much of this activity was run by the workers themselves,

with militant shop stewards based on the factory floor rather than
distant union bureaucrats taking on many tasks. At Halewood, the
mass meetings held regularly throughout disputes are still remem-
bered today and were often addressed by people from outside as well
as inside the workplace. These struggles were antagonistic not just to
management but to the unions as well.

Throughout Britain militant workers such as those at Halewood con-

fronted management and the trade unions for greater control of their
lives. It took a major assault by the state and a complete transforma-
tion in the global economy to defeat them.
 27

patory – that leads to the the various ‘sell outs’ and ‘betrayals’ that are such a common
feature of modern workplace struggles. Not any one particular leadership, but the fact
that there is a leadership in the first place.

The alternative to the trade union is, ironically, the very thing that gives the trade
unions what little power they have. Militant workers organising independently to take
direct action on the job are the thing that management is most afraid of. It is trade
unionism’s promise to control these militants that management demands as a condition
of giving them a place at the negotiating table. When workers are militant and self-
organised, as they were in the 1970s for example, the trade unions are more powerful
because management needs their ability to control and channel struggles so much
more. When workers are divided, disorganised and passive, then unions lose their
power and management stops working with them, as has happened in recent years for
example.

It follows from this that the priority for people fighting in the workplace should be
not a strong union branch, but strong bonds of solidarity between workers on the job.
These bonds mean that direct action to defend conditions and make gains is much
more likely to succeed. Ultimately, we see these bonds of solidarity as forming an
important part of a culture of resistance and as the basis for moving beyond reform-
ist and defensive struggles – those to protect and improve pay and conditions – into
revolutionary struggles.

These revolutionary struggles involve not just fighting management, but getting rid
of them altogether. In periods of heightened struggle when a majority of the working
class is mobilised against the ruling class, workers can move from fighting manage-
ment to managing themselves. Workers take over the factories and the workshops,
the fields and the haulage yards to start producing the goods and services that society
needs for their own sake rather than for the profit of the bosses.

For many workers this will mean simply walking away from the unproductive and
pointless jobs that they do. Most call centres and offices, insurance, advertising, bank-
ing and other pointless parasitic jobs that just move money around for the rich should
just be abandoned. For those in more useful jobs, the way work is organised should
be completely transformed. Workplaces should be run by meetings of all workers,
or where this is impractical, by meetings of mandated delegates from different work
groups and sections. The exchange of raw materials and finished products across the
world would be worked out by federations of these self managed workplaces and the
communities they are part of rather than driven by the profit motive.

In the beginning, we would simply have to keep these places running to produce the
28
things we needed, but as the revolution became more secure, the very nature of work
itself would need to be completely transformed. Some work would be decentralised
and carried out on a smaller scale so that communities had more control over the things
they needed. Other jobs, transport for example, would still have to be run on a large
scale and so would be run by federations accountable in every way to the communities
they served. The amount of work needed would be greatly reduced as the profit motive
is removed and the alienation of each individual from the tasks they carry out would
disappear. All of us would be involved in decisions about what kind of work needed
to be done and all of us would have free choice about what kind of work we wanted to
do. Relationships in the marketplace between depersonalised commodities would be
replaced by relationships between people doing work that interested them. What hap-
pens now only to a limited extent in small privileged sections of the professional elite
– some scientists and academics for example – would be the norm for everyone. We
would work because we wanted to for the sake of all those around us.

Resistance in the community

Unlike work, where it is more easy to see the lines of struggle, ‘community’ is much
harder to define. In the past, many people lived in close knit working class communi-
ties centred on a particular workplace – mining villages or factory towns for exam-
ple – where work and home all served to bind a particular group of people together.
These kinds of communities are much rarer now, but even when they were common
not everyone who lived in the same area could feel part of them. These communities
were often divided by race with ghettos for particular groups of immigrants and a great
deal of hostility between what were effectively different communities. In the US in
particular the division between white and black workers could be every bit as violent
and exploitative as the division between the working and the ruling classes. They were
also divided by gender. Men and women could have vastly different experiences of life
in these ‘united’ communities, with men enjoying such power over ‘their’ women that
it was their violence that was the biggest problem in women’s lives, not exploitation by
the ruling class.

While it can be argued that these divisions serve the interests of the ruling class, that
does not mean that they automatically disappear if we assert a common ‘working class’
identity. We cannot assume that just because working class people live in a particular
area that there is a ‘community’ there that is ready to fight back. We should also refuse
to be nostalgic for working class communities of the past. The unity that they had was
often marred by, and even sometimes based on, racism, sexism, homophobia and so on.

This does not mean, however, that we should reject the community as a site of working
class struggle. There are many important battles to be fought outside of the workplace
which are just as important in building a culture of resistance. What it means is that
 29
we have to think carefully about the kinds of struggles that take place and the different
kinds of engagement that they require.

There are broadly speaking two kinds of struggle that working class people face
in the places that they live. The first is the social wage struggle, that is struggles
against cuts in essential services and against attacks on living standards through
increases in the cost of living. The second is what might be called the ‘identity’
struggle, although it is about far more than this. In this category are struggles by
women against patriarchy, ethnic minority/majority people against racism and white
supremacy, LGBTQ people against homophobia and so on. These kinds of struggles
take place at home, in the workplace, inside and outside of working class organisa-
tions. They are, however, community struggles in the sense that the people who fight
them often find themselves bound together through that fight. These two forms of
struggle are ideal types and often get mixed up – in the struggles of asylum seekers
for example who must confront racism and attacks on their living standards – but
keeping the different ways they work in mind can often help us understand what is
going on.

Social wage struggles

When we talk about a social wage we’re talking about all the different ways that
working class people receive services from the state and the ruling class that
are in effect part of their share of the profits of industry. Healthcare, subsidised
and social housing, transport and utilities like water and electricity, libraries and
social services, benefits and many other things can be seen as part of the social
wage. Like wage increases and shorter working days these services are often
the result of previous rounds of struggle, victories won by the working class in
the past. They are also, just like the benefits we receive at work, often used to
control us.

Community struggles over the social wage take many forms but they usually
involve a fairly straightforward confrontation between some arm of the state –
the local council for example – and a relatively clearly defined group of people
who depend on a particular service. Cuts in local medical services are resisted
by those who use them – patients of a particular clinic, or those living in an area
served by a particular hospital. Rent increases are resisted by the tenants of a
particular landlord or housing authority. School closures are resisted by the par-
ents and children directly affected. There are many different tactics available to
people fighting these kind of struggles. Petitions and appeals to representatives
are often used, and more often than not fail, but there are also forms of direct ac-
tion that people can use. Occupations of threatened buildings and services, mass
protests outside, and inside, government buildings, blockades and disruptions to
Fighting for the Social Wage:
Poll Tax Rebellion

I n 1989 the then Tory government tried to introduce a new local tax,
the Community Charge or Poll Tax, first into Scotland and then, in
1990, into the rest of Britain. This new tax levelled a fixed charge on
all tax payers meaning that poorer people paid a much higher percent-
age of their income than the better off. For the very poorest the new
tax would be a real burden whereas the rich would see their taxes fall.

Through much debate and disagreement a movement grew to resist

the new tax by refusing to pay it. This movement organised itself
into local Anti Poll Tax Unions, or APTUs, which organised to spread
the idea of non-payment and to help people resist any attempts to
force them to pay. The APTUs organised mass meetings, physical
resistance to bailiffs trying to collect the tax and protests at and oc-
cupations of town halls and council buildings. These tactics were so
successful that bailiff companies went bust, unable to operate when
confronted with entire communities determined to stop them. Council
revenues collapsed as up to 17 million people refused to pay and the
cost of chasing non-payers through the courts rocketed.

Protests at town halls often turned into confrontations with the po-
lice, with small scale riots and disorder all over the country. A nation-
al demonstration went the same way when police attacked in Trafalgar
Square and fighting went on for hours. The grass roots of the move-
ment rallied round to defend those arrested, but some left political
parties involved disowned the rioters (although they soon soon denied
having done this when the riot proved to be popular) and even cooper-
ated with the police, proving that in the end they’re more concerned
with their own power than the needs of working class people.

In the end, the Poll Tax was defeated by widespread self organisation
and direct action. The APTUs allowed people to meet and make their
own decisions and the non-payment campaign created a direct con-
frontation with the state, a confrontation that we won.
 31
the normal running of services, street riots and disorder. Social wage struggles
are often the most imaginative of all struggles in terms of the tactics they use,
and this is in part because of the difficulties they face.

The difference between social wage struggles and struggles in the workplace is that
it is not always possible for people fighting over the social wage to hurt the profits
of the people they oppose. Rent strikes and the refusal to pay taxes can work in this
way, but protests and occupations don’t always have this effect. This is one of the
biggest difficulties that social wage struggles face – it is much harder for them to hurt
the people in charge. Many of the tactics communities use are aimed at disrupting the
smooth running of local government in the same way that industrial disputes disrupt
the smooth running of the workplace. However, another set of tactics is also aimed at
the legitimacy of the institutions of government, at questioning whether the council, or
the NHS trust and so on even have the right to run the services that are being attacked.

It is here that social wage struggles often move in the direction of self organisation
and self management – running occupied buildings and services themselves, squatting
land and simply building the things that are needed without waiting for permission. It
is also here, however, that social wage struggles are often co-opted. Sometimes, politi-
cal parties move in and claim to speak for the people involved in resistance to cuts and
so on. They claim that the problem is the result of who is in charge, not because of the
system as a whole. They use the discontent and resistance of ordinary people as a basis
for their own power, as a way of governing rather than freeing people. These parties
come from across the political spectrum, whether from the mainstream, from the left
or even the far right – this is a tactic the BNP used for example. At other times, the
organisations that the community has set up for itself to defend the services it relies
on are invited to negotiate with the state, even invited to run some things themselves.
Very quickly they find themselves managing people’s dissatisfaction on the state’s
behalf, just like a trade union in the workplace.

If this co-option can be avoided and resisted by self-organised groups working without
representatives and taking direct action to fulfil their own needs, then these kind of
social wage struggles can move in amazing directions. Millions of people can be
organised to resist the degradation of their own lives, as happened during the struggle
against the Poll Tax for example. They can also take over the running of important
aspects of their day to day lives which at the moment are in the hands of the state.

At times of heightened struggle, for example during long lasting general strikes, this
dynamic leads to people taking over the running of their own communities, provid-
ing for themselves the services they rely on. During and after the revolution this will
expand to break down the division between work and the community so that people
decide amongst themselves what services they need and how they will provide them
32
for themselves. Neighbourhood assemblies will work in cooperation with councils in
the factories and workshops to provide everything needed for life, with everyone af-
fected by a decision involved in making it.

‘Identity’ struggles
The word ‘identity’ is really not up to the job of describing the kind of struggles we’re
talking about here, but it is better than any of the other terms that we have. Most lib-
eral, and even most radical, ways of talking about the struggles of women, of LGBTQ
people, ethnic minority/majority people and so on do not recognise the relationship
between these kinds of struggle and working class struggle. Sometimes they are seen
as distractions and sometimes as ‘separate but equal’, but rarely as an integral part
of the struggle against capitalism as a whole. For anarchist communists capitalism is
more than just a class system, it is a system that uses a whole range of hierarchies to
maintain the power of a minority. Resistance to all of these hierarchies should be seen
as resistance to capitalism.

This does not mean, however, that separate organisations are not needed by people
fighting patriarchy, white supremacy and so on. Just because the struggles of women
or gay people are important in the struggle against capitalism does not mean that those
struggles can simply be folded into some ‘wider’ fight against capitalism. The nature
of these forms of exploitation and oppression mean that not only do ethnic minority/
majority people or gay people and so on face attacks from the state in the form of
discriminatory laws or police harassment, they also face attacks from other working
class people.

Because of this it is necessary for these people to form their own communities not
only in order to organise together but also to talk together without having to justify
what they say to people who do not share their oppression. It is essential that peo-
ple form groups which are all female or all ethnic minority/majority or all LGBT or
all disabled and so on and so on. These groups provide a space in which people can
understand what is unique about their own oppressions and in which they can be free
of the prejudices, conscious or unconscious, of people who do not share their experi-
ences. These groups can be the basis of communities of resistance, where a shared
understanding becomes a set of shared tactics and actions to take on both the state and
the everyday prejudice and violence that can make life hell for anyone defined outside
the norm.

These unique understandings and tactics become an important part of a culture of

resistance. They strengthen the challenge that all exploited groups make to capitalism
by broadening and deepening the range of resistance that the ruling class faces. The
power differences and hierarchies that the ruling class uses to keep us divided from
 33
one another are not overcome by some false ‘unity’ that ignores the differences in our
experiences of exploitation and oppression. They are overcome when different people
use their own experiences to come up with unique forms of resistance that meet their
own needs. This is the foundation of alliances between different groups, between men
and women, black and white, immigrant and native, queer and straight and so on, not a
unity built on ignoring these differences.

These communities of resistance are as vulnerable to co-option as any other kind of

resistance. Feminist groups find themselves taking government funding and becoming
part of the administration of capitalism rather than resisting it, ethnic minority/major-
ity activists become ‘community leaders’ and end up as part of the problem. It should
be stressed, however, that this is not a special feature of this kind of group. Workers’
organisations are just as vulnerable to being co-opted as women’s or queer organisa-
tions for example. Indeed, it is often the divisions caused by different hierarchies that
are used to do this. Early trade unions were bought off by the expulsion of women and
immigrant workers from the workplace, giving male workers a little slice of power as
a bribe. Queer groups have often seen gay men take positions of leadership and power
in exchange for downplaying, indeed sometimes even opposing, the needs of lesbian
women or transgender people, breaking the unity brought by a common oppression
with the privileges of male power in a patriarchal society. As always it is direct action
and self-organisation that can avoid this kind of co-option.

The ultimate goal of revolutionary ‘identity’ struggles is the same as any other kind
of revolutionary struggle. It is not for equal rights or a place at the capitalist table. It
is instead the complete transformation of the way society is organised. The struggle is
for a world in which everyone has the chance to be a full human being and do what-
ever it is that they need to grow and fulfil themselves. In the end, ‘identity’ struggles
seek to destroy the need for that identity, just as workers’ in struggle want to stop be-
ing workers and start being people. The future we’re fighting for is one in which there
are only people, and the colour of their skin, who they chose to sleep with or what
kind of genitals they happen to have are their business and no one else’s.

The role of the revolutionary organisation

If people are capable of running their own struggles and of fighting for themselves to
meet their own needs then what is the point of an organisation like the Anarchist Federa-
tion? We are an organisation of conscious revolutionaries who see ourselves as working
towards an anarchist communist revolution, but as we’ve made clear in this pamphlet, we
don’t think that any revolution will be down to us. It will be the self activity of millions of
working class people that makes the revolution, not the work of a handful of people with
some nice ideas. We are not a revolutionary party that will lead the working class out of its
‘trade union consciousness’, out of reformism and into revolution. We are not the embryo
The Environment and the Social
Wage: The German Anti-Nuclear
Movement

I n 1975 the West German government began building a nuclear re-

actor in the tiny hamlet of Wyhl. Since 1971 a grass roots move-
ment had been building to oppose the new reactor, but had been
ignored at every stage of the planning process. On the 18th February,
one day after construction had begun, local people occupied the site
and were dragged away and beaten by the police. A few days later
on the 23rd February 30,000 people came back and reoccupied the
site forcing the police to back down. Within a month the construction
license had been withdrawn and the reactor was never built.

This was the first major victory for the German anti-nuclear movement
which had been growing since the 1960s in the belly of the peace
movement and through local citizens’ initiatives. Through the late
1970s hundreds of thousands of people were involved in occupations
and direct action aimed at stopping the government’s nuclear power
programme. Projects in Wackersdorf and Gorleben were defeated and
in 1981 100,000 people faced off 10,000 police with sticks, stones,
molotovs and slingshots in protest at a proposed plant in Brockdorf.

The German anti-nuclear movement is the single most successful en-

vironmental direct action movement in recent history. It started with
local communities organising themselves to resist building projects
through legal channels (lobbying, protests and so on). It grew into a
major alliance between anarchists, the libertarian left, local groups
and national campaigns that were able to fight and win against some
of the biggest police mobilisations ever seen in Germany. In the end,
some parts of this movement were co-opted into the German Green
Party and other parts faded away as the government backed down, but
its influence still lives. Even in 2008, it was possible for 15,000 to
blockade nuclear waste shipments and any German government can
guarantee that moves towards a new nuclear programme will be met
with resistance.
 35
of a workers’ council or a revolutionary union that will grow and grow until we
eventually take over. We do not lead anyone, we do not act on behalf of anyone but
ourselves.

There are, however, some things that a revolutionary organisation can do that would
be far less likely to happen without it. Anarchist communism is a living working
class tradition, but there are times when that life hangs by a very thin thread. In peri-
ods of defeat and division, when the working class has few organisations of its own
and there is very little struggle, something has to keep the lessons that have been
learned alive. The revolutionary organisation is an important store of knowledge and
skills. It is a kind of memory that keeps alive a vision of the working class as united
and defiant, even when the class has been kicked in the head so many times it’s
starting to forget its own name, let alone its past.

This means producing leaflets and pamphlets, organising meetings and education
to keep ideas and history alive. This is not just an academic exercise, playing with
ideas for the sake of it, it is intensely practical. Accounts from the early days of the
Poll Tax struggle make clear that people were drawing inspiration from the stories
of previous fights against taxation, going back to the 14th century peasants’ revolt!
Knowing that something has happened before can make people feel that it is more
realistic to fight back now. And this need not just be some vague ‘inspiration’, how-
ever important this is. A revolutionary organisation with national and international
contacts can be an important channel for information which bypasses hierarchical
structures like the unions or the media and puts workers in different, isolated, strug-
gles in direct contact with one another.

There is much more to it than this of course. Members of a revolutionary organisa-

tion are also militants in their own right and intensely involved in struggles where
they live and work. The ideas of anarchist communism spread not just through the
words of our organisations but also through things that we do. Whatever we are
involved in we push for direct action and self organisation and resist takeover and
co-option by authoritarian groups. Our membership of a broader organisation of
revolutionaries gives us access to the experiences of our comrades and allows us to
discuss and debate the issues and tactics of any particular struggle without having to
worry about the basics. The high level of political agreement within a revolutionary
organisation allows us to worry about the crucial details rather than having to make
the same arguments against the unions and for direct action again and again and
again.

It is in these two main ways – preserving and spreading the memory and lessons of
previous struggles, and supporting committed but potentially isolated militants in
day to day struggles – that a revolutionary organisation contributes towards a culture
36

of resistance. The ideas of anarchist communism work. When we use them to fight
our chances of winning increase because these ideas empower us and show us our
own strength rather than telling us to rely on some set of leaders or representatives.
The revolutionary organisation is one important way of spreading those ideas, of
putting them into action and using them to build a culture of resistance.

There is no Conclusion

Anarchist communism is a living, breathing working class tradition that grows out of
the actions and experiences of millions of people over the centuries of struggle against
capitalism. The one lesson that we learn again and again is that people fight back.
Wherever they are and whatever is happening to them, people fight back. Sometimes
we win, more often we don’t, but whenever we make progress the principles of direct
action and self organisation are usually at the heart of it. Our defeats are never total:
there’s always something left to move forward and carry on fighting. Our victory will
never be final: human beings will always seek to change and experiment, to experi-
ence new things and new ideas.

We believe that as long as capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and all the rest of
it still exist there will always be people who resist. We believe that they have the best
chance of winning when they organise using anarchist communist principles. As long
as that resistance goes on, the Anarchist Federation and the many groups like us all
over the world will do whatever we can to bring those ideas to the people that need
them. Whether at work, at home or in the community people will always fight back,
and anarchist communists will always be there to support them as best we can.
 37

Anarchist Federation
Aims and Principles

1.The Anarchist Federation is an or- pendently. However, this should be

ganisation of revolutionary class strug- as working class people as cross-class
gle anarchists. We aim for the abolition movements hide real class differences
of all hierarchy, and work for the crea- and achieve little for them. Full eman-
tion of a world-wide classless society: cipation cannot be achieved without
anarchist communism. the abolition of capitalism.

2. Capitalism is based on the exploi- 4. We are opposed to the ideology of

tation of the working class by the rul- national liberation movements which
ing class. But inequality and exploi- claims that there is some common in-
tation are also expressed in terms of terest between native bosses and the
race, gender, sexuality, health, ability working class in face of foreign domi-
and age, and in these ways one sec- nation. We do support working class
tion of the working class oppresses an- struggles against racism, genocide,
other. This divides us, causing a lack ethnocide and political and economic
of class unity in struggle that benefits colonialism. We oppose the creation
the ruling class. Oppressed groups are of any new ruling class. We reject
strengthened by autonomous action all forms of nationalism, as this only
which challenges social and economic serves to redefine divisions in the in-
power relationships. To achieve our ternational working class. The work-
goal we must relinquish power over ing class has no country and national
each other on a personal as well as a boundaries must be eliminated. We
political level. seek to build an anarchist international
to work with other libertarian revolu-
3. We believe that fighting racism and tionaries throughout the world.
sexism is as important as other as-
pects of the class struggle. Anarchist- 5. As well as exploiting and oppress-
Communism cannot be achieved while ing the majority of people, Capitalism
sexism and racism still exist. In order threatens the world through war and
to be effective in their struggle against the destruction of the environment.
their oppression both within society
and within the working class, women, 6. It is not possible to abolish Capi-
lesbians and gays, and black people talism without a revolution, which will
may at times need to organise inde- arise out of class conflict. The ruling
38

class must be completely overthrown for workers to control struggles them-

to achieve anarchist communism. Be- selves.
cause the ruling class will not relin-
quish power without their use of armed 8. Genuine liberation can only come
force, this revolution will be a time of about through the revolutionary self
violence as well as liberation. activity of the working class on a mass
scale. An anarchist communist society
7. Unions by their very nature cannot means not only co-operation between
become vehicles for the revolutionary equals, but active involvement in the
transformation of society. They have to shaping and creating of that society
be accepted by capitalism in order to during and after the revolution. In
function and so cannot play a part in times of upheaval and struggle, people
its overthrow. Trades unions divide the will need to create their own revolu-
working class (between employed and tionary organisations controlled by eve-
unemployed, trade and craft, skilled ryone in them. These autonomous or-
and unskilled, etc). Even syndicalist ganisations will be outside the control
unions are constrained by the funda- of political parties, and within them
mental nature of unionism. The union we will learn many important lessons
has to be able to control its member- of self-activity.
ship in order to make deals with man-
agement. Their aim, through nego- 9. As anarchists we organise in all ar-
tiation, is to achieve a fairer form of eas of life to try to advance the revo-
exploitation of the workforce. The in- lutionary process. We believe a strong
terests of leaders and representatives anarchist organisation is necessary to
will always be different from ours. The help us to this end. Unlike other so-
boss class is our enemy, and while we called socialists or communists we
must fight for better conditions from do not want power or control for our
it, we have to realise that reforms we organisation. We recognise that the
may achieve today may be taken away revolution can only be carried out di-
tomorrow. Our ultimate aim must be rectly by the working class. However,
the complete abolition of wage slavery. the revolution must be preceded by
Working within the unions can never organisations able to convince people
achieve this. However, we do not ar- of the anarchist communist alternative
gue for people to leave unions until and method. We participate in struggle
they are made irrelevant by the revolu- as anarchist communists, and organise
tionary event. The union is a common on a federative basis. We reject sec-
point of departure for many workers. tarianism and work for a united revolu-
Rank and file initiatives may strength- tionary anarchist movement.
en us in the battle for anarchist com-
munism. What’s important is that we 10. We oppose organised religion and
organise ourselves collectively, arguing religious belief(s).
 Resistance
Contact us: Resistance is the monthly agita-
tional bulletin of the Anarchist
Web: Federation.

www.afed.org.uk For printed copies please write to:

www.iaf-ifa.org BM ANARFED, London, WC1N
3XX. Send a Stamped Addressed
Email: Envelope to get a free sample. The
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION (10
[email protected] issues) is £6.00 (UK addresses
only). A joint subscription to re-
Post: ceive both Organise! and Resist-
ance for one year is still £10 (UK
BM Anarfed, London WC1N 3XX addresses only). Free electronic
subscription available online.

More AF Publications Organise!

AGAINST NATIONALISM - groups that were opposing Fas- Organise! is the magazine of the
published September 2009, an cism in Europe before, and into, Anarchist Federation, published
analysis of nationalism and why the 1930s including Edelweiss in order to develop anarchist com-
anarchist communists are funda- Pirates, FAUD underground, Za- munist ideas. It aims to give a clear
mentally against it. Printed copies zous, 43 group, Arditi del Popolo anarchist viewpoint on contempo-
- £2 +p&p. and dozens of other Italian groups rary issues, and initiate debates on
- £1.50 +p&p. areas not normally covered by agi-
IN THE TRADITION - pub- tational journals. All articles in the
lished as a pamphlet for the first WORK AND THE FREE SOCI- magazine are by AF members un-
time in 2009, this collection of ETY - Why work is so terrible and less signed. Some reflect AF policy
articles from Organise! magazine why it must be destroyed before it and others open up debate in undis-
outlines the root of and influences destroys us! - £2.00 +p&p. cussed areas, helping us to develop
on the politics of the A(C)F. Print- our ideas further. We welcome con-
ed copies - £2 +p&p. Also online Other AF Pamphlets: tributions of articles to Organise!
in french. as long as they don’t conflict with
• The role of the revolutionary or- our Aims and Principles we will
ON THE FRONTLINE: ANAR- ganisation endeavour to publish them. Letters,
CHISTS AT WORK - new for • Beating the poll tax of course, need not agree with our
2009, the AF's workplace strategy • Manifesto of libertarian commu- A&Ps at all.
is explained. Printed copies - £2 nism - george fontenis
+p&p. Also online in french. • The anarchist movement in ja- Try ONLINE ORDERING of Or-
pan ganise! using Paypal (both UK and
BASIC KROPOTKIN. New pam- • Ecology and class - where overseas orders). Otherwise, send
phlet for October 2008. Kropotkin there’s brass there’s muck £3.00 to obtain the current issue in
and the History of Anarchism, by • Anarchism - as we see it print to a UK address (inc p&p) (or
Brian Morris. An introduction to • Beyond resistance - a revolu- £3.50 for non-UK orders) to: BM
the thought and politics of one tionary manifesto ANARFED, London, WC1N 3XX,
of the most influential anarchist • Against parliament - for anar- England, UK.
communists of 100 years ago. - chism
£2.00 +p&p. • Work and the free society ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are
• Aspects of anarchism also available, saving 50p an issue.
RESISTANCE TO NAZISM - • Resistance to nazism
telling the stories of libertarian • Basic kropotkin Read back issues free online.
£2

Anarchist Communist Editions

BM ANARFED, London, WC1N 3XX, UK