A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Britain, Solidarity [anarchist] Federation, Direct Action - DA-SF-IWA #37 · Autumn/Winter 2006-'07 I. (1/2)

Date Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:17:41 +0200

Regulars: Comment · England first: fascists’ in new clothing; Open all borders;
Small but far from beautiful: workplace organisation in small businesses Thought
- The state: its historic role – a look at anarchist opposition to the state
Reviews: CD · An issue of Justice - Origins of the Israel/ Palestine conflict by
N Finkelstein; Books and pamphlets · Dreams of Freedom - A Ricardo Flores Magón
reader edited by R C Bufe & M C Verter; The Modern School Movement - Anarchism
and education in the United States by P Avrich; Rebel Alliances - The means &
ends of contemporary British anarchisms by B Franks; Anarchist Voices - An oral
history of Anarchism in America by P Avrich

Closerlook · Prejudice and the working class – the Labour Party, a class enemy

DA Collective; Aims of the Solidarity Federation; SolFed Contact list; Friends &

Contact Us: DA Collective, PO Box 29, SW PDO, Manchester M15 5HW/ Tel;
07984675281/ manchestersf@solfed.org.uk
Bulk Orders: AK Distribution, PO Box 12766, Edinburgh EH8 9YE/ Tel; 01315555165/
ak@akedin.demon.co.uk www.akuk.com

england first

Thought I’d tell you about something I saw in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph.
I hope Jack Straw gave one to our glorious ‘Great Big Toe’, as it shows the
future we could have if we only followed the ideas of the England First Party.

It’s about some bloke who’s been elected councillor for the party in Blackburn.
He runs a pub plastered with England flags; his grandad came from Cameroon; he
reckons Ian Wright is the most English person ever; he’s been to an Asian
wedding and he and his mam reckon he’s definitely not racist…but.

The but is that the England First Party’s website, also plastered with England
flags, says only white people should play football for England; mixed marriages
should be banned; aid to Africa should be stopped and immigration should be
stopped too. Oh, nearly forgot – Johnny foreigner should bugger off home,
especially if they’re black. There’s more – no Welsh football teams in English
leagues; St Georges day to be a national holiday; compulsory national service
for 16-18 year olds; England flags everywhere; hanging for everything
(especially being a lefty). All this would make England first again.

The councillor and his leader say a lot of this has been put on the website by
nutters and they don’t go along with it – ‘cos they’re not racist, of course.
But I think they’re wimps.
Just think of the fun to be had by making England come first ‘by order’. We
could ban foreigners from playing football (or make them play on one leg); only
Tim Henman would be allowed to win at Wimbledon; foreign cricketers would have
to play with one hand – we’d be top of the world.

To purify the place we can repatriate the foreign plants that have invaded the
‘blessed plot’. Dutch tulips, Japanese knotweed, that foreign grass at Old
Trafford can bugger off. And all those animals too – Welsh corgis, Chinese dogs,
Siamese cats Canadian geese and the rest. A big net above us; a fence around the
coast; a new Hadrian’s Wall; a massive moat between England and Wales – all to
ensure we only breathe English air and eat English fish caught in English water.

Food, there’s another thing. Not just Tandoori chicken – Starfucks can fuck off
back to yankeeland; baguettes can be bags again; paninis can be football
stickers again; no more olive oil or oranges. It’ll be great with just roast
beef, Yorkshire pud and cabbage (no chips as they’re South American), all washed
down with foaming ale from a ‘traditional tankard’. Tea can go back to China,
lager to Germany and Australia, vodka to Russia and poncy water to France. We
can make sure we only drink English water by building a big dome to stop foreign
water contaminating ours.

As for clothes, let’s go back to woollen underpants and vests – no cotton as
that’s foreign too. All this Nike shit, Dolci doings and Gucci whatsits can go.
Clear out the Italian suits and French knickers, let’s get back to bloomers and
bodices. We could repatriate all them hoovers, hair dryers, washing machines
along with all those Golf GTI’s that don’t do under 150 mph. Everything should
be made in England instead, as it was when Britannia ruled the waves. Morris
Minor cars, BSA bikes and Norton motorbikes are what we need.

England would be just like those pictures of lovely thatched cottages surrounded
by roses, of pubs with rosy-cheeked country folk waving foaming tankards.

I nearly forgot the people. To make everything pure again we’d have to get all
them convicts of English stock back from Australia (minus the Fosters of
course), America, Canada and all the other places, like Torremolinos, they were
forced to go to. They’d make the place great again. Just think of all those
wonderful people with true English blood in their veins coming ‘home’; people
who do wonderful things – like George Bush. Anyone here who’s not got pure
blood, like the councillor, could have the tainted blood removed by transfusion
and replaced with pure ‘English’.

But the real solution is to send all foreigners and their descendants ‘home’.
The England First Party stop short of this and that’s why I think they are
wimps. They’re worried that Phil the Greek and his German wife would be out and
Lulu would be off back to Scotland. All those with Irish blood would have togo
too. But why stop there? Got Norman ancestors? – get the ferry back to France.
Descended from Vikings? – then Scandinavia’s where you belong.

fascist bastards

What’s more, the English themselves would have to go back to Germany and
Denmark. That’s the ‘home’ of the Angles and Saxons who invaded Britain
centuries ago, raping, pillaging and nicking beer. But that would mean the
England First Party would have to change its name back to the BNP – as we’d then
be Britain, not England – and everyone would recognise them for the fascist
bastards they really are.
spacer top next

Open all Borders

People are on the move... Direct Action says ‘Why Not’

Not so long ago, one of Thatcher’s brownshirts said ‘get on your bike’ in
response to the unemployed of Britain. But when the world’s poor turn up for a
job, it’s a different story. Humans have always moved around to make a living,
so what’s different now?

The world’s poor are on the move and heading for western Europe and North
America. The Global Commission on International Migration estimates that 200
million people migrated in 2005, compared half that number in 1980. The
commission’s director, Rolf Jenny, estimates the annual figure could rise to 1
billion by 2015.

Predictably, increasing migration has been greeted with a chorus of nationalist
outrage from the press and politicians both in Europe and the USA. In Britain
the newspapers have been particularly venomous, spewing out anti-immigrant
propaganda at every opportunity. Head-lines such as, “Migrants get Brits Pay
Slashed by 50%” (Sun), “Cheers, we’re Coming to Rip you Off” (People) and “New
Fagins are Bringing Child Slavery Back to Britain” (Sunday Telegraph) are just a
few examples of the relentless, racist campaign of hatred and bigotry being
waged by the British press.

rhetoric and reality

Yet the reality is that both the USA and Europe need immigrant workers. In
Europe, the most pressing problem is an ageing workforce; the ratio of people
working to retirees is set to fall from its current 4 to 1 to less than 2 to 1
by 2050. If nothing is done, Europe faces not only economic decline but a
virtual collapse in welfare provision, as those working will simply not be able
to service the welfare bill. The French Institute of International Relations
argues that only by admitting at least an extra 30 million people by 2020 can
Europe avoid failing economic performance.

The need for more immigrant labour has not stopped western governments using
their usual anti-immigrant rhetoric. Far from welcoming and thanking immigrants
for their help in saving us all from poverty in our old age, US and European
politicians have chosen to incite hatred and ‘talk tough’ on immigration,
introducing ever more draconian controls. Why? Because it is a cheap and easy
way to win votes (or at least quell the effects of other lies and deceit) – it
also has the added advantage of cementing relations with the virulently
anti-immigration press.

Such acts of political cowardice by western governments may win them short term
electoral gain but in the long term it will do little to stave off the brewing
economic crisis. Nor will it stop the flow of migrants from the developing
world. There are much stronger mechanisms at work driving economic migration
than are likely to be stopped by empty right wing rhetoric about Johnny Foreigner.

migrant drivers

The biggest single reason for growing economic migration is, quite simply, that
the rich countries have taken all the wealth. There is an ever widening gap in
global living standards. Globalisation, more appropriately termed ‘enhanced
first world exploitation’, is driving down incomes in the poor south and east,
forcing people to seek a better life in the rich north and west.

As global inequality increases, more and more people will migrate. Moreover,
world inequality is not the only force likely to drive greater immigration. As
the effects of global warming gather pace, water shortages and natural disasters
will have a devastating effect on third world economies, triggering further
movement. Western governments are well aware of this fact, and are already
turning to greater militarisation of their borders to stop immigrants entering
Europe and the US. This is despite plenty of evidence from the US that
attempting to close off borders simply does not work.

waste of cash

The US government has spent the last fifteen years trying to seal the Mexican
border, using an astounding array of control technologies and the deployment of
vast amounts of military material, the annual budget for which (the Immigration
and Nationality Service) rose from $200 million in 1996 to $1.6 billion in 2005.
Numbers of border control officers increased from 2,500 in the early 1980s to
around 12,000 today, making it the largest arms-bearing branch of the US
government outside the military itself.

As a result, the US-Mexico border is the most militarised in the world between
two countries not at war. The net result has been continued growth in the
unauthorised immigrant population, fewer arrests, and a sharp increase to US
taxpayers in the cost of each arrest. In the early 1980’s the Mexican population
in the US stood at around a million; today the number of Mexican “illegal”
immigrants living in the US is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million. Before
1992, the cost per arrest along the border was $300; by 2002 this had risen by
467% to $1,700. In the 1980s, the probability that an undocumented migrant would
be detained while crossing was 33%; by 2000 it was 10%.

This abject lesson in wasting money is bad enough, yet it pales into
insignificance alongside the effects on people. In the past the majority of
Mexican migrants were seasonal workers returning back home within a year.
Tougher border controls have led to little choice but to stay and look for
permanent employment in the US. This has created a whole army of illegal
immigrants open to ever greater exploitation by US capitalism. Another
side-effect of the militarised border is that migrants are forced to cross in
more remote and dangerous places, resulting in far more deaths (over 500 people
were killed last year alone). Worse still, they have been forced to turn to
people traffickers to help them gain entry, many being charged relative fortunes
and having to sell themselves into virtual slavery in order to pay off the debt.

The US experience has shown the utter futility of attempting to close borders in
the face of the economic desperation caused by capitalist exploitation.
Militarisation of borders does not stop immigration; it just creates an army of
“illegal” workers who are preyed upon by both capitalists and criminal gangs.

Failure has a tendency to lead to more failure. And as militarisation has
failed, so the calls for greater military spending have increased, to the extent
that Bush has recently announced the dispatch of 6000 troops in order to
“secure” the southern border against Mexican immigration. Militarisation of the
European boarders may not have reached the levels seen in the US, but beefing up
border security is increasingly seen as the solution to the immigration
“problem”. European leaders increasingly talk of illegal immigration as one of
the biggest threats facing Europe and are calling for more military hardware to
secure borders.

easy cruelty

It is not hard to see why western governments continue to take the increased
security approach. It is politically risky in the short term to come clean and
state that immigration is going to increase dramatically anyway and that it is
to everyone’s advantage. Politicians prefer short termism to short term
risk-taking. They are in the business of getting and keeping power; far better
for them to jump on the easy anti-immigration bandwagon and forget the long term
consequences. As increasing military spending on immigration ‘fails’ to control
it, they can turn to outright right wing nationalism – after all, media-led
“public opinion” will be calling for ever-tougher action. The result will be
more racism, which the extreme right can exploit to their advantage. Already,
self-appointed groups of vigilantes armed to the teeth are patrolling the
Mexican border, as US right wing groups exploit the ‘failure’ of state

If this continuous shift to the right is to be prevented, there is a growing
need to start challenging anti-migration bigotry by celebrating the economic and
cultural benefits of immigration. Calling on governments to exercise compassion
will achieve nothing. There is every possibility that western governments will
allow limited legal immigration, but strictly on their own terms – such as in
Australia. Such state imposed immigration controls are never fair and are
invariably racist. In any case, they will quite rightly be ignored by immigrants
who, like any sane people, reject the absurd notion that human beings can or
should be classed as ‘illegal’.

Challenging anti-immigration bigotry must be based in the everyday reality that
immigration is increasing. The point is that freedom of movement is a basic
right and migration to escape poverty is completely legitimate. Calling for
fairer immigration controls is a big mistake; it implies that trying to stop or
limit migration can be condoned under certain circumstances, when it should not.
Moreover, the aim should be to prevent immigrants from being exploited once they
have arrived, not to enter a debate about which ones are ‘OK’.
The fight against the exploitation of immigrants should not be seen in
isolation, but as part of the wider struggle against the growing exploitation of
all workers. Campaigns against increased casualisation have a vital role to play
in this. They can unite all workers against the attempts by capitalism to drive
down wages and conditions in society as a whole. Such campaigns can break down
false barriers between workers and make a mockery of the attempts by the media
to portray immigrants as alien scroungers, terrorists and criminals.

Connecting with anti-capitalism in such a way makes the struggle against
exploitation of immigrants central to the wider struggle against capitalism.
Mass economic migration, and all its accompanying human misery, has been a
central feature of capitalism since its birth. Capitalism depends on creating
inequality, and some form of forced mass migration is the inevitable and
continual result. Only in a future society which is based on freedom and
equality will the need to move home in order to escape poverty come to an end.


In order to challenge the nationalist chauvinism, intolerance and racism that
lies at the heart of anti-immigration rhetoric, it is necessary to embrace an
alternative set of values. A sense of internationalism, of solidarity and of
common humanity must underpin the struggle against the exploitation of
immigrants. With these values, we are not only helping to bring about a more
humane world in the here and now, we are also laying the foundations for a
future society in which forced economic migration will finally be brought to an
end as capitalism is replaced by a future, fairer society.
previous top next

Small but far from beautiful

small business is exempt from most workplace legislation – how can workers fight

The decline of workplace organisation in this country has meant that working
class concerns have been largely removed from Britain’s social, economic and
political agendas. The world today is more than ever dominated by the middle
class, their lifestyles and their problems. As a result the major political
parties vie constantly for the votes of middle England to the extent that both
the Labour and Tory parties have now become the parties of the middle class, a
situation that is reminiscent of the Republican and Democratic parties in the
United States.

Meanwhile the unskilled, the low paid the part-time and casualised workers in
general have all disappeared from view as far as the makers and shakers are
concerned. They have becomea forgotten, powerless and invisible grey mass which
is excluded from the glitz and excitement of Blair’s brave new Britain.

The bedrock of this new world is comprised of the small businessman and woman.
Praised by all and sundry, they are portrayed both as the heroes of the new
economy and as the backbone of middle England’s honest hard working dynamism.
The embodiment of traditional English values, they transcend both the old and
the new economies as well as the politics of left and right. For the Guardian
they are young trendy entrepreneurs actively changing the face of British
society; for the Daily Mail they are the essence of traditional England
struggling heroically in the face of overbearing state inefficiency.

rights withheld

Championed by all, the small business sector therefore exercises a
disproportionate amount of power within society. One consequence of this is that
Britain has been consistently prepared to alienate itself within the European
Union in order to resist a whole raft of legislation which has been aimed at
alleviating the worst abuses in the continent’s working conditions. This Labour
government continues to set the minimum wage at an appallingly low level out of
fear of upsettng small businesses while their much heralded legislation giving
workers the legal right to union representation excludes those companies that
employ twenty workers or less. Even health and safety legislation virtually
exempts those businesses with a workforce of less than five workers.

Those who work within small firms are never consulted. The power of small
business is such that even in the act of bitterly resisting any social
legislation they are championed as the heroes of the workers, not by the workers
themselves, it must be added. Small businessmen and women are never seen to
resist social legislation because they are reactionary, but only because their
main concern is to protect workers’ jobs. By the same token, even moderately
progressive legislation is widely viewed as actually putting at risk the jobs of
the very workers it is supposed to help. And of course all of this tosh
currently passes without the merest hit of a challenge in the press and media in
general Criticism of small businesses is just not allowed – and on this all
shades of ‘mainstream’ opinion can agree.

intimidation & bullying

A survey of those workers going to Citizen Advice Bureaux in the North East has
managed to cut through this information blackout revealing the true nature of
these small capitalists. It revealed a catalogue of intimidation and bullying by
managers. Examples abound. For instance there was the case of care workers who,
after receiving a rise to coincide with the introduction of the minimum wage,
found that £9 had been deducted for the tea breaks and for the milk they used to
brew up with.

Another case that was highlighted concerned workers in a florist who had the
audacity to persistently enquire about their entitlement to the minimum wage.
When they sought advice the owner responded by stating ‘I can do anything I like
with my part-timers: finish them, cut their hours, basically I can treat them
like shite’. Further research in CABs across the north as a whole revealed
similar stories. Stories like the cleaners who were granted the minimum wage but
were then given a form stating that they were self-employed. If they signed then
it would terminate their employment; if they did not sign they would be sacked.

pro-business TUC

Commenting on the report the TUC, ever anxious to appear even-handed and careful
not to damage their well-cultivated pro-business approach, stated that while
many companies are cooperating with the minimum wage legislation it would appear
that many companies are bending the rules. The Millfield House Foundation, not
being bound by the pro-business ethic of the TUC, were a little more forthright
in their comments. They stated that the research provided a ‘disturbing insight
into the working lives of people in low paid jobs...In wealth and income,
Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the advanced world’.

The foundation called for greater enforcement with more raids on work premises
by teams from the Inland Revenue. Such a scenario is highly unlikely to be
accepted by a government that sees deregulation of the labour market and the
freeing up of small business as the best way to bring down unemployment. It
somehow believes that the best way to help low paid workers is to cut benefits
and relax restrictive labour law; and that the best way to empower workers is to
drive them into jobs where they can be exploited, intimidated and generally
treated ‘like shite’.

Although, as anarcho-syndicalists, we realise that fundamental change will not
come about through legislation, we nevertheless welcome any legislation that
would bring a modicum of protection to the low paid – some 40% of the working
population, not including those slaving away in the black economy.

challenging the boss

Work is a social activity. Within the social relations that exist between
workers and their boss, if the management’s power is allowed to go unchecked,
then they will always use intimidation and bullying to get around the law. The
threat of the sack is a powerful means of intimidation. The only way to redress
the balance of power within the workplace is through the unity that comes with
organisation. Once organised, workers can challenge the manager’s right to
manage, a direct challenge to the source of their power.

For much of the post war period it was through such workplace organisation that
workers’ concerns were forced on to the wider agenda. Through the power of their
organisation they could not be ignored. They were highly visible and the
appearance of shop stewards in the media giving voice to their demands was
almost a daily occurrence. Only through a return to a culture of such workplace
power and resistance will the working class become visible again.

power and control

Legislation may help but it is never a substitute; it does not redress the
balance of power within the workplace; it neither changes nor challenges social
relations based on power; above all, legislation takes the struggle away from
the workplace and into the courts, out of the hands of workers and into the
hands of lawyers. Once a dispute gets into the courts workers become mere
bystanders in a legal charade.

Power only comes through confidence. For workers this confidence can only be
gained from taking control of our own struggles and confronting the bullying
boss directly.
previous top next

The State – its Historic Role
From its earliest manifestation, anarchism with its critique of power has
opposed the idea of the state and state power, advocating its elimination along
with all power-based relationships. This is one of the fundamental ideas that
distinguishes anarchism from other revolutionary socialist movements.

At the time of the First International anarchists and Marxists both sought the
same egalitarian society but proposed very different methods for achieving it.
The anarchists opposed the purely political programme of Marxism that aimed at
capturing state power. They rejected outright the idea that workers should
support parliamentary candidates and campaign for political reform. They also
rejected the notion of political revolutions aimed at establishing workers’ states.

The anarchists held that political rights, such as freedom of association,
should not be isolated from the economic struggle. These rights, they argued,
could only be guaranteed through economic struggle. Therefore they rejected
purely political struggle like the formation of workers’ political parties.
Instead, they advocated workers’ self-organisation into economic organisations
(unions) which would use direct action to fight for economic and social change
based on collective ownership.

The aim of these unions was to constantly link the day-to-day struggle for
improvements to the wider struggle against capitalism. In the short term, they
would organise strikes and other direct actions against capitalism. In the
longer term, this constant struggle would lead to the social general strike,
during which capitalism would be overthrown and replaced with a society in which
the working class would control their industries and communities.

Anarchism’s ultimate aim is the victory of the working class over capitalism and
the abolition of the state – all states – to be replaced by a general federation
of local associations based on equality and freedom.

power relations

Freedom is an important notion that lies at the centre of anarchist thinking. It
also distinguishes anarchism from Marxism. Although anarchists accepted Marxist
economic arguments, they argued that not all inequality is rooted in economic
inequality. It could also stem from unequal power relations under which an
individual, or groups of individuals, could coerce others.

To the anarchists, the essence of a future society would be the ability of
people to come together voluntarily, on equal terms, to decide what is best for
them as a whole. They argued that if society was not based on free association,
and if human relations were not conducted freely, equally and without coercion,
then an unequal society based on unequal power relations would develop. Any new
society, rather than being administered from the top down, must be administered
directly by the working class from the bottom up. In other words, people must
come together on equal terms to decide their collective needs and how best to
meet them. If this process were not to be followed, and power were to remain in
the hands of a few, then social inequality would persist. In arguing that not
all inequality originated from the economic system, the anarchists challenged
Marxist economic determinism.

the marxist position

At the heart of the Marxist argument was Marx’s idea that ‘the conquest of
political power is the first task of the proletariat’. They argued that this
would lead to workers taking control of the state, through which capitalism
would be abolished. The Marxists’ main aim, therefore, was the formation of
political groups to capture state power. Once in control of the state, the
workers would use this power to expropriate land and industry from the
capitalists and landowners. The economy would then be administered by the state
for the benefit of the working class. If the workers could not win control
through elections, then there must be a political revolution to seize state
power, establishing a government based on ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. At
the centre of Marxist thinking was the notion that social revolution could only
occur after the political revolution of winning control of the state.

Anarchists then and now reject the idea that the state could be used as a tool
for workers’ emancipation. For anarchists, the fact that a capitalist parliament
would have been eliminated was not enough to guarantee that the state would act
in the interests of the working class. They argued that state control, by its
very nature, was based on the rule of the minority over the majority. Moreover,
the anarchists scorned Marx’s view that under the ‘people’s state’ that he
envisaged, ‘the proletariat would be elevated to the status of the governing
class’. If the working class, the overwhelming majority, were to become the
governing class then who, the anarchists asked, would they be ruling over?

new ruling elite

For the anarchists, the prospect of the state abolishing market capitalism and
private ownership did not mean the state would bring about social equality. They
dismissed as naive and patronising the Marxist idea that under the new workers’
state, ‘learned socialists’ would administer society on the workers’ behalf.
Instead, they predicted, the ‘learned socialists’ would be more likely to use
their power to form a new ruling elite and so the Marxist state would not be
based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, but on the dictatorship over the
proletariat of a new privileged ‘political-scientific’ class of learned socialists.

According to the anarchists, while the current state exercises power over the
majority based on their ownership of the economy, the new socialist dictators
would also base their power over the majority on their ultimate control of the
economy. The result would be that social equality would remain a dream. The
anarchists believed that state power, whether based on a constitutional assembly
or a revolutionary dictatorship, was the rule of a minority over a majority, and
was therefore undemocratic. No matter what form the state took, those appointed
to run and administer it would function as a ruling class, assuming the power
and privilege of a ruling class. As such, the state would not be merely the
agent of the particular class that happens to own the means of production.
Rather, the state was viewed as a class in itself, acting on its own behalf.
Furthermore, a ruling class based on state control would have the means to
become one of the most powerful elites in history, for the Marxist state would
not only control the economy, but the whole state apparatus, including the army
and police.

anarchism & individualism

The core beliefs in rejecting state power and emphasising free association which
now characterise anarchism were developed at the time of the First
International. As a result, opponents have claimed that anarchism is nothing
more than a radical form of liberal individualism, placing individual liberty
before the needs of society as a whole. This misrepresents anarchism.

The anarchist view of individual liberty was based on ideas put forward during
the 1848 revolution in France, the rallying cry of which was ‘the slavery of the
least of men is the slavery of all’. Individual liberty was based on collective
liberty. Because human beings can only confirm their humanity within society, so
the freedom of others is merely a reflection of one’s own freedom. In short, it
is impossible to be free unless all others around you are free.

humanity and society

The anarchists dismissed the liberal notion of the individual, which, they
argued, was rooted in the Christian idea that people were not created by
society, but by God, outside of and apart from society. Accordingly, liberal
social democratic thinking saw humans as pre-dating society – it was not society
that created humans, but humans who created society. Within this thinking,
society is merely a loose collection of individuals who come together to perform
specific functions, such as work, etc. The most important function of society
for the liberal is to limit the freedom of the individual. This is because our
free will, motivated by pure self-interest, would lead us to attack others to
meet our immediate needs. To ensure this, a ‘social contract’ between humans was
observed and enforced, and so the state was created as an ‘outside authority’ to
regulate human relations.

Should this authority be taken away, so the theory goes, we would return to our
natural state and chaos would ensue. Thus, liberal social democratic thinking
based on individualism viewed society as a contract not to rip each other apart.
A-infos-en mailing list

A-Infos Information Center