Anarchy 85/Conversations about anarchism - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 06:19, 11 March 2020

2020-03-11T06:19:20Z

209.52.108.246 at 21:50, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T21:50:43Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 20:35, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T20:35:35Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 21:31, 20 January 2017

2017-01-20T21:31:39Z

Show changes

imported>Ivanhoe at 19:49, 20 January 2017

2017-01-20T19:49:47Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 02:47, 7 October 2016

2016-10-07T02:47:45Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 02:45, 7 October 2016

2016-10-07T02:45:35Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 23:55, 6 October 2016

2016-10-06T23:55:38Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 06:01, 6 October 2016

2016-10-06T06:01:53Z

Show changes

69.50.181.155 at 04:23, 4 October 2016

2016-10-04T04:23:36Z

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 ''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;Autho&shy;rita&shy;rians, cen&shy;trali&shy;sa&shy;tion, coer&shy;cion, capi&shy;ta&shy;lism, these are the sort of things anar&shy;chists are against. George Melly:
-''{{popup|GM|George Melly}}'':&emsp;With a think like the motor car, which is one of the great killers of our time, you have a whole society geared to sell people motor cars, {{p|71}}to impress them with the idea that without one they are fail&shy;ures, it will give them sexual potency, and a thou&shy;sand other ideas; entire&shy;ly linked to an eco&shy;no&shy;mic situ&shy;ation in which people have to make motor cars and people have to sell motor cars and there&shy;fore more motor cars have to be used. But why do they have to make them? Because if they didn{{t}} make them the whole eco&shy;no&shy;mic machine would break down. But this machine is arti&shy;fi&shy;cial in itself. There{{s}} no need for every&shy;body to be em&shy;ployed all the time. The more un&shy;plea&shy;sant jobs are always pro&shy;duced as an excuse against anar&shy;chism. Who would sweep roads, who would mine coal? But a lot of these things would be solved so that nobody need do them at all. There could be auto&shy;matic street washers and the use of atomic energy instead of coal, but we daren{{t}} use atomic energy instead of coal because this would shut the mines and this would create an eco&shy;no&shy;mic crisis. Eco&shy;no&shy;mics is an arti&shy;fi&shy;cial defor&shy;ma&shy;tion, or seems to me to be it, and if one scrapped it all and started from human needs, and if one scrapped the whole of the thou&shy;sands of law books in every country and started from good sense and good will, one might be moving towards a freer society.
+''{{popup|GM|George Melly}}'':&emsp;With a thing like the motor car, which is one of the great killers of our time, you have a whole society geared to sell people motor cars, {{p|71}}to impress them with the idea that without one they are fail&shy;ures, it will give them sexual potency, and a thou&shy;sand other ideas; entire&shy;ly linked to an eco&shy;no&shy;mic situ&shy;ation in which people have to make motor cars and people have to sell motor cars and there&shy;fore more motor cars have to be used. But why do they have to make them? Because if they didn{{t}} make them the whole eco&shy;no&shy;mic machine would break down. But this machine is arti&shy;fi&shy;cial in itself. There{{s}} no need for every&shy;body to be em&shy;ployed all the time. The more un&shy;plea&shy;sant jobs are always pro&shy;duced as an excuse against anar&shy;chism. Who would sweep roads, who would mine coal? But a lot of these things would be solved so that nobody need do them at all. There could be auto&shy;matic street washers and the use of atomic energy instead of coal, but we daren{{t}} use atomic energy instead of coal because this would shut the mines and this would create an eco&shy;no&shy;mic crisis. Eco&shy;no&shy;mics is an arti&shy;fi&shy;cial defor&shy;ma&shy;tion, or seems to me to be it, and if one scrapped it all and started from human needs, and if one scrapped the whole of the thou&shy;sands of law books in every country and started from good sense and good will, one might be moving towards a freer society.
 ''{{popup|PG|Paul Goodman}}'':&emsp;You see it isn{{t}} indus&shy;tria&shy;lisa&shy;tion which makes for cen&shy;tra&shy;lisa&shy;tion, it{{s}} an error to think that. It{{s}} the way we do the indus&shy;tria&shy;lisa&shy;tion. Now in {{w|Yugo&shy;sla&shy;via|Yugoslavia}} at present, they{{re}} trying to extend worker{{s|r}} manage&shy;ment to con&shy;sider&shy;able control over the actual de&shy;sign&shy;ing and engi&shy;neer&shy;ing pro&shy;cess, and they have found, of course it{{s}} obvious, that in order to do that, they{{ll}} have to bring the uni&shy;ver&shy;sity right into the factory. Now the worker can get tech&shy;nical trai&shy;ning{{dash}}great. So now Yugo&shy;sla&shy;via is the one country in the world, it seems to me, that at present is taking, is trying to tend towards anarcho-<wbr>syn&shy;dica&shy;lism. Now if you talk to Yugo&shy;slavs{{dash|and I have recently been talking to a lot of them}}I like their atti&shy;tude. They{{re}} ex&shy;treme&shy;ly scep&shy;tical about the whole thing. It{{s}} ex&shy;treme&shy;ly inef&shy;fi&shy;cient and there are all kinds of error, etc.{{dash}}and they{{re}} fan&shy;tasti&shy;cally proud of it, and I love that atti&shy;tude. You see they don{{t}} try to sell you a bill of goods, but they know they{{re}} right{{dash}}and that I like. Now they wouldn{{t}} call it anar&shy;chism, but I don{{t}} care about the word.

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 ''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;I suppose that my arrest by Detective-Sergeant {{w|Challenor|Harold_Challenor}} had nothing to do with my being an anar&shy;chist. As you know, three or four per&shy;fect&shy;ly inno&shy;cent boys who were coming back from a game of tennis were arres&shy;ted too, but I think it had some&shy;thing to do with my being an anar&shy;chist that I was able to spot an error made by this police&shy;man in plan&shy;ting his evi&shy;dence and that the general sus&shy;pi&shy;cion of police&shy;men which for in&shy;stance pre&shy;ven&shy;ted me from com&shy;plain&shy;ing against the beha&shy;viour of one police&shy;man to another police&shy;man, that sus&shy;pi&shy;cion made me keep quiet in the police station and hold my story and my evi&shy;dence and my defence until we came to the {{w|magis&shy;trate{{s}} court|Magistrates'_court_(England_and_Wales)}}. I think it takes either an anar&shy;chist or a lawyer to realise that this is a sensi&shy;ble thing to do. Before the Challenor case I mainly thought of the police as a re&shy;pres&shy;sive agency and some&shy;thing that one ought to fight against. Since then I{{ve}} had it rammed down my throat through watch&shy;ing it, what the police&shy;man{{s}} job was. It{{s}} a very diffi&shy;cult job and in&shy;stead of saying now we ought to be rid of the police force I would rather say that the society which needs a police force is a sick society. It{{s}} not the same thing at all as saying that you could cure society by getting rid of the police force. The police force is rather like crut&shy;ches. With all its faults I suppose at the present day it{{s}} neces&shy;sary. And that{{s}} an opi&shy;nion that I didn{{t}} have before I was arres&shy;ted.
-''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;The one emotion I have after being inside {{w|Brixton prison|HM_Prison_Brixton}} is that I{{d}} like to see Brixton prison blown up. But apart from that it hasn{{t}} changed my con&shy;vic&shy;tion at all, which is that in order to try and prevent people from hurting other people, to put them into a room and lock them up is the worst thing one can do. I can{{t}} think of anybody who was in Brixton whom I met who should have been locked up. I can{{t}} think of anyone in Brixton who would be any danger if let out, any more than he is going to be as soon as he comes out anyway. I would say with Kropotkin (this is the sort of thing anar&shy;chists do: they quote other anarchists), I would say that the prisons are uni&shy;versi&shy;ties of crime{{dash}}nur&shy;series of crimi&shy;nal edu&shy;ca&shy;tion, I think were the actual words, and that the state and society ought to consider whether the enormous expense and effort put into keeping people in prison wouldn{{t}} be much better using<!-- as printed --> in trying to help people in some other way.
+''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;The one emotion I have after being inside {{w|Brixton prison|HM_Prison_Brixton}} is that I{{d}} like to see Brixton prison blown up. But apart from that it hasn{{t}} changed my con&shy;vic&shy;tion at all, which is that in order to try and prevent people from hurting other people, to put them into a room and lock them up is the worst thing one can do. I can{{t}} think of anybody who was in Brixton whom I met who should have been locked up. I can{{t}} think of anyone in Brixton who would be any danger if let out, any more than he is going to be as soon as he comes out anyway. I would say with Kropotkin (this is the sort of thing anar&shy;chists do: they quote other anarchists), I would say that prisons are uni&shy;versi&shy;ties of crime{{dash}}nur&shy;series of crimi&shy;nal edu&shy;ca&shy;tion, I think were the actual words, and that the state and society ought to consider whether the enormous expense and effort put into keeping people in prison wouldn{{t}} be much better using<!-- as printed --> in trying to help people in some other way.
 ''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;On the poli&shy;tical scene anar&shy;chists don{{t}} seem to have made much visible impact, but they feel that their ideas have made headway in the {{p|73}}in&shy;crea&shy;sing&shy;ly liber&shy;ta&shy;rian atti&shy;tudes appa&shy;rent in the social field, in atti&shy;tudes to the men&shy;tally ill, for example, in edu&shy;ca&shy;tion, in the whole per&shy;mis&shy;sive climate of modern society. Of course they don{{t}} take all the credit for it, though they have made a con&shy;tribu&shy;tion and on the whole they welcome it.
-''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;Years ago, shortly after the war, [[Author:Alex Comfort|Alex Comfort]] gave a series of lec&shy;tures to the London Anarchist Group and they were pub&shy;lished by Freedom Press under the title ''{{popup|Barba&shy;rism and Sexual Freedom|Barbarism and Sexual Freedom: Lectures on the Sociology of Sex from the Standpoint of Anarchism (1948)}}''. Com&shy;fort{{s}} ideas on sex have reached the stage of course of being pub&shy;lished many years later as a Penguin book, and what ap&shy;peared revo&shy;lu&shy;tion&shy;ary to people or somehow ''outr&eacute;'' in one way or another in 1948, is almost ''pass&eacute;'' by 1966. The revo&shy;lu&shy;tion in sexual atti&shy;tudes has hap&shy;pened. Take anar&shy;chist ideas about educa&shy;tion{{dash}}you{{ve}}only got to see how every child today looks like the pro&shy;gres&shy;sive school chil&shy;dren to twenty years ago.
+''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;Years ago, shortly after the war, [[Author:Alex Comfort|Alex Comfort]] gave a series of lec&shy;tures to the London Anarchist Group and they were pub&shy;lished by Freedom Press under the title ''{{popup|Barba&shy;rism and Sexual Freedom|Barbarism and Sexual Freedom: Lectures on the Sociology of Sex from the Standpoint of Anarchism (1948)}}''. Com&shy;fort{{s}} ideas on sex have reached the stage of course of being pub&shy;lished many years later as a Penguin book, and what ap&shy;peared revo&shy;lu&shy;tion&shy;ary to people or somehow ''outr&eacute;'' in one way or another in 1948, is almost ''pass&eacute;'' by 1966. The revo&shy;lu&shy;tion in sexual atti&shy;tudes has hap&shy;pened. Take anar&shy;chist ideas about educa&shy;tion{{dash}}you{{ve}} only got to see how every child today looks like the pro&shy;gres&shy;sive school chil&shy;dren of twenty years ago.
-''{{popup|IR|Irene Rooum}}'':&emsp;Of course I haven{{t}} married, and I{{ve}} had my own chil&shy;dren. This wasn{{t}} very impor&shy;tant at the time, we didn{{t}} think it was very impor&shy;tant, and I still don{{t}} think it{{s}} impor&shy;tant. I like to think that society is iin fact getting more and more towards anar&shy;chism because now there are more and more people in fact living together and having chil&shy;dren without being married and without asking the State if they may or may not.
+''{{popup|IR|Irene Rooum}}'':&emsp;Of course I haven{{t}} married, and I{{ve}} had my own chil&shy;dren. This wasn{{t}} very impor&shy;tant at the time, we didn{{t}} think it was very impor&shy;tant, and I still don{{t}} think it{{s}} impor&shy;tant. I like to think that society is in fact getting more and more towards anar&shy;chism because now there are more and more people in fact living together and having chil&shy;dren without being married and without asking the State if they may or may not.
 ''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;We thought that agree&shy;ment to have a home and a family was a matter for two people and that in a mar&shy;riage you don{{t}} have two parties, what&shy;ever the pundits are always saying, you don{{t}} have two parties to a mar&shy;riage, you have three parties, a man, a woman and the State.
@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 ''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;In this sort of area, in per&shy;sonal mora&shy;lity, in soci&shy;ety{{s}} con&shy;sider&shy;able advance towards per&shy;mis&shy;sive&shy;ness in the past few years, the anar&shy;chists are pro&shy;bably in sub&shy;stan&shy;tial agree&shy;ment with a great many people who wouldn{{t}} call them&shy;selves anar&shy;chists. What about what is called the under&shy;ground, the {{w|hippies|Hippie}}, the drop-<wbr>outs, {{w|flower people|Flower_child}} and so on? Is this a form of anar&shy;chism?
-''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;My kind of anar&shy;chism wants to change the struc&shy;ture of society and tha anar&shy;chist hippies simply walk out on autho&shy;rita&shy;rian society. But it does seem to me that the wildly indi&shy;vi&shy;dual anar&shy;chism of the young is a good thing. I think we should be wildly indi&shy;vidu&shy;alis&shy;tic when we are eighteen and twenty. Perso&shy;nally I{{m}} not inter&shy;ested in indi&shy;vidu&shy;alism because I{{m}} twice that age.
+''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;My kind of anar&shy;chism wants to change the struc&shy;ture of society and the anar&shy;chist hippies simply walk out on autho&shy;rita&shy;rian society. But it does seem to me that the wildly indi&shy;vi&shy;dual anar&shy;chism of the young is a good thing. I think we should be wildly indi&shy;vidu&shy;alis&shy;tic when we are eighteen and twenty. Perso&shy;nally I{{m}} not inter&shy;ested in indi&shy;vidu&shy;alism because I{{m}} twice that age.
-''{{popup|GM|George Melly}}'':&emsp;The thing about hippies is that they are over-<wbr>excited by certain aspects of freedom, I think. They{{re}} over-<wbr>excited by the idea of drugs because drugs are some&shy;thing which older people disap&shy;prove of. They{{re}} a useful form of revolt. It used to be sex, when I was eighteen or seven&shy;teen because older people appa&shy;rent&shy;ly in those days disap&shy;proved more of sex, so one went round having as many people as pos&shy;sible, as noisily as pos&shy;sible and telling every&shy;one about it. On the other hand, since the {{w|Lady Chatterley|Lady_Chatterley's_Lover}} {{w|trial|R v Penguin Books Ltd}}, sex has become res&shy;pecta&shy;ble. Even bishops admit an orgasm is a mar&shy;vel&shy;lous thing to have and so on, no&shy;body con&shy;demns mas&shy;turba&shy;tion, and so on, so that sex is out and drugs are in, and I think that the whole empha&shy;sis on drugs in the hippy thing is hys&shy;teri&shy;cal and not alto&shy;gether sym&shy;pathe&shy;tic. But I think that the hippy {{p|74}}''feeling'' for the idea of love instead of hate, of open&shy;ness, of people doing what they want, of freedom, is on the con&shy;trary, very sym&shy;pathe&shy;tic, and the inter&shy;view re&shy;cent&shy;ly between {{w|Mick Jagger|Mick Jagger}} and various members of the estab&shy;lish&shy;ment{{dash|bishops, the {{w|Editor|William Rees-Mogg}} of ''{{w|The Times|The_Times}}'' and so on}}seemed to me to indi&shy;cate that al&shy;though Jagger is rather na&iuml;ve in certain of his ideas, he also is on a track which they were unable to answer.
+''{{popup|GM|George Melly}}'':&emsp;The thing about hippies is that they are over-<wbr>excited by certain aspects of freedom, I think. They{{re}} over-<wbr>excited by the idea of drugs because drugs are some&shy;thing which older people disap&shy;prove of. They{{re}} a useful form of revolt. It used to be sex, when I was eighteen or seven&shy;teen because older people appa&shy;rent&shy;ly in those days disap&shy;proved more of sex, so one went round having as many people as pos&shy;sible, as noisily as pos&shy;sible and telling every&shy;one about it. On the other hand, since the ''{{w|Lady Chatterley|Lady_Chatterley's_Lover}}'' {{w|trial|R_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd}}, sex has become res&shy;pecta&shy;ble. Even bishops admit an orgasm is a mar&shy;vel&shy;lous thing to have and so on, no&shy;body con&shy;demns mas&shy;turba&shy;tion, and so on, so that sex is out and drugs are in, and I think that the whole empha&shy;sis on drugs in the hippy thing is hys&shy;teri&shy;cal and not alto&shy;gether sym&shy;pathe&shy;tic. But I think that the hippy {{p|74}}''feeling'' for the idea of love instead of hate, of open&shy;ness, of people doing what they want, of freedom, is on the con&shy;trary, very sym&shy;pathe&shy;tic, and the inter&shy;view re&shy;cent&shy;ly between {{w|Mick Jagger|Mick_Jagger}} and various members of the estab&shy;lish&shy;ment{{dash|bishops, the {{w|Editor|William_Rees-Mogg}} of ''{{w|The Times|The_Times}}'' and so on}}seemed to me to indi&shy;cate that al&shy;though Jagger is rather na&iuml;ve in certain of his ideas, he also is on a track which they were unable to answer.
 ''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;I don{{t}} mean it as a criti&shy;cism, but I do feel that a lot of the modern {{w|bohe&shy;mian|Bohemianism}} anar&shy;chists, or what&shy;ever parti&shy;cu&shy;lar label they have for that year, are to some extent a commer&shy;cial pheno&shy;menon, rather than a poli&shy;tical one, that they are people who are either trying to drop out of a commer&shy;cial life or are trying to make money out of pre&shy;ten&shy;ding to drop out of commer&shy;cial life. I wouldn{{t}} see them in fact as part of the anar&shy;chist move&shy;ment, though they are cer&shy;tain&shy;ly rele&shy;vant to the anar&shy;chist move&shy;ment.
@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 ''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;I think that social atti&shy;tudes have changed. People no longer equate anar&shy;chism with bomb-<wbr>throw&shy;ing. Anar&shy;chism perhaps is beco&shy;ming almost modish. I think that there is a certain anarchy in the air today, yes.
-''{{popup|JR|Jack Robinson}}'':&emsp;One of our dis&shy;repu&shy;table com&shy;rades said that the mem&shy;ber&shy;ship of the anar&shy;chist move&shy;ment is between one and two million and this actu&shy;ally meant that it is between the figure of one and the figure two million.
+''{{popup|JR|Jack Robinson}}'':&emsp;One of our dis&shy;repu&shy;table com&shy;rades said that the mem&shy;ber&shy;ship of the anar&shy;chist move&shy;ment is between one and two million and this actu&shy;ally meant that it was between the figure one and the figure two million.
 ''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;The size of the reader&shy;ship of {{sc|freedom}} gives some indi&shy;ca&shy;tion of their numbers.
@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 ''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;Well in a sense I was an anar&shy;chist before I was born in that I had an anar&shy;chist grand&shy;father, but I was in fact brought up more or less as a Labour Party sup&shy;por&shy;ter{{dash}}an extreme left-<wbr>wing Labour Party sup&shy;por&shy;ter and it gradu&shy;ally oc&shy;curred to me that in fact I was an anar&shy;chist as well as being a socia&shy;list.
-''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;Actually I was on some kind of Govern&shy;ment potato-<wbr>picking scheme, in 1944 I think it was, and I bought a copy of ''{{w|War Com&shy;men&shy;tary|Freedom_Press#Post-War}}'', as it was then, one of the fore&shy;run&shy;ners of {{sc|freedom}}, at {{w|Marble Arch|Marble_Arch}}. I read it and I thought, {{qq|Well, this is the gen. I agree with it.}}
+''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;Actually I was on some kind of Govern&shy;ment potato-<wbr>picking scheme, in 1944 I think it was, and I bought a copy of ''{{w|War Com&shy;men&shy;tary|Freedom_Press#Post-War}}'', as it was then, one of the fore&shy;run&shy;ners of {{sc|freedom}}, at {{w|Marble Arch|Marble_Arch}}. I read it and I thought, {{qq|Well, this is the {{popup|gen|facts}}. I agree with it.}}
 </div></div>

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;Setting up a re&shy;gional organ&shy;isa&shy;tion to rule the country in the event of nuclear war demo&shy;lish&shy;ing the State appar&shy;atus, so that if for example, {{w|South-<wbr>West England|South_West_England}} was cut off from the rest of {{w|England|England}}, there would be a ready-<wbr>made govern&shy;ment to take it over and rule it. And this was all set up, it was set up secretly behind the scenes. No one knew about it. And, just by chance, this in&shy;forma&shy;tion fell into the hands of people in the Com&shy;mit&shy;tee of 100, of whom I was one. And we pub&shy;lished it, secretly, we didn{{t}} want to get caught. Then another, in a sense much smaller, thing, though it had more effect on me, was going along to a church where the {{w|Prime Minister|Harold_Wilson}} was going to read the lesson, before the Labour Party Conference, and inter&shy;rup&shy;ting to say that I thought this was hypo&shy;crisy. This isn{{t}} a very serious thing, it was just propa&shy;ganda by deed. It was to try and say, at the time and place where a lot of people would take notice, what I thought about the sort of thing the Labour Government does. And this got us landed in prison, a {{p|69}}couple of us.
-''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;For the anar&shy;chist, in {{w|Ran&shy;dolph Bourne|Randolph_Bourne}}{{s}} phrase, {{qq|War is the health of the State.}} This sounds like a paradox, but, as Jack Robin&shy;son says, {{qq|to speak of a healthy state is like talking about a healthy cancer}}. The anar&shy;chist doesn{{t}} want a healthy state, he wants a healthy society. For this reason alone, many anar&shy;chists are also paci&shy;fists, even if they don{{t}} always rule out vio&shy;lence alto&shy;gether. Here is the Ameri&shy;can writer Paul Goodman.
+''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;For the an&shy;arch&shy;ist, in {{w|Ran&shy;dolph Bourne|Randolph_Bourne}}{{s}} phrase, {{qq|War is the health of the State.}} This sounds like a paradox, but, as Jack Robin&shy;son says, {{qq|to speak of a healthy state is like talking about a healthy cancer}}. The anar&shy;chist doesn{{t}} want a healthy state, he wants a healthy society. For this reason alone, many anar&shy;chists are also paci&shy;fists, even if they don{{t}} always rule out vio&shy;lence alto&shy;gether. Here is the Ameri&shy;can writer Paul Goodman.
 ''{{popup|PG|Paul Goodman}}'':&emsp;My back&shy;ground is psycho-<wbr>analy&shy;tic, and psycho-<wbr>analy&shy;ti&shy;cally, we feel that face-<wbr>to-<wbr>face vio&shy;lence, like a fist fight, is natural, and it does damage to try to repress it; that it{{s}} better to have the fight out. There&shy;fore on that level I have no oppo&shy;si&shy;tion to vio&shy;lence. Natu&shy;rally I don{{t}} like to see people pun&shy;ching each other, but anger is a rather beau&shy;tiful thing, and anger will lead to a blow, and there you are. When people are under a ter&shy;rible oppres&shy;sion, as say {{w|Negroes|African-Americans}} in the {{w|United States|United_States}} or the Parisians, let{{s}} say, during {{w|Hitler|Adolf_Hitler}}{{s}} {{w|occu&shy;pa&shy;tion|German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II#Civilians}} of {{w|Paris|Paris}}, it seems inevi&shy;table that at a certain point they are going to blow up and fight back. And that seems to me like a force of nature. You can do nothing about that, and there&shy;fore I don{{t}} disap&shy;prove. That kind of warfare, guer&shy;rilla warfare, parti&shy;san warfare, bru&shy;tali&shy;ses people, of course it does, but it{{s}} human and I would make no moral judge&shy;ment.
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 ''{{popup|BC|Bill Christopher}}'':&emsp;Probably now, more than any other time, ordi&shy;nary people have got more than a slight&shy;ly cynical ap&shy;proach to parlia&shy;ment and poli&shy;ti&shy;cians. People are begin&shy;ning to say that they{{re}} all alike and we{{re}} just not going to bother to vote at all. But going on from there and saying, {{qq|What are we going to do?}}, this is the crunch, this is the problem. We have had illus&shy;tra&shy;tions in recent {{w|by-<wbr>elec&shy;tions|UK_Parliamentary_by-elections}} of people ab&shy;stain&shy;ing. But I think we can get over the idea now that the par&shy;lia&shy;men&shy;tary system is a big laugh, is a big giggle. Once you start getting people thin&shy;king in terms of really query&shy;ing the par&shy;lia&shy;men&shy;tary system and expo&shy;sing it for what it{{s}} worth{{dash|a gas&shy;works}}then I think we{{re}} making pro&shy;gress.
-''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;Well, anar&shy;chists usually indulge in anti-<wbr>elec&shy;tion pro&shy;pagan&shy;da, that is to say, they say {{qq|Don{{t}} vote for anybody!}} And they{{re}} often criti&shy;cised for this. This is pointed out to be some&shy;how nega&shy;tive or irres&shy;pon&shy;sible and so on. Obvi&shy;ous&shy;ly, being opposed to the prin&shy;ciple of autho&shy;rity, anar&shy;chists don{{t}} see the point in deci&shy;ding which group of autho&shy;rita&shy;rians are going to rule us.
+''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;Well, anar&shy;chists in elections usually indulge in anti-<wbr>elec&shy;tion pro&shy;pagan&shy;da, that is to say, they say {{qq|Don{{t}} vote for anybody!}} And they{{re}} very often criti&shy;cised for this. This is pointed out to be some&shy;how nega&shy;tive or irres&shy;pon&shy;sible and so on. Obvi&shy;ous&shy;ly, being opposed to the prin&shy;ciple of autho&shy;rity, anar&shy;chists don{{t}} see the point in deci&shy;ding which group of autho&shy;rita&shy;rians are going to rule us.
 ''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;Autho&shy;rita&shy;rians, cen&shy;trali&shy;sa&shy;tion, coer&shy;cion, capi&shy;ta&shy;lism, these are the sort of things anar&shy;chists are against. George Melly:
@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 ''{{popup|PG|Paul Goodman}}'':&emsp;You see it isn{{t}} indus&shy;tria&shy;lisa&shy;tion which makes for cen&shy;tra&shy;lisa&shy;tion, it{{s}} an error to think that. It{{s}} the way we do the indus&shy;tria&shy;lisa&shy;tion. Now in {{w|Yugo&shy;sla&shy;via|Yugoslavia}} at present, they{{re}} trying to extend worker{{s|r}} manage&shy;ment to con&shy;sider&shy;able control over the actual de&shy;sign&shy;ing and engi&shy;neer&shy;ing pro&shy;cess, and they have found, of course it{{s}} obvious, that in order to do that, they{{ll}} have to bring the uni&shy;ver&shy;sity right into the factory. Now the worker can get tech&shy;nical trai&shy;ning{{dash}}great. So now Yugo&shy;sla&shy;via is the one country in the world, it seems to me, that at present is taking, is trying to tend towards anarcho-<wbr>syn&shy;dica&shy;lism. Now if you talk to Yugo&shy;slavs{{dash|and I have recently been talking to a lot of them}}I like their atti&shy;tude. They{{re}} ex&shy;treme&shy;ly scep&shy;tical about the whole thing. It{{s}} ex&shy;treme&shy;ly inef&shy;fi&shy;cient and there are all kinds of error, etc.{{dash}}and they{{re}} fan&shy;tasti&shy;cally proud of it, and I love that atti&shy;tude. You see they don{{t}} try to sell you a bill of goods, but they know they{{re}} right{{dash}}and that I like. Now they wouldn{{t}} call it anar&shy;chism, but I don{{t}} care about the word.
-''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;I think the most complex indus&shy;trial orga&shy;nisa&shy;tion could be broken down on the feder&shy;ative prin&shy;ciple, that is to say, a feder&shy;ation of auto&shy;no&shy;mous groups. This is not so far-<wbr>fetched, because you see it in opera&shy;tion today in dif&shy;fer&shy;ent inter&shy;natio&shy;nal orga&shy;nisa&shy;tions. You can post a letter from here to {{w|Valpa&shy;raiso|Valparaíso}} or {{w|Chung&shy;king|Chongqing}} and know it will get there because of the federal ar&shy;range&shy;ments of a dozen dif&shy;fer&shy;ent natio&shy;nal {{p|72}}post offices. Now there is now world post office capital. There are no direc&shy;tives. There is an {{w|Inter&shy;natio&shy;nal Postal Union|Universal_Postal_Union}}, which is not a man&shy;datory body. It is all done by free ar&shy;range&shy;ment between sepa&shy;rate natio&shy;nal post offices. Or you can buy a ticket in London from here to {{w|Osaka|Osaka}} and you travel on the railway lines of a dozen dif&shy;fer&shy;ent coun&shy;tries, commu&shy;nist, capi&shy;ta&shy;list, state-<wbr>owned and pri&shy;vately owned, and you get there with no bother. But there is no inter&shy;natio&shy;nal railway autho&shy;rity.
+''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;I think it started merely as a polit&shy;ical gimmick to dif&shy;fer&shy;enti&shy;ate {{w|Yugo&shy;slav so&shy;cial&shy;ism|Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia}} from {{w|Stalin&shy;ist com&shy;mun&shy;ism|Stalinism}}, but that it has been taken seri&shy;ously. I{{m}} quite sure that some of the Yugo&shy;slav com&shy;mun&shy;ists are de&shy;term&shy;ined to develop a system of worker{{s|r}} control. As things stand, of course, it is worker{{s|r}} control within those limits set by the {{w|Party|League_of_Communists_of_Yugoslavia}}, just as these ex&shy;peri&shy;ments here are worker{{s|r}} control within the limits set by a cap&shy;ital&shy;ist market economy.
 ''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;The anar&shy;chist{{s}} oppo&shy;si&shy;tion to the state obvi&shy;ously in&shy;volves oppo&shy;si&shy;tion to the state{{s}} coer&shy;cive insti&shy;tu&shy;tions such as the police and prisons. One anar&shy;chist whose deal&shy;ings with the police hit the head&shy;lines is Donald Rooum.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
-<font size="4"><div style="text-align:justify;">{{tab}}Richard Boston went round with a tape-<wbr>recor&shy;der inter&shy;view&shy;ing anar&shy;chists, and reduced eight or nine hours of tape to a forty-<wbr>minute {{l|{{popup|radio pro&shy;gramme|Far from the Barricades}}|http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/f203537ca4e24f49a50d20c8da73ff24}}, pro&shy;duced by {{popup|Tony Gould|British author, born 1938}} for {{w|BBC Radio 3|BBC_Radio_3}}, and broad&shy;cast on January 10th and 30th. The voices heard, apart from that of Richard Boston, were those of [[Author:Bill Christopher|Bill Christopher]], [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]], [[Author:George Melly|George Melly]], [[Author:Jack Robinson|Jack Robinson]], [[Author:Donald Rooum|Donald]] and [[Author:Irene Rooum|Irene Rooum]], [[Author:Peter Turner|Peter Turner]], [[Author:Nicolas Walter|Nicolas Walter]] and [[Author:Colin Ward|Colin Ward]]. The fol&shy;low&shy;ing is the text of the pro&shy;gramme.</div></font>
+<font size="4"><div style="text-align:justify;">{{tab}}Richard Boston went round with a tape-<wbr>re&shy;corder inter&shy;view&shy;ing anar&shy;chists, and reduced eight or nine hours of tape to a forty-<wbr>minute {{l|{{popup|radio pro&shy;gramme|Far from the Barricades}}|http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/f203537ca4e24f49a50d20c8da73ff24}}, pro&shy;duced by {{popup|Tony Gould|British author, born 1938}} for {{w|BBC Radio 3|BBC_Radio_3}}, and broad&shy;cast on January 10th and 30th. The voices heard, apart from that of Richard Boston, were those of [[Author:Bill Christopher|Bill Christopher]], [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]], [[Author:George Melly|George Melly]], [[Author:Jack Robinson|Jack Robinson]], [[Author:Donald Rooum|Donald]] and [[Author:Irene Rooum|Irene Rooum]], [[Author:Peter Turner|Peter Turner]], [[Author:Nicolas Walter|Nicolas Walter]] and [[Author:Colin Ward|Colin Ward]]. The fol&shy;low&shy;ing is the text of the pro&shy;gramme.</div></font>
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 {{p|s1}}<div style="text-align:justify;">''Announcer'':&emsp;Who are the anar&shy;chists? What do they believe? What sort of society do they want, and what actions do they take to realise it?
-''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;I consider myself to be an anar&shy;chist-<wbr>commu&shy;nist, in the [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropot&shy;kin]] tradi&shy;tion.
+''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;I consider myself to be an anar&shy;chist-<wbr>com&shy;mun&shy;ist, in the [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]] tradi&shy;tion.
-''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;I think that if I had to label myself very quickly I would say I was an anar&shy;chist-<wbr>socia&shy;list, or liber&shy;ta&shy;rian socia&shy;list even, if the word anar&shy;chist gave rise to mis&shy;under&shy;stan&shy;ding.
+''{{popup|NW|Nicolas Walter}}'':&emsp;I think that if I had to label myself very quickly I would say I was an anar&shy;chist-<wbr>socia&shy;list, or liber&shy;ta&shy;rian socia&shy;list even, if the word anar&shy;chist gave rise to mis&shy;under&shy;stand&shy;ing.
-''{{popup|BC|Bill Christopher}}'':&emsp;I would des&shy;cribe myself as an anarcho-<wbr>syndi&shy;calist, anar&shy;chism being my philo&shy;sophy and syndi&shy;ca&shy;lism the method of strug&shy;gle.
+''{{popup|BC|Bill Christopher}}'':&emsp;I would de&shy;scribe myself as an an&shy;archo-<wbr>syn&shy;dical&shy;ist, anar&shy;chism being my philo&shy;sophy and syn&shy;dical&shy;ism the method of struggle.
-''{{popup|JR|Jack Robinson}}'':&emsp;I don{{t}} call myself an anarcho-<wbr>syndi&shy;ca&shy;list. I could be called an anarcho-<wbr>paci&shy;fist-<wbr>indi&shy;vidu&shy;alist with slight commu&shy;nist ten&shy;den&shy;cies, which is a long title, but this is a way of defi&shy;ning a compass point.
+''{{popup|JR|Jack Robinson}}'':&emsp;I don{{t}} call myself an anarcho-<wbr>syndi&shy;ca&shy;list. I could be called an anarcho-<wbr>paci&shy;fist-<wbr>indi&shy;vidu&shy;alist with slight com&shy;mun&shy;ist tend&shy;en&shy;cies, which is a long title, but this is a way of defin&shy;ing a compass point.
-''{{popup|PT|Peter Turner}}'':&emsp;First of all I{{m}} an anar&shy;chist because I don{{t}} believe in govern&shy;ments, and also I think that syndi&shy;ca&shy;lism is the anar&shy;chist appli&shy;ca&shy;tion to orga&shy;nis&shy;ing indus&shy;try.
+''{{popup|PT|Peter Turner}}'':&emsp;First of all I{{m}} an anar&shy;chist because I don{{t}} believe in govern&shy;ments, and also I think that syn&shy;dical&shy;ism is the anar&shy;chist appli&shy;ca&shy;tion to orga&shy;nis&shy;ing in&shy;dustry.
-''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;I des&shy;cribe myself as a {{w|Stir&shy;ner&shy;ite|Max_Stirner}}, a cons&shy;cious egoist.
+''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;I de&shy;scribe myself as a {{w|Stirner&shy;ite|Max_Stirner}}, a con&shy;scious egoist.
-''{{popup|JR|Jack Robinson}}'':&emsp;We even have a strange aber&shy;ra&shy;tion known as Catho&shy;lic anar&shy;chists, hich seems to be a contra&shy;dic&shy;tion in terms, but never&shy;the&shy;less they seem to get along with it.
+''{{popup|JR|Jack Robinson}}'':&emsp;We even have a strange aber&shy;ra&shy;tion known as Cath&shy;olic anar&shy;chists, which seems to be a contra&shy;dic&shy;tion in terms, but never&shy;the&shy;less they seem to get along with it.
-''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;There are so many sorts of anar&shy;chist that one some&shy;times wonders whether such a thing as a plain and simple anar&shy;chist even exists, but the dif&shy;feren&shy;ces are mainly dif&shy;feren&shy;ces of empha&shy;sis. Anar&shy;chists are agreed on {{p|66}}the basic prin&shy;ciple: anarchy{{dash}}the absence of rule, which is not the same thing as chaos, al&shy;though the words anar&shy;chy and chaos are popu&shy;larly con&shy;fused. As the anar&shy;chist sees it, chaos is what we{{ve}} got now. Anarchy is the alter&shy;na&shy;tive he offers. In the 11th edition of the ''{{l|Encyclopaedia Birtannica|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica}}'', Kropotkin {{l|defined anar&shy;chism|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Anarchism}} as, {{qq|The name given to a prin&shy;ciple or theory of life and conduct under which society is con&shy;ceived without govern&shy;ment, harmony in such a society being ob&shy;tained not by submis&shy;sion to law or by obedi&shy;ence to any autho&shy;rity, but by free agree&shy;ments con&shy;clu&shy;ded between the various groups, terri&shy;torial and profes&shy;sional, freely con&shy;stitu&shy;ted for the sake of pro&shy;duc&shy;tion and con&shy;sump&shy;tion.}} I think most anar&shy;chists of today of what&shy;ever label would agree with this. Where do they differ then? Well, one impor&shy;tant dif&shy;fer&shy;ence is between those who, like the anar&shy;chist-<wbr>commu&shy;nists and anarcho-<wbr>syndi&shy;ca&shy;lists, empha&shy;sise col&shy;lec&shy;tive organi&shy;sa&shy;tion and those like the Stir&shy;ner&shy;ites whose chief concern is with the indi&shy;vi&shy;dual. But in fact an anar&shy;chist-<wbr>commu&shy;nist like Colin Ward and an indi&shy;vidu&shy;alist anar&shy;chist like Donald Rooum still have a great deal in common.
+''{{popup|RB|Richard Boston}}'':&emsp;There are so many sorts of anar&shy;chist that one some&shy;times wonders whether such a thing as a plain and simple anar&shy;chist even exists, but the dif&shy;fer&shy;ences are mainly dif&shy;fer&shy;ences of em&shy;phasis. Anar&shy;chists are agreed on {{p|66}}the basic prin&shy;ciple: anarchy{{dash}}the absence of rule, which is not the same thing as chaos, al&shy;though the words anar&shy;chy and chaos are pop&shy;ularly con&shy;fused. As the anar&shy;chist sees it, chaos is what we{{ve}} got now. Anarchy is the altern&shy;ative he offers. In the 11th edition of the ''{{l|Encyc&shy;lo&shy;paedia Brit&shy;an&shy;nica|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica}}'', Kropotkin {{l|defined anar&shy;chism|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Anarchism}} as, {{qq|The name given to a prin&shy;ciple or theory of life and conduct under which society is con&shy;ceived without govern&shy;ment, harmony in such a society being ob&shy;tained not by submis&shy;sion to law or by obedi&shy;ence to any author&shy;ity, but by free agree&shy;ments con&shy;clu&shy;ded between the various groups, terri&shy;torial and profes&shy;sional, freely con&shy;stitu&shy;ted for the sake of pro&shy;duc&shy;tion and con&shy;sump&shy;tion.}} I think most anar&shy;chists today of what&shy;ever label would agree with this. Where do they differ then? Well, one impor&shy;tant dif&shy;fer&shy;ence is between those who, like the anar&shy;chist-<wbr>commu&shy;nists and anarcho-<wbr>syndi&shy;ca&shy;lists, empha&shy;sise col&shy;lec&shy;tive organi&shy;sa&shy;tion and those like the Stirner&shy;ites whose chief concern is with the indi&shy;vidual. But in fact an anar&shy;chist-<wbr>commu&shy;nist like Colin Ward and an indi&shy;vidu&shy;alist anar&shy;chist like Donald Rooum still have a great deal in common.
-''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;For me anar&shy;chism is a social philo&shy;sophy based on the absence of autho&shy;rity. Anar&shy;chism can be an indi&shy;vi&shy;dual outlook or a social one. I{{m}} con&shy;cerned with anar&shy;chism as a social point of view{{dash}}the idea that we could have a society and that it{{s}} desi&shy;rable that we should have a society, in which the prin&shy;ciple of autho&shy;rity is super&shy;seded by that of volun&shy;tary co-<wbr>opera&shy;tion. You could say that anar&shy;chism is the ulti&shy;mate decen&shy;trali&shy;sation. I believe in a decen&shy;tra&shy;lised society. What I want to do is to change a mass society into a mass of societies.
+''{{popup|CW|Colin Ward}}'':&emsp;For me anar&shy;chism is a social philo&shy;sophy based on the absence of author&shy;ity. Anar&shy;chism can be an indi&shy;vidual outlook or a social one. I{{m}} con&shy;cerned with anar&shy;chism as a social point of view{{dash}}the idea that we could have a society and that it{{s}} desir&shy;able that we should have a society, in which the prin&shy;ciple of author&shy;ity is super&shy;seded by that of volun&shy;tary co-<wbr>opera&shy;tion. You could say that anar&shy;chism is the ulti&shy;mate de&shy;cent&shy;ral&shy;isa&shy;tion. I believe in a de&shy;cent&shy;ral&shy;ised society. What I want to do is to change a mass society into a mass of soci&shy;eties.
 ''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;The anar&shy;chist thinks that society is there for the benefit of the indi&shy;vi&shy;dual. The indi&shy;vi&shy;dual doesn{{t}} owe any&shy;thing to society at all. Society is the crea&shy;tion of indi&shy;vi&shy;duals, it is there for their benefit. And from that the rest of it follows. Even&shy;tu&shy;ally, as the ulti&shy;mate aim of anar&shy;chism, which may or may not be achieved, the idea is to have a society of so&shy;ver&shy;eign indi&shy;vi&shy;duals.

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 [[Category:Criminal justice]]
 [[Category:Propaganda]]
 [[Category:Sexuality]]
 [[Category:Sociology]]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 ''{{popup|DR|Donald Rooum}}'':&emsp;I suppose that my arrest by Detective-Sergeant {{w|Challenor|Harold_Challenor}} had nothing to do with my being an anar&shy;chist. As you know, three or four per&shy;fect&shy;ly inno&shy;cent boys who were coming back from a game of tennis were arres&shy;ted too, but I think it had some&shy;thing to do with my being an anar&shy;chist that I was able to spot an error made by this police&shy;man in plan&shy;ting his evi&shy;dence and that the general sus&shy;pi&shy;cion of police&shy;men which for in&shy;stance pre&shy;ven&shy;ted me from com&shy;plain&shy;ing against the beha&shy;viour of one police&shy;man to another police&shy;man, that sus&shy;pi&shy;cion made me keep quiet in the police station and hold my story and my evi&shy;dence and my defence until we came to the {{w|magis&shy;trate{{s}} court|Magistrates'_court_(England_and_Wales)}}. I think it takes either an anar&shy;chist or a lawyer to realise that this is a sensi&shy;ble thing to do. Before the Challenor case I mainly thought of the police as a re&shy;pres&shy;sive agency and some&shy;thing that one ought to fight against. Since then I{{ve}} had it rammed down my throat through watch&shy;ing it, what the police&shy;man{{s}} job was. It{{s}} a very diffi&shy;cult job and in&shy;stead of saying now we ought to be rid of the police force I would rather say that the society which needs a police force is a sick society. It{{s}} not the same thing at all as saying that you could cure society by getting rid of the police force. The police force is rather like crut&shy;ches. With all its faults I suppose at the present day it{{s}} neces&shy;sary. And that{{s}} an opi&shy;nion that I didn{{t}} have before I was arres&shy;ted.
 </div></div>
+[[Category:Anarchist philosophy]]
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Conversations about anarchism}}