(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation - INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHIST COMMUNISM (APRIL 2013 EDITION) 3. Who We Are and What We Believe:

3. Who We Are and What We Believe: Revolution and Anarchist Communism ---- Revolution and 
Revolutionaries ---- Revolutionaries 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 
oppressing people because of their race or gender. ---- We believe that capitalism must be 
destroyed and a new society ? an anarchist communist 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 called 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. Revolutionaries 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 that we see time and time again should be enough to prove this.

Secondly, reforms are only granted by governments when they are scared of something 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 them and simply doing things for themselves. This 
is direct action, when people act for themselves without waiting for permission from any 
higher authority. Governments will make almost any concession to stop such movements.
Because of this, revolutionaries are often attacked as utopian, as imagining unrealistic 
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. Successive governments attack public 
services in the name of 'pragmatism', the unions sell out to management because it's 
'practical', authoritarian revolutionaries 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 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 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-organisation. 
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 lobbying an MP 
or going through union negotiations is not. Squatting derelict land and turning 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 
organising 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 simply 
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 destroying 
the state, not taking it over, can we free ourselves.

For anarchists, direct action and self organisation are essential tools for freeing 
ourselves. 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.

Anarchist Communism

These ideas have not just been plucked out of thin air. They have been developed by 
millions 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 against first 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. 
Everyone 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, 
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. Everything 
we will be after capitalism we must learn under it and through the fight against it. The 
revolution is not and never can be a blank slate ? that way lies 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.

Workers' Councils: Organising the Revolution

One 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 revolutions 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 debate 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 help 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.

End 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 
immediate 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 capitalism 
in the here and now means one of two things: either a lifestyle or individualist 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 capitalism 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 living 
'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 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. Capitalism 
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 
queer or transgender, as professionals with some perks, or temporary workers 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 minimise 
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 situation 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 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 increasing 
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 themselves 
as providing examples that can be taken up by other people and perhaps eventually become 
state policy. Things like the Transition Towns 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 revolutionary. 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 themselves 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 
community 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 taking 
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 organisation 
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.

However, there are important weaknesses in these approaches that limit their usefulness. 
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 alternative, 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 confrontational 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 replacements 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 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. According 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 something 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 deliberately 
discouraged and hidden in a capitalist world. The alternative is a culture of resistance, 
a set of bonds of solidarity and understanding between many different 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 situations will seem to come from nowhere, 
surprising governments and professional revolutionaries alike. This culture is not a 
particular organisation or set of principles 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 of ordinary people as it is about any 
particular set of ideas or organisations.

Defending the Revolution: The Kronstadt Uprising

The 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 to 
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 
had 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 peasants, anarchists and member 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 workers' 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.

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 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, occupations 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 community 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 capitalism 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 solidarity 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 everything 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 different 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 
possible 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.
/4. 5.