In order to understand how a society can live without government, one need only look into the depths of the present society, and one will see how, in fact, the greater part, the essential part of the life of society, carries on, even today, outside of government intervention, and how government intervenes only in order to exploit the masses, to defend the privileged and, finally, to sanction, quite pointlessly, everything that gets done without it and indeed despite and against it.
Government is the body of individuals who have received or assumed the right and the wherewithal to make laws and to force people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc., are by contrast, men who receive some task and who see to its completion. "Government" signifies the delegation of power, which is to say the abdication of everyone's initiative and sovereignty into the hands of a few. "Administration" signifies delegation of work, which is to say, 'task assigned and task accepted' and free exchange of services on the basis of free contracts.
He who governs is a privileged person, since he has the right to command others and utilize others' strengths in order to bring about the triumph of his own ideals and wishes. The administrator, the technical director, etc., are workers like all the rest--- provided of course, that we are speaking of a society wherein everyone has equal access to growth, where everyone is, or can be, simultaneously brain workers and manual workers, wherein all tasks, all duties, entail equal entitlement to enjoyment of social amenities. The function of government  should not be confused with the function of administration, for they are different in essence, for, whereas today they may be mistaken one for the other, this can be attributed to economic and political privilege.

But let us move on speedily to the functions of government for which government is regarded--- by all who are not anarchists --- as truly indispensable: the defense of a society, within and without; which is to say "war", "policing", and "justice".
Once governments have been done away with and society's wealth placed at the disposal of all, all of the antagonism between different peoples will very quickly evaporate and there will be no more justification for war. 
Let us suppose, though, that the governments of countries as yet unemancipated should attempt to reduce a free people to servitude again. Will the latter require a government in order to defend itself? The waging of warfare requires men with requisite geographical and technical expertise, and, above all, masses willing to fight. A government can add nothing to the competence of the one, nor the resolution and courage of the other. Historical experience teaches us how a people truly desirous of defending its own country is invincible: in Italy, everyone knows how thrones collapsed and regular armies made up of conscripts or enlisted men melted away before the volunteer corps (an anarchist formation).
And what of "policing"? What of "Justice"? Many imagine that if there were no gendarmes, police and judges around, everyone would be at liberty to kill, rape, and maim his neighbor: that the anarchists, in name of their principles, would like to see respected this queer freedom that rapes and destroys the life and liberty of other folk. They are all but convinced that, once we have destroyed government and private property, we would blithely allow both to be re-established, out of regard for the "liberty" of those who might feel the need to be governors and proprietors. A truly queer construction to place upon our ideas! True, it is easier, with a shrug of the shoulders, to dispose of them that way rather than to take the trouble to refute them.

The liberty we seek, for ourselves and for others, is not that absolute, abstract, metaphysical liberty which, in practice, inevitably translates into oppression of the weak, but rather, real liberty, the achievable liberty represented by conscious community of interests and willing solidarity. We proclaim the maxim" "Do what you will", and we condense our program, so to speak, into that, because, as will readily be understood, we are convinced that in a harmonious society, in a society without government and without property, "each will want what will be his duty." Were it not for the equivocation by means of which an attempt is made to head off the social revolution, we might assert that Anarchy is a synonym for socialism.

--Errico Malatesta--

Having established that, let me try to spell out for you briefly and quickly what Anarchy means to me, without thereby speaking for other comrades who may, on given matters, hold views differing from mine. 

That the social system today is in a bad way you will not dispute, and the proof is that everyone suffers by it. From the wretched vagrant, breadless and homeless, forever hungry, to the billionaire who lives in constant fear of rebellion by the starvelings upsetting his digestion, the whole of mankind has its worries.
Upon what foundations does bourgeois society rest? Discounting the precepts of family, nation and faith, which are merely its corollaries, we can state that the two corner stones, the two underylying principles of the existing State are authority and property.
I am loath to expound upon this point at greater length. It would be easy for me to show that all the ills we suffer flow from property and authority. Poverty, theft, crime, prostitution, wars, and revolutions are merely the products of these principles.
So the twin foundations of society being evil, there are no grounds for hesitation. No need to try out a heap of palliatives (to wit, socialism) that serve only to relocate the evil: the twin seeds of vice must be destroyed and eradicated from the life of society. Which is why we anarchists seek to replace individual ownership with Communism, and authority with liberty.
No more title deeds, then; no more titles of ascendancy: rather, absolute equality.

When we say absolute equality, we are not claiming that all men are to have the same brains, the same physical make-up: we are very well aware that there will always be the widest variation in intellectual and bodily aptitudes. It is that variety in capabilities that will see to the production of everything that humanity needs, and we are also counting upon it to sustain emulation in an anarchist society.
Self-evidently, there will be engineers and there will be builders, but the one will pretend to no superiority over the other: for the engineer's work would count for nothing without the assistance of the builder and vice-versa.  With everyone free to choose the trade he will follow, there will no longer be creatures in thrall to the inclinations naturally within them ( a guarantee of productivity).

At which point, a question is posed. What about the lazy? Will everyone be willing to work?

To which our answer is: yes, everyone will be willing to work, and here is the reason why: today, the average workingday is ten hours long. Lots of workers are engaged in tasks of absolutely no use to society, particularly in the manufacture of military armaments for the land based and marine services. Many, too, are stricken by unemployment. Add to these the considerable number of able-bodied men producing nothing: soldiers, priests, police, magistrates, civil servants, etc. Thus we can argue, without fear of being accused of exaggeration, that out of every one hundred persons capable of performing some work, only fifty turn in an effort of any real use to society. It is these fifty that produce the entire wealth of society. From which it follows that if everyone were to work, the working day, instead of being ten hours, would fall to just five hours.
Bear in mind, too, that in the current situation, the total of manufactured products and the sum of agricultural output outweighs by multiples the amount required to meet the needs of humanity--- which is to say that a human race three times as numerous could be clothed, housed, heated, fed, in short, could have all its needs me, if the surplus production was not destroyed through waste and many other factors. 
So, from the foregoing we can deduce the following conclusion: A sociery in which everyone would do his bit for production and which owuld be content with production not greatly in excess of its needs (the excess of the former over the latter should build up a small reserve), nedd require of each of its able-bodied members only two or three hours' labor, maybe even less. So who would refuse to contribute such a tiny amount of labor? Who would be willing to live with the shame of being despised by everybody and regarded as a parasite?

Property and authority always march in step, the one supporting the other to keep humanity enslaved! What is property right? Can it be right that one man should eat while another starves? No. Nature, when she created us, made us similar creatures, and a laborer's stomach demands the same satisfactions as a financier's. And yet today, one class has appropriated everything, robbing the other class not just of the sustenance of the body but also of the sustenance of the mind. Yes, in an age dubbed the age of progress and science, is it not painful to think that millions of minds thirsting for knowlede are denied the opportunity for improvement? How many children of the people, who might have made men of great value to humanity, will never know anything beyond the few rudiments drummed into them in primary school?

Property--- that is the enemy of human happiness, for it gives rise to inequality, and thence to hatred, envy, and bloody revolution. Authority is merely property's sanction. Its function is to place force in the service of spoliation.
Since labor is a call of nature, you will agree with me that no one will shirk the responsibility for such a paltry effort as we mentioned above. (Labor is such a call of nature that history shows us statesmen happily dodging the cares of policy in order to toil like ordinary workmen. To cite only two well-known instances: Louis the XVI dabbled in the locksmith's trade, and "the grand old man" Gladstone spent his spent his holidays chopping down oak trees in his woodland, like a common woodsman.)

So you can see, Monsieurs, that there will not be any need to have recourse to law to abolish laziness. If, by some fluke, however, someone did want to deny his colleagues his contribution, it would still be cheaper to feed such a wretch, who cannot but be sick, than it is to maintain legislators, magistrates, police officers and warders in order to curb him. Many other questions arise, but these are of secondary significance: the important this was to establish that the abolition of property and taking from the common store would not lead to a halt in production as a reslut of an upsurge in idleness, and that the anarchist society could feed itself and provide for its every need. Any other objections that might be raised will easily be rebutted on the basis that an anarchist setting will develop solidarity and love of his fellows in every one of its members, for man will know that in producing for others he will be at the same time working on his own behalf.

One objection which might appear to have more substance is this:
If there is no authority anymore, if there is no more fear of the policeman to stay the hands of criminals, do we not risk seeing offenses and crimes proliferating to frightening extent? The answer is simple:
The crime committed today can be classified under two main headings: crimes for gain and crimes of passion. The former will vanish of its own accord, for there will no longer be any point to such offenses, trespasses against property, in a setting where property has been abolished. As for the latter, no legislation can prevent them. Far from it. The existing law which frees the spouse who has murdered his adulterous wife is merely an ecouragement to such crimes.
By contrast, an anarchist environment will raise humanity's moral standards. Man will grasp that he has no rights over a woman who is simply acting on conformity with her own nature. As a result, in the future society, crime will become rarer and rarer, until it dissappears completely.

Let me sum it up for you, Monsieurs, my ideal of an anarchist society.
No more authority, which is a lot more contrary to the happiness of humanity than the few excesses which might attend the birth of a free society. Instead of the current authoritarian organization, individuals combined on the basis of sympaties and affinities, without laws or leaders. No more private property: products held in common; everyone working in accordance with his needs, and everybody consuming in accordance with his needs, which is to say, according to his whim.
No more selfish bourgeois family making man woman's property and woman property of man, requiring two creatures who happen to have been in love for a moment to bind themselves one to the other until the end of their days.
Nature is capricious, forever questing after new sensations. She wants free love. Which is why we advocate the free union.
No more fatherlands, no more hatred between brothers, pitting one against the other, men who have never even laid eyes on one another.
Replacement of the chauvinist's narrow, petty attatchement to his homeland with open, fertile love of the whole of humanity, without distinctions of race or color.
No more religions, forged by priests for the degredation of the masses and to afford them hope of a better life while they themselves savor this earthly life.
Instead, the continual pursuit of the sciences, made accessible to everyone who may be inclined to study them, nursing men gradually towards a materialist consciousness.
In short, no further impediment to the free development of human nature. Unfettered exercise of all physical, intellectual and mental faculties.

I am not such an optimist as to expect that a society with such foundations should straight-away arrive at perfect harmony. But it is my profound conviction that two or three generations will prove enough to wrest man away from the influence of the artificial civilization to which he is subject today and return him to the state of nature, which is the state of nature, which is the state state of kindness and love. But if this ideal is to succeed, and an anarchist society is to be erected upon solid foundations, we must start with the work of destruction. To old, worm-eaten structure must be cast down, which is what we shall do. The bourgeoisie claims that we shall never reach our goal. The future will teach it differently.

 Emile Henry

Emma Goldman once stated: "Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot consider themselves nobler, better, grander, more intelligent than those living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.
The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that from early infancy the mind of the child is provided with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner."

History abounds with examples which excoriate the fallacy of nationalism, exposing it for the odious, rancorous lie which it demonstrably, undeniably is. Let us take for our pertinent example the "nation" of Spain. The "nation" of Spain is said to occupy about 4/5ths of the Iberian Penninsula, at the terminus of western Europe. Framed on the east by the Pyranees mountains, the land mass is characterized by plains and hills. It has been inhabited by a variety of people throughout history. Some of the earliest evidence of modern human habitation of Europe is found in Spain, as well as numerous pre-human (Neanderthal) sites. The region is home to the Basque language, which is one of the oldest languages on earth, even predating the expansion of the Indo-European language groups into western europe, and has no surviving relatives. The region was a critical battleground for the conflict between the Roman and Cartheginian empires, eventually becoming a Roman province. It is argued that Castilian Spanish (notably argued mostly by Castilians) is the closest surviving relative of the original Roman Latin. After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the region existed as a series of independant, occaisionally warring provinces, until it was conquered by the Moors. The Moors, a group of moslims from northern Africa, crossed the straits of Gibraltar, bringing within them an enduring peace and an enlightened society, which stood for nearly 800 years like a beacon of civilization and prosperity in contrast to the barbarism of medieval Europe. The Moors were eventually expelled by a genocidal group of Christian Zealots from the region of Castille, who through military campaigns and inquisitions, were able to remove the Moors from Spain, leaving the areas largely depopulated by virtue of expulsion or slaughter. The small population of Christian Spain was insufficient to fill the void of the now empty lands, so the monarchy opened the lands up for settlement by the burgeoning population of France. A massive influx of French people left a permanent mark on the landscape, and also the Spanish Language, both of which are readily observable to this very day. As with many feudal societies, Spain became heavily provincial; people from Asturias were Asturian first, Spanish second; Aragonese were Aragonese, Castillians were Castillians. Being Spanish was really only useful for the purposes of the monarchy and Church, and the dissimilarities culturally and linguistically between the provinces are still evident, and contentious, to this day. Rather than one nation, it was a loose collection of people and provinces which were not only distinct but also often at odds with one another, occasionally identifying as Spanish for convenience and military or political expediency.

During the 1930's, when the Fascists, or Nationalists as they preferred to call themselves, endevored to overthrow the rule of the people of Spain, they claimed to fight for "Hispanitud", or "Spanishness". The Fascists utilized a number of historical comparisons in their propaganda; especially favored was the idea that they were going to "re-conquer" Spain from the forces of liberalism and democracy, as the Castillians had done when they expelled the Moors (Ironically, the vast majority of Nationalist troops were conscripts from Morocco, decendents of the Moors). But was it Castillian Spanishness? Or Aragonese Spanishness? It couldn't have been the Spanishness of the French settlers, and certainly wasn't the Spanishness of the Moors, who controlled Spain for longer than the Spanish; nor was it the Spanishness of the Romans or Cartheginians, nor the Basques nor the Gauls nor the Neanderthals. In reality, the Spanishness they proffered was an elaborate series of bland, chauvunistic euphamisms for exactly nothing. There is no historical "Spanishness", and even today there is still none. The fascists sought to create a myth of national purity, because doing so allowed them to put themselves in a position whereby they were the sole judges of that supposed purity. Acting as though they were the divinely-appointed guardians of this ridiculous nationalist mendacity, they could justify the mass slaughter of whomsoever they saw fit, for political expedience. History falls to the wayside when the powerful have a mythology to support their agenda, and no matter how ridiculous that myth may be, no matter how demonstrably false, the powerful will stop at nothing to make sure that myth goes unquestioned. 

The story of Spain is the same for all nations, though of course the anecdotal information is different. The nation is a myth; a powerful, destructive myth, which lays waste to the earth and makes slaves of its people. Nations require for their sustenance the exploitation and domination of the people contained within them; the cruelty engendered in this system naturally creates a high degree of instability and resentment among the exploited. The mythology of a nation is critical to its ruling class, because beyond the force of violence of deprivation, the ruling class has else nothing by which to justify their domination of the proliteriat. People believe myths, people love myths. We incoroporate these myths, taught to us since birth, into our psyches and define ourselves by them. The ruling class who are served by these myths also retain the power to alter them to fit their political, economic, or military schemes and designs. The utility for the ruling class of national myths cannot be overstated, because people will work for myths, people will fight for myths, people will die for myths. And the ruling class is always very interested in making sure that they can get people to work for them, to fight for them, and to die for them. The nationalist myth is the only distinction between the governments today and the tyrants of history. The difference between Ghengis Khan and Benyamin Netanyahu is that Netanyahu wants to make sure that your neighbors believe his lies before his troops crush you and your family. At least the Mongols were honest in their conquests: they didn't claim to fight for some purpoted "mongolianness" or some ridiculous national myth that their god chose them to be the rulers of the world. When the Mongols destroyed your irrigation systems and burned your orhcards and razed your village, they didn't try to enforce some circuitous logic to make the victim into the villain. They wanted plunder, they wanted power; in this they were no different than the plutarchs and tyrants who rule our world today.

The plain fact is that nations technically, literally do not exist. They aren't real in any sense of the word. Go to the borders of a country, and look to the ground. You will find no dividing line, though one may be supposed to be present. Perhaps you will find a wall, or a some natural barrier; but the land on either side of the wall will be roughly the same, and the mountains and rivers of this world far predate mankind and his petty machinations. Where is this nation which delineates these territories? The nation is not the wall: the wall is merely artifice, a stacking of meaningless rubble. Perhaps the nation can be found in its documents? But these are merely parchement and ink, having no power beyond any other piece of paper. Is the nation the man in the uniform with his weapons, or the politician and his lies? No, for these are merely men, fallible and mortal as any other.
The nation is an elaborate fantasy which lives only in the imaginations of people. Though it may build edifices of marble or gold, though it may wage wars and issue decrees and cause incalculable suffering and destruction, these things are not themselves the stuff of nations. They are the affects of nations. A nation is nothing, literally nothing, but a frankenstein construct of a myriad of lies and myths with one unifying purpose: to make certain that the downtrodden and exploited remain so, and to make sure that those who have power keep that power. And though both king and peasant may be made to believe the same myth, for that the myth is no more true. 

The most potent weapon against the nation is simple disbelief. Since it lives only in the minds of people, all that is needed to destroy any nation is to deny it it's feeding grounds. To change the minds of men can be simpler than it may seem, and once a person has seen the fallacy for what it is, they can never return to belief. Starve the nation of minds, and it will fall more easily than a house of cards.

We are already free. The people are inhibited only by the lies they believe; lies that they are powerless, lies that they are inferior, lies that they need leaders, lies that evil is the condition of man. The yoke of opression, the chains which bind us to tyranny and exploitation, have only the wieght which the individual gives to them. Their strength exists only to the extent that an individual may be made to identify with them, to accept them. Even the whip of governmental reproach and reaction which scourges the flesh of free people is powerless in the shining light of undeniable truth. They can steal our lands, burn our works, and take from us our very lives. But they cannot, for all of their lies and all of their cruelty, deprive us of our convictions, and no amount of violence or coercion is sufficient to subjugate once more a mind which has been liberated by truth.
We've already won, comrades. Let's go out into the world and enjoy our victory. Spread the word. Sing it loud, sing it proud. Shout it, scream it, print it, post it; just don't wait for it. 

Dan

---Voline

In reality, the conference itself is little more than a media-friendly opportunity for the bastard figureheads of state to display a carefully scripted interest in the proceedings so as to appear engaged and in charge, whereas all of the important decision-making and negotiations have already been concluded in the preceeding years and months by various delegations, committees, and other interested (and powerful) parties. Then, when the corporate media's cameras are rolling, our handsome bastard leaders come in and take all the political credit for accomplishing absolutely nothing while managing to conceal the fact that they are total pawns of the true power brokers. Since the conference is primarily designed as a media event, it is also a perfect opportunity for the diverse groups in opposition to the unilateral policies of the G-20 to make their voices heard, in the streets and around the world. Protests have famously followed the G-8, G-20, and affiliated organizations, wherever they have gone the world over. On the first of April, the G-20 convened in London, and met record-setting crowds of protestors of every political persuasion. The protests have a two-fold effect: they increase solidarity and connectivity between disperate groups, and they help to reveal the true allegiances of the institutions which dominate our lives--- governments and police forces loyal not to their people, but to the economic interests of the capitalist establishment and the ruling elite.

Time and again, the forces of oppression show the astounding lengths to which they will go to crush opposition and dissent. Media suppression is critical to the establishment in this regard- when the RNC met in Minneapolis, USA, to nominate their Presidential candidate in 2008, nearly all independant media was pre-emptively raided and falsely incarcerated days before the event; protest organizers were thrown in jail indefinately on trumped-up charges. In Tehran, Iran, there was an explosion of state violence and a media crack-down, including the arrest, inprisonment, and torture of journalists native and foriegn alike, following a disputed presidential election. Despite the best efforts of the Iranian State, the story of the struggle of the People of Iran reverberated the world over, and could not be contained. This was mirrored in China during a brutal series of repressions against ethnic Uighurs, which featured a near full shut-down of the internet by state authorities. Even though the Chinese State is quite experienced in keeping its oppression quiet, they too were unable to prevent the world's attention from being drawn. In London during the G-20 protests of April, the police targeted cameras and the people holding them, aggressively and proactively attacked peaceful crowds, and even killed a man. We can expect all of this and possibly more when the G-20 comes to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, towards the end of September of this year, and no amount of disinformation or intimidation will silence the voices of those gathered there to voice their opposition.

In spite of the obstacles placed before them by well-funded institutions and powerful, oppressive states, organizers in Pittsburgh have begun to prepare the way for people from all over the USA and all over the world, of every persuasion, to come to their town and make their voices heard against the monolithic power of the G20. The People of Pittsburgh have a long and splendid history of resisting oppression and exploitation, and with the G20 coming to town, there has never been a better time to show solidarity with their struggles, and the struggles of the people of the world. They have generously made available a variety of resources, which can be found at

http://resistg20.org
and
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090818143344925

See you there.

Hale

Although democracy is not itself a specific type of government, many governments credit themselves as having "democratic character". Rhetorically, this is meant to imply that, through majoritarian decision-making, popular consensus can be achieved with coercion, exploitation, and violations of individual rights being kept to a minimum. However, as is immediately apparent upon serious examination and reflection, most if not all governments (whether "democratic" in character or not) are, as a requisite feature of their nature, structurally dependant upon precisely the types of coercion, domination, and exploitation which they claim to remedy. The word "Democracy" is Greek in origin. "Demo" meaning "people", and "Kratos" meaning "to rule";  democracy is a term which means that the people rule themselves. Not one person set above all (monarchy), not one group or party for themselves over others (oligarchy), but literally the people ruling themselves, not set above or below one another--- all for one and one for all, so to speak. Governments said to have "democratic character" claim to aspire to this state of affairs and seek to achieve it by employing means which are, both in theory and practice, antithetical to and destructive of this goal.

Modern democratic thought is highly influenced by a philosopher named John Stuart Mill, particularly so by what he called "Utilitarianism". J.S. Mill's principle of Utilitarianism is stated, very briefly, that the goal of society is to achieve the highest amount of good possible for the largest amount of people possible, while minimizing detriment to the maximal degree possible. This carries with it the implication that there will always and necessarily be a degree of exploitation and disservice, and that such are inexorably linked to any degree of happiness and prosperity to be achieved by anyone. Which fits perfectly well with a majoritarian approach to democracy, wherein the majority opinion is enforced against dissent through arms, guile, or economics to the exclusion and detriment of minority opinion, no matter how large or slim the majority dividing the two may be. Therefore a society fashioned around such principles, presuming that the "good" for one group is predicated upon the "not-good" of others (no matter how large or small in number), as a necessary structural component of its existence, will always divide its population into groups (along whatever culturally specific criterion established by that society) which experience varying and unequal degrees of service, status, and acceptance. Thus, society is segregated into various classes.
Indeed, J.S. Mill was very influential in enlightenment-era philosophical discourse. His work was, and is, integral to the development of the idea of the so-called "social contract", which is instrumental to the structures of Constitutionally-Democratic governments. J.S. Mill's work on the subject was oriented around a hypothetical condition which he termed "the original position", which very simply stated is this: that human beings as a fact of their existence, being weaker than other animals, needed to assemble in groups by which to conduct collective activity for their very survival, and that at such time as these individuals coalesced into their groups, they entered into an arrangement whereby, for the functioning of the group along the Utilitarian precepts mentioned above, certain individual rights are surrendered in exchange for the services and benefits, to be agreed upon at the time of this formation, rendered by collective activity in the context of this new society. J.S. Mill postulated that individuals entered into this arrangement under another hypothetical condition which he artistically termed a "veil of ignorance", in which the individuals were unaware of their social class relative to each other, either because social class was to be invented in the terms of the social contract or because the social contract pre-dated the advent of social class, in which case dichotomous social standing was the supposedly natural result of the interplay between individuals of differing backgrounds and talents. Most Constitutional governments that formed contemporaneously with Mill, and for long after as well, were highly influenced by these premises, and almost totally dependant upon them in many cases. Their influence persists to this very day.

The obvious flaw in Mill's "Original Position" is that this never happened. Human beings and their societies didn't just appear one day, fully formed yet unaware of themselves. Society (Here defined: a group of individuals interacting in a social context for mutual benefit) in fact pre-dates human existence. Our closest kin in the animal world, apes, all exhibit their own types of societies, which function often times very similarly to our own. Our ancestors, Hominids, themselves descendants of apes, also had their own societies. In fact, society is a survival adaptation of our kind, and is that which has made possible the development of our species. For literally millions of years, existing in society has influenced individuals; indeed, humans cannot live (well) outside the context of society, for our development as a species has been within the context of society since long before we were recognizably human! This precludes J.S. Mill's notion that humans existed at one time outside of society and coalesced into societies as a necessary factor for the survival of the individual. To sum, rather than society being the spontaneous result of the interaction between diverse individuals, the very opposite is true; individuals exist because of their development within and interactions with society, and cultural diversity as well is the result of the cumulative interactions between individuals, society, and the ongoing development of both--- a result of evolution.

If segregation of human society into classes were a natural fact of our human development, it would be ubiquitous throughout all human societies the world over, and at all times. If class division were a natural part of human society, as is the case with creatures like ants, there would be no society anywhere without it, and that is clearly not the case. Numerous societies throughout time, many even still in the present, did not exhibit this culturally specific trait. It is not necessary for there to be one group to rule and another to serve, nor indeed is such a dichotomy appropriate or ethical. The presence of this and other inequities are the result of a society built largely on deception and false premises which enable those in power to justify to themselves the abuses they utilize to maintain their power, as well as to convince those who are abused that nothing can be done to improve their situation. To reference the opening quote from Churchill, democracy is not a government, nor has it ever been tried. Democracy and government cannot exist in the same place at the same time. Government itself, whether authoritarian or majoritarian, is totally destructive of democracy. Government forces individuals and groups to submit to authority in order to serve the authority's goals, whether that authority is violent, religious, or "democratic in character"; without exception the goals of the ruling class are self-servicing are always achieved at the expense of whatever group or groups do not possess comparable power or influence. Real democracy is only possible when there is no government and no class division. Make no mistake and do not be fooled--- anything less than real democracy is nothing less than another mutation of tyranny.

Real democracy is not hierarchical--- it does not require some to submit to others, or proclaim some individuals as superior and others as inferior. Real democracy is a society for all people everywhere, without preconditions of servitude, or of debt, or of sacrifice as pre-requisites for participation or receipt of benefit. It is not faith, it is not slavery; it is neither poverty nor wealth, neither scarcity nor excess; it is not the dominance of one race or of one religion or of one class over any other. It is reason, and science, and understanding, and empathy. Real democracy is sustainable and equal, each producing according to ability and each receiving according to need. It is liberty, equality, and fraternity, without amendment or abrogation. Real democracy grows without end, ever changing to respond and adapt to ever changing circumstances, and holds nothing sacrosanct or static. Real democracy is free and equal individuals working with their free and equal peers, not serving institutions under pain of death or threat of suffering.
To say that it has not been tried is not entirely accurate--- democracy has been tried every time that a people have risen up in revolution to cast off the chains of domination and oppression- it has been tried the world over and throughout history, in movements great and small. Often the greater immediate achievements are brutally repressed by the reactionary hubris of the ruling class, in a vain effort to turn back the ever-rising tide of human advancement and to preserve their own status as slave masters and overseers. Though the immediate achievements of revolutions might be turned back temporarily, the effect of their example is cumulative. All the greatest achievements of free people--- minority rights, women's rights, labor rights, free speech, all had to be hard won through difficult struggle and revolutionary action, and a still better world is yet to won! Democracy grows upon those revolutions which have come before, and contributes to those yet to come, building towards an ever freer world; a better world without slaves or masters, without exploitation or domination; without governments, or corporate kleptocracies. Real freedom, real equality, real democracy--- Anarchy is the practice and implementation of these things. Through Anarchy, they are not just ideals--- they are realities, and they are worth struggling for.

The governments of today, servants of the ruling class and veiled by the insulting farce of democracy which scarcely hides their naked greed and aggression, are quite literally a dead-end for humanity. They are unsustainable, and if allowed to continue as they have done and as they do now, the survival of the entire human race is in very serious peril. Anarchism is the way to a sustainable society, one with which the human species can continue ever onward into a future of limitless development. Don't believe what you've been told by your state, and never accept things as just being said and done--- another world is possible, and the future is ours.

-Hale-