Questions about Anarchism

Could you please give a brief description of what you believe anarchy to be? How does it work? I am having a difficult time figuring out just how we are to survive without goverment/police and the like.

Well it's a huge subject and I'd prefer it if you followed up some of the links on our links page and looked at some of the varied and fascinating anarchist sites on the web - or go to a bookshop and order a book by Malatesta, Bookchin, Goldman, or Berkman. But in a nutshell, here we go: Anarchy is a state of organisation without authority. Where people can organise their lives without being told what to do. It's a state of freedom and equality where our only constraints are responsibility to each other's needs. Basically Chumbawamba has this belief, but that belief would be stupid if we didn't try to put it into practise in some way. So we organise ourselves along anarchist lines. We don't vote, as we believe that 'democracy' (as people see it) leads to people being dissatisfied - there are eight of us, and we feel it's useless having five people happy about a decision and three people unhappy. Everything is discussed and debated and argued and compromised; it may take a little longer, but eventually we have a decision which we all agree on. This is how we, as a group of people, have managed to maintain our relationships in work for over 15 years. Anarchism is the spread of this type of organisation across communities and states and countries, where people really do feel that they are part of their community and not just some nodding dog who is required to put a cross in a box every five years. We believe in class, in revolution, and in the death of all manufactured boy-bands. But unless you sit down with one of us at a concert somewhere, the best answer to this question which you'll get is to go and follow up some of the links we've put up to anarchists sites on our 'links' page.

What made you become anarchists? And why?
We heard the word 'anarchist' through punk rock. The Sex Pistols were described as anarchists and the way our parents and straight society hated this band and it's ideas only increased the attraction. Bands seemed to be rejecting repression and hypocrisy (and they looked fucking brilliant) and that was a huge draw. We identified with these people at gut level. Punk rock was the most exciting thing in the world, but I think we wanted more than just a musical style coalition, we wanted to be part of upsetting and overthrowing the old order. If you had a weird haircut in the late seventies/early eighties people would gawp at you in the street (they still do it now in Las Vegas.) Straight society acted like you could kidnap their children with a flick of a quiff, and in a sense you could; there were loads of kids who were drawn to punk rock's rebellious glamour. But a haircut wasn't enough. The bands we respected fitted better into a scruffy anorak than they did into the 'industry'. The bands with the most extreme ideas all seemed to have connections to anarchism. So we started trying to find out what anarchism actually was. I remember reading Malatesta and finding his explanations of the world made perfect sense. Anarchism/personal responsibility seemed to offer a lifeline to a better world, one where imagination, co-operation and kindness replaced power structures, fear and money. It refuted the idea that society needs leaders because people are too mean and stupid to lead themselves. It challenged the notion that capitalism was a good social order and demanded that we struggle against brutality and inequality... and at the same time anarchists were the most stylish people we knew. Dressed in ideas and black they looked and sounded brilliant. Sexual attraction plays a big part in any and every youth movement, but our attraction to anarchism didn't leave with our teens.

Are you guys Individualist Anarchists or Social Anarchists? We are not 'individualists', generally it is the far right that goes for that line, and they use it to justify grabbing whatever the individual wants no matter how selfish. I did not even know there was such terminology as Individualist Anarchists and Social Anarchists but I do think that human beings are basically social and our lives are inter-connected and we are kidding ourselves if we think we can (or do) exist alone. The concept of the 'self' is quite new. Rosa Luxemburg said: "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." And I take that to mean, not that we should act however we feel regardless of the effect it has on society and the people around us, but that we should respect the rights of others even if we don't want to live in the same way.

The questions to which I have never gotten a satisfactory answer are these: What happens in an anarchic society when someone does not want to go along with the will of the majority, defined as the decision of the group? Or, along the same lines, what happens when someone does not show responsibility to another's needs? Is there coercion, banishment, what? And who is responsible for determining when someone is not showing responsibility to another's needs? Who is responsible for meting out the appropriate sanction, whatever that may be? How does anarchy then avoid the creation, witting or unwitting, of a "ruling class"? Society implies social interaction - call it what you want: bartering, trading,...whatever. What happens when someone does not hold up their end of a barter or trade? Is coercion and/or sanction necessarily involved?
Firstly, an anarchist society does not and cannot depend on 'the will of the majority '. That's what a lot of democratic societies are based on right now, societies where 51% of the people can decide what the 'minority' 49% should do. Anarchism is based on people reaching decisions where there may be persuasion and debate and argument and reason, but not coercion and majority-rule. Secondly, I won't go into the questions in detail since I think you'd be better served by having me point you to a couple of other people's writings. Namely, Errico Malatesta ad Albert Meltzer. There's a booklet by Meltzer called 'Anarchism: Arguments For and Against ' which I think is brilliant and which answered a lot of questions for me when I first wondered what anarchists thought. It was originally written in the early '80's but it's still relevant - simply written, to the point, and what's more it's small and cheap. I think there's an edition published by AK Press right now which costs about $6 (or £4) and I recommend it. Malatesta was an Italian anarchist around the turn of the century who wrote some concise, well-explained books and essays about anarchism. I'd go for Malatesta's 'Anarchy', another cheap booklet and still available. I'm not trying to cop out by not answering these questions-just tried to think about what answered my questions when I was trying to find out about anarchism all those years ago.

I was wondering, myself being a very rational person, atheist, radical, etc. if Chumbawamba's members all share the same views on life and whether there are differences, if so which? Basically what is your manifesto, creed or thoughts. If we didn't have differences we'd be a religious sect. I like to shop more than the rest of them (maybe bar Dunstan) but we generally get on very well. There's no religious freaks, budding Richard Bransons or Man United fans in our midst. We actually probably disagree on as many things as we agree on but to get an overall idea of what we think then have a surf round the website or read some of our sleevenotes. Even go so far as listening to a Chumbawamba album. You'll get the general idea...