Anarchy in Action*
If you have followed this pamphlet so far, you should have' a fairly reasonable idea of what an
anarchist society is. The Problem is how to get from here to there.
Within anarchism there are many different but related ideas. There are complete systems of
anarchist political theory going by names like federalism, mutualism, individualism, syndicalism,
anarchist-communism, anarcha-feminism, situationism, and so on.
The arguments between different brands of anarchism have been going on for a long time and are
too involved for an introductory pamphlet.
However, if we think in terms of what anarchism says needs to be done now, it turns out that there
is considerable agreement between brands. Each strand emphasises the importance of action in a
particular area of life.
If you begin to put the ideas of the following pages into practice, you will start to work out your own
version of anarchism. By doing this you will be adding a new member to a movement that always
needs new members, particularly ones who have thought things through. Try your ideas out on your
friends, read more on anarchism, talk with other anarchists!
Be an independent thinker. there is no other sort.
Organizing In The Workplace
Traditionally, anarchists believe that the main problem with the world is that it is divided into masters
and `wage slaves'. If we could get rid of the bosses and run industry ourselves, for the benefit of our
own needs not theirs, it would clearly make a big improvement and would transform every area of
There are, however, some anarchists who believe the working class is so used to being enslaved
that some other route to revolution will have to be found.
An anarchist at work, however, will usually at least try to get his or her workmates to organise
themselves. We try to spread the simple idea that by sticking together we resist being pushed
around. This is best done by talking to workmates, becoming accepted and trusted by them, rather
than by high pressure preaching. Solidarity can best be learned through action.
Anarchists try to be ready for strikes when they happen. Usually the most important task in such
situations is to undermine the power of the official union line and get people working together
directly rather than through the `proper channels'. The point of anarchism is to seize control of our
own lives, not to hand it over to an official for a sell out. As it happens such direct action is the tried
and tested way of winning industrial battles. Unity is strength.
To the anarchist, strikes for more small changes, demarcation disputes, and so on, are not especially
revolutionary. To us, the only real point in such actions is that in the course of them people may
begin to learn how to organise for themselves and gain confidence in their collective power.
Eventually this experience could prove useful and begin to allow workers effectively to challenge the
industrial power structure and build towards complete workers' control of production.
We have a long history to draw on and many useful techniques that have worked elsewhere. There
are ideas like slowing down till we reckon we are working at a rate appropriate to the wage. Or
`good work' strikes, taking care to do a good job irrespective of the time it takes. Such actions only
make sense if taken by a group of people in a united fashion. They are examples of direct action.
We don't ask the bosses, we tell them. By contrast the indirect (so-called democratic) method is to
wait five years and put a cross opposite the name of a labour politician, who turns out to be in the
same freemason's lodge as the opposition candidate.
We would hope that self-organisation among workers will once again (as at other times in recent
history) reach the point where they are prepared to act together and confront the State ill its entirety.
If the next time around there is adequate experience, organisation, preparation and awareness, it will
be possible to dispose of the State and bosses and move towards an anarchist society and an
There are a variety of ways differing anarchists believe this could come about. Some anarchists
support the idea of building giant unions controlled from tile bottom up, rather than the usual top
down structure. This syndicalism is a clear strategy for revolution which has been shown effective in
the past. The union ideally includes all the workers in each place and aims to develop
self-organisation to the point where the workers can easily take over the factories. Strikes can,
where necessary, be backed up by solidarity action from other workers.
Eventually, enough workers will have joined and become active for a general strike. The State is
paralysed and can do nothing if it cannot trust the army to kill its own relatives. the general strike
may be a general take-over by the people, or develop into one. At this point the work of building
Utopia can begin.
Some anarchists reject aspects of this plan. They doubt the wisdom of forming unions at all, even if
decentralised. They worry that a layer of professional leaders will develop. There is also the danger
of getting lost in the swamp of everyday compromise over petty issues.
In any case this difference in approach does not prevent working together. In the `United Kingdom'
(joke phrase) the existing Labour-mafia controlled unions have already got it all sewn up. The
prospects for forming anarchist unions are obviously dismal.
In these circumstances, it seems that the way forward is to try to promote links between workers
that by-pass the mafia controlled union HQ's which try to monopolise information so as to maintain
control. Any action such as flying pickets, which puts control in the hands of strikers themselves,
should be encouraged.
It would be useful if anarchists working in the same industry were in contact. Where contacts do not
already exist, a conference is a good starting-off point.
Large Scale Campaigns
Anarchists usually make a poor showing in influencing large scale campaigns. This is partly because
the christians, liberals, trotskyists, and so on, who generally manage to control them, often make
them so lifeless, ineffectual and generally wet that no self-respecting anarchist will go near them.
In fact we see the leaderships of these groups as an important part of the system, whose function is
to control protest by steering it harmlessly into `proper' channels.
An example of this process at work was the attempt by `Friends of the Earth' to contest the public
inquiry into the Windscale nuclear reprocessing plant. The result was that a good deal of energy and
money was directed into an entirely useless argument between rival experts. The illusion was
fostered that the government is fair and reasonable and has a right to make this kind of decision. The
verdict was of course a foregone conclusion and the go-ahead was given. The net effect was to
misdirect and defuse protest about the nuclear power programme.
On the other hand, many anarchists believe that it is a good idea to get involved with campaigns
such as CND, the anti-Nazi League, animal liberation, and so on. This is because there is some
prospect that joining one of these campaigns may be the first step for some people in becoming
anarchists. An anarchist's presence might help this process. Also, campaigns which bring important
issues to public attention provide opportunities to show how particular evils relate to oppression in
general and the need for revolution. In some cases it is worth urging anarchists to join such
organisations in order to prevent domination by the more noxious political types. Sometimes it is
actually possible to introduce anarchist methods of organising and direct action tactics.
For example, an anarchist involved in CND would try to point out the relationship between nuclear
weapons, nuclear power, militarism, the State and class society. We would point out the futility of
asking the State to behave nicely and would recommend instead asking the workers who build the
bombs and the aircraft, and so on, to do something more useful instead. We would also do our best
to prevent our old enemy the Labour Party from taming the anti-missile movement and then quietly
burying it, as they did in the early sixties.
We would also try to spread more decentralised methods of organisation, based on small groups
federating with each other. This would have the advantages of greater flexibility, giving each member
more chance of being fully involved, and of preventing a ruling clique from developing.
Few anarchists would claim that a movement like CND is likely to bring about the revolution, or
even to get anywhere near banning nuclear weapons. The best we can reasonably hope for is that it
will cause increasing numbers of people to think about how this society really works.
As we have said earlier, there is a concern for the rights of the individual running through anarchism.
There is no point in all our activities and theorising if it is not eventually going to make life better for
individuals like you and me.
Unlike marxists and other fake socialists, we believe in at least trying to live out our principles in
everyday life. If you believe in equality you should treat people as equals as far as you can. An
anarchist would be less likely to forgive Marx's ill treatment of his servants and his wife than a
The ways people treat each other add up to make society as a whole. In an insane society like this
one, people treat each other badly.
Sadly, though, the hippies were wrong. It is not `all in your head'. Individual solutions like dropping
acid and living in the country turn out to be not solutions at all, but simply escapism. Before the
revolution it is not possible simply to choose to live as though you were free. Society will not let you.
Before the revolution it is up to us to believe as if we were reasonable human beings in a reasonable
world as far as possible. It is difficult, but not impossible, with a little help from your friends, to grow
to something more than the state of infantile dependence this society tries to keep us in.
The Authoritarian Family
A common myth, both in fascism and in everyday anti-humanism, is the `sanctity' of the family and
the `holy' institution of motherhood.
Many women today are fighting against being pushed into the role of mothers and nothing else, and
against the everyday domination of women and children by men, which is what the family is really all
The reality of family life is quite different from the sentimental ideal. Wife battering, rape and child
abuse are not accidental or isolated events they are a result of conditioning in the family and by the
Until we have freedom and equality in our daily lives we will have no freedom or equality at all, nor
will we want it sincerely.
You have only to look at the `master and slave ran tent of any porn magazine to see that sexual
repression leads to domination and submission. If power is more important than fulfillment in your
sexual life, then it will be more important in the rest of your life also.
Support free love. If it's not free, it's not love.
Right wing people talk a great deal about sex and what they call `sexual morality' and `purity'. Even
`racial purity' is a largely sexual idea. It is based on fear of the sexuality of `inferior races', feared
because it threatens their own sexual control and power.
Racists ask: "Would you let your daughter marry one of them?". Who are you to say what `your'
daughter should do with her own sex life anyway?
Anarchists generally do not hold with conventional marriage. They do not accept that it is any
business of the church or the State what people do with their sexual relationships. True emotional
security for both children and adults is less likely to be found in a legally enforceable and artificially
`permanent' tie between two people of either sex, than it is in a wider network of relationships that
may or may not have a sexual component.
Many anarchists have seen living in communes as an important way in which to change society. But
living in the same house as nine other people is not in itself the key to the ideal future. The important
thing is to change our attitudes: to become more open and generous and less competitive and afraid
of each other. The important thing is to have plenty of real friends rather than hiding in the family
nest. We can do this as workmates and neighbours as well as home sharers.
Forming communes now, or trying to, is riddled with problems. Communes at the moment
frequently fail either through isolation, or through squabbles within the group, or for a variety of
other reasons. People brought up in this society do not easily develop more open, generous and
honest relationships. Most anarchists settle for being just a little less isolationist than most. We just
do the best we can, and realise there is no such thing as perfection in an oppressive society. There
are no anarchist saints.
Changing Everyday Life
Unless we can help people, including ourselves, to become less dominated by fear, anxiety and
insecurity, there is little point ill expecting them to behave sensibly and to start building a free,
creative society. Authoritarian ideas and unreasoning hatred of scapegoats such as blacks and
homosexuals are part of a mass mental illness.
Fortunately, there are forces operating in the direction of greater mental health, and anarchists
should do what they can to assist these forces and movements.
Of these, the clearest example is the radical psychotherapy movement. Broadly speaking, groups
within this movement try to move away from the old idea of the expert psychiatrist who solves the
`patients' problems, towards an approach in which people, with assistance, help themselves.
Unfortunately this has been taken over by the neurotic middle classes. Fees for encounter groups
are too much for the likes of you and me, and encounter groups based around the problems of
industrial management are hardly the way to a new society.
There are self-help therapy groups, though, which show some promise and may well catch on. The
most successful seem to be those with a specific membership, such as depressives, or women's
groups, and so on. We are against people trying to adjust to impossible situations and want them to
learn to assert and express themselves.
As much of the psychological mess the human race has got itself into revolves around the unjust
relationships between the sexes, anarchists put a lot of hope in the development of the women's
movement. Not that all feminists are revolutionaries. The National Organisation of Women, for
example, was delighted to allow women to person nuclear missile control rooms. nevertheless, there
15 a strong anarchist strand to the women s movement, in the emphasis on small leaderless groups,
self-help and the importance of women coming to terms with each other's feelings. Challenging male
domination should logically lead oil to challenging all domination.
The women's movement also illustrates another promising development the tendency to organise in
small groups and collectives. Where these work well they provide much needed support and a
sense of worth to the individuals involved. Other movements, such as parts of the gay movement,
claimants unions, squatters, self-help health groups, and so oil, are good for the same reason. This
way of organising tends to help the development of sanity.
Anything that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves and examine their relationship
with the rest of the world should be encouraged. Eventually we can hope that attitudes will change
enough to allow people to have the confidence to take back power over their own lives.
Local Action And Organization
Direct action can be used to change the conditions of houses, streets, schools, hospitals, and other
amenities. Such reforms have, in themselves, little to contribute towards building an anarchist
society, but making people aware of the potential of direct action is important. At best such actions
foster feelings of community spirit and promote self organisation. They raise political consciousness.
At worst they lead to feelings of hopelessness and complete disillusionment with the human race.
These feelings may drag you to political suicide. Such `has-beens' are to be seen in many Labour
What sort of actions are we talking about? Well if you're short of a house, then consider squatting.
It by-passes the authorities in charge of housing and challenges property relations. It effectively
demonstrates the disgrace of empty houses side by side with homelessness. Unfortunately, popular
prejudice hinders squatting from obtaining the wider support necessary for real change.
The community life of the street can be improved by festivals, street theatre, and so on. Of course
this sort of thing can have its drawbacks too, unless you're the sort of anarchist that's into Lady Di
and her mates!
Anarchists have participated in and often dreamt up all sorts of self-help schemes. These include
making better use of land, labour swapping schemes, consumer product sharing schemes. Again
these encourage independence and demonstrate that alternative forms of economic exchange are
viable. Beware paid community workers wishing to professionalise the idea and destroy its real
benefits by making it part of the system.
Another common area of anarchist activity is getting involved in local campaigns. These may be
useful in developing organisation and awareness and can have the virtue of making people think
about political issues. A campaign against the closure of a local hospital, for instance, raises
questions about who controls the hospitals and for whose benefit? Unfortunately, people are often
led astray by their illusions about `democracy' and politicians, and wind up getting fobbed off or
conned. This can result in disillusionment and apathy. The role of the anarchist is to try and make
sure that it results instead in anger at the authorities and promotes direct action.
It is often difficult to find a balance between getting involved in immediate reforms (hence
encouraging a false belief in the State as a benevolent force) and examining the long term
implications of what you do. If you let your feelings run riot you will end up in reformism, desperate
to remove the squalor you discover in society. This is understandable, but works against removing
the roots of the squalor.
To improve the system is to strengthen it and thus in the long run increase human misery.
When local conditions become atrocious, riots break out. Chief Constable Oxford of Liverpool
recently described local riots in Brixton, Liverpool, and so on, as "organised anarchy". It seems
unlikely, however, that they stemmed from anything but pure frustration. Sporadic rioting is not a
particularly revolutionary activity in itself. If it had been organised, it would have been insurrection,
which is a different story. How, then, do anarchists organise?
Individuals join small anarchist groups in order to co-ordinate their actions with others not to be told
what to do. The entire group discusses a particular action, but only those in favour will perform it.
This contrasts completely with trotskyist groups in which each individual member must follow the
Disagreement on an important issue, or lack of shared action, simply means that a new grouping will
come into being. In various parts of the country, groups have formed larger federations to
co-ordinate the actions of these small groups (in a non-authoritarian way, of course).
This model of organisation has already become common in other strands of political activity, like
women's groups and some community groups. If anarchism grows, one would expect to see an
increase in this way of organising.
Groups of people in a street, or perhaps at a particular workplace, can organise in this way to take
the decisions that affect them. They can send delegates to larger meetings, taking this task in turn,
instructing the delegate what to say, kicking him/her out if s/he gets power hungry. A utopian idea?
It is already working now on a small scale (for example in the CND). What's so difficult about it?
All we need is a total revolution in everyday consciousness! In this way, a non-authoritarian system
of organising all aspects of our lives from the cradle to the grave could emerge it would be a
federalist type of anarchist society.
Anarchists see it as vital to educate people for a new society. Some would go so far as to say that it
is all we can reasonably do. To attempt a revolution as a tiny minority is just not on and with the
best of intentions could lead only to a new slavery. A genuine revolution can only be made if the
great majority of people want it and actively participate in creating the new world. Naturally, it
would stand a much better chance if the people had first organised, prepared and thought about the
issues and problems. This means that one of our top priorities is to spread our ideas as far as
Preaching, however, is best avoided. We do not want mere followers. An even worse danger is that
we may begin to hand out our ideas as a dogma. Finally, we do not want to talk at people, but with
This last point is important. It is probably the surest sign of the degenerate state of modern society
that communications are becoming increasingly impersonal, standardised and one way. Millions of
people watch the same TV programmes and read the same newspapers. As a result their own
conversations are standardised. Communications have become a commodity to be consumed,
`sounds' to be bought on plastic tapes. All modern communications media have two things in
common: you have to pay for them, and there is 110 way of participating, you listen or watch,
nothing else is required of you.
Our belief in freedom leads us to demand freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This may
seem odd, as these were old nineteenth century liberal rallying cries. The liberals now seem fairly'
satisfied that we have these precious freedoms already.
What they mean, of course, is that they have these freedoms. Ordinary mortals, to say nothing of
`dangerous extremists' like ourselves, do not. We can say what we like (almost), but not on prime
viewing time; we can write anything we like, but won't be able to distribute it through W H Smith's.
Unless everyone has a reasonably good chance of actually being heard, then freedom of speech
means nothing and they are quite happy to give it to us.
A recent Spanish coup attempt is said to have failed because the fascist officers had an old
fashioned view of political power and seized the parliament building. Next time they will know
better. They will seize the radio stations.
Journalists, print workers, writers, technicians and actors may have to play a vital part in the struggle
for a new society. They have it in their power to tell the truth. The cruddy `product' that they
obediently continue to churn out ought to have shamed them all into resigning by now. Agitation
within the communications industry, for workers' control of content, is a matter of urgency.
Because communications are so tightly controlled by a very small clique who know very well the
importance of their power, we are hardly likely to stand much chance of getting our views known
through the existing set up. We need to find some other way of spreading our ideas until such time
as the people get around to seizing control.
We have been forced out on to the fringes of society. We. are obliged to create our own media in
order to express ourselves. Naturally, it is all on a small scale and we reach only a few people with
each leaflet, magazine or whatever. We can only hope that all the little things we do will add up.
After all, a thousand leaflets are not wasted if they convince one new anarchist.
Spreading the word is important, and an impressive range of different approaches have been tried at
one time or another. Here we list some of the things anarchists do or can do to get their ideas
The Printed Word
The anarchist movement has produced a constant stream of articles, newspapers, magazines, books
and leaflets throughout its history. Some reached impressive numbers. Many were read only by a
few and are now forever forgotten.
The effort has not been completely wasted. We always need more and better-written anarchist
material. People who are ready for ideas must be given as many chances as possible to find them.
Leaflets, often quickly run off on a duplicator for a special event, are the simplest and cheapest
possibility. Wording should be simple and to the point. Good graphics, including photographs, can
be done on an electric stencil at a slightly higher cost.
Cheap pamphlets on particular topics are best whipped out of the pocket at an appropriate point in
a conversation. This one, for instance, is designed for those who insist on trotting out the old hoary
objections to anarchism such as "what about murderers?" (see page 6).
Magazines and newspapers fall into two categories: those aimed at, or of interest only to, other
anarchists, arid those aimed at reaching the uncommitted multitude. We seem to have plenty of
magazines for anarchists but a shortage of agitational ones. There are a few, good, local anarchist
papers: ill addition many anarchists work on `community' papers dealing with local issues.
Book publishing and distribution is also an important part of the movement. Order anarchist books
at your local library. There are also plenty of anarchist books yet to be written. We need more
works of anarchist theory, more analyses of present society and strategy for change. There is also
scope in fiction or poetry. Writing a book is not as daunting as it might first seem. Many of the
people who do write books are complete idiots.
This method of communicating is perhaps not used enough by anarchists. Writing and rehearsing
plays can be a useful practice in getting a group working together. The proper legal approach is to
apply for planning permission (be sure to have a harmless sounding name). On the other hand, the
`Santa Claus Army' who invaded the toy departments of Amsterdam stores and gave away toys to
the kids were also indulging in street theatre, though of a less legal kind. Some kind of
semi-theatrical event to make people think is a good alternative to the usual boring old demo.
At one time anarchist meetings drew crowds of thirty or forty thousand. Public meetings have
declined as mass entertainment has developed. Fifty is a pretty good number these days. Choose a
theme, sort out speakers, book a hall and advertise it well. It may be a lot of effort, but it does
sometimes produce new members, or at least some interest. People will take you more seriously.
This vague title is meant to cover unorthodox means of communication from badges or spray
painting to video. Small messages to the mass consciousness can be written on toilet walls or
sprayed in six-foot letters down the sides of motorways. Video is cheap(ish) and everybody by now
must know of some way of borrowing or hiring cameras. Anarchists have run successful pirate radio
stations and there is no need to rule out dance or mime or a thousand other possible ways of getting
a message across. Use your imagination.
Although we are kept out of the mass communications market, we can still find ways of reaching out
with our ideas. The struggle to make means of expression available to the people at large is one of
the most vital parts of the struggle for freedom. By imaginatively pioneering new means of
communication that are easily available, we are not only spreading our views but helping others to
express themselves. Finally, the way in which an idea is communicated may be at least as important
as the idea itself. If it allows or encourages participation so that people can stop being merely an
`audience' and start expressing themselves, it is a direct challenge to the system of power which
needs us docile.
Rebellious or revolutionary music has a much longer history than the fashion-conscious youth of
today, or even the ageing hippies of yesterday, may realise. Believe it or not many operas turn
around essentially revolutionary themes! In the eighteen-thirties, possession of a musical instrument
was illegal for the lower orders. This was because wandering musicians were becoming alarmingly
successful at stirring up discontent.
Many anarchists choose to get involved in music as a way of communicating with people. It is a
useful sort of activity for anarchists to do, and of course it can be fun. Sadly, much current anarchist
music' is neither anarchist nor music, but some of it is good and some very good. It's all a matter of
personal taste anyway.
Music has the power to appeal to emotions directly. It is possible to communicate in a more basic
way. It is also possible to use it to hypnotise and manipulate people, something which we would
hope to avoid doing.
Again, what we need to do is make music available to people, encourage them to have a go and
bring out their creativity. Some anarchists feel that for this reason, high technology expensive electric
music should be avoided. On the other hand, the possibilities of home taping and easily produced
cassettes are quite exciting.
We need to create new ways of making and sharing music that by-pass the music industry. Let them
howl about loss of copyright when their tapes are illegally copied. They've had things their own way
Paintings in galleries have been described as `museum art'. What is meant by this is that they are
objects to be admired and bought and sold. They separate art from life and from people at large.
Art as a saleable item is the best that this system can offer. Art as an activity it could neither
understand nor allow.
There is a crying need to release the creative abilities of `ordinary' people. This we can at least
attempt to do when talking to people. We can find ways to work for the movement and enjoy
ourselves at the same time. By using our own creativity, we can hope to reach the hidden parts of
people that other ideas cannot reach.
Spreading the word, or `propaganda', has to be a major part of any anarchist strategy. Above all
else an anarchist revolution requires that people know what they are doing and why. Nobody can
be forced into freedom: it must be chosen and taken, or it is not really freedom. Our task is harder
than that of the door-to-door jehovah's witnesses. It is not enough for us to tell people what to think
they must think for themselves, or they are not really anarchists.
Schools And Education
Although we distrust schools, anarchists place great faith in the power of education. One of the
major sources of hope for a better world is that the next generation, given help, might grow up less
neurotic than the last. Some would go so far as to say that educating children for freedom is the only
real hope of eventually bringing about an anarchist society.
Schools are mainly concerned with sorting and grading children for their future roles in the social
hierarchy and ensuring that they accept the need for competition, hierarchy and respect for
authority. Such a system demands that the majority of children — and adults are made to feel
inferior. Anarchists believe that academic examinations are a meaningless measure of a person's
potential for playing a useful role in society. The cult of the professional expert is designed to shatter
our confidence in our own abilities and judgement.
Anarchists are opposed to corporal punishment or any form of compulsion in education. Attendance
at all classes should be voluntary. Compulsion destroys the natural enthusiasm for knowledge and
understanding. Real education is the opposite of compulsory schooling, where the main lessons are
fear and respect for authority. We need to equip our children with critical minds to understand the
world, to see what changes are necessary to make it a better place for everyone, and to be able to
bring about the necessary changes.
Anarchists are opposed to any religious indoctrination in schools. Fear and superstition have no
place in an ethical education. Religious `education' should be abolished and replaced by the
discussion of moral and philosophical questions based on concern and respect for others.
It is crazy to think that education merely consists of spending eleven years or so of our lives in
schools cut off from the real world outside. It would be much healthier for our education to be
integrated with the everyday work and life of society. In this way everyone's particular skills would
be properly recognised by society and used for the education of others. We need to break down
the divisions between work, play and education. Education should be available throughout our lives,
rather than being arbitrarily confined to that part of our lives spent in schools. We are all potential
learners and teachers, passing on and acquiring skills and understanding as we go through life.
Anarchists are generally agreed that the complete liberation of education is dependent on the
creation of an anarchist society. However, this has not stopped anarchists from trying to create freer
environments for children to grow and learn, here and now. Some anarchists have educated their
children at home. others with other parents and children, have worked together rather than remain ill
isolated family units. In the last three decades several free schools have been established based on
anarchist principles, and they have performed a valuable service in demonstrating ill practical ways
that alternatives exist. However, they have faced constant financial problems and all the other
problems which come from trying to live freely ill an unfree society.
Some anarchists, and others who share their views on education, have concluded that for the
foreseeable future most children will be in State schools and, therefore, have tried to change existing
State schools as teachers or parents.
Although by the nineteen-sixties the educational establishment had accepted libertarian methods at
A S Neill's Summerhill School for the fee-paying children of wealthy parents, they were horrified at
the prospect of similar methods being adopted in State schools for working class children. The most
successful attempts, those at Risinghill School and William Tyndale School in London, were
eventually stopped by the local education authority and the teachers were thrown out of their jobs.
The lesson for those who try again in the future is that it is essential to break down the isolation of
schools from the community, so that parents will understand and actively support what anarchists
are trying to do in schools.
*First printed and published by: The Anarchist Media Group, Cardiff (UK)