J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?

   Anarchists have long been aware of the importance of child rearing and
   education. We are aware that child rearing should aim to develop "a
   well-rounded individuality" and not "a patient work slave, professional
   automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist." In this section
   of the FAQ we will discuss anarchist approaches to child rearing
   bearing in mind "that it is through the channel of the child that the
   development of the mature man [or woman] must go, and that the present
   ideas of . . . educating or training . . . are such as to stifle the
   natural growth of the child." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 132
   and p. 131]

   If one accepts the thesis that the authoritarian family is the breeding
   ground for both individual psychological problems and political
   reaction, it follows that anarchists should try to develop ways of
   raising children that will not psychologically cripple them but instead
   enable them to accept freedom and responsibility while developing
   natural self-regulation. We will refer to children raised in such a way
   as "free children."

   Work in this field is still in its infancy (no pun intended). Wilhelm
   Reich was the main pioneer in this field (an excellent, short
   introduction to his ideas can be found in Maurice Brinton's The
   Irrational in Politics). In Children of the Future, Reich made numerous
   suggestions, based on his research and clinical experience, for
   parents, psychologists, and educators striving to develop libertarian
   methods of child rearing (although he did not use the term
   "libertarian").

   In this and the following sections we will summarise Reich's main ideas
   as well as those of other libertarian psychologists and educators who
   have been influenced by him, such as A.S. Neill and Alexander Lowen. We
   will examine the theoretical principles involved in raising free
   children and will illustrate their practical application with concrete
   examples. Finally, we will examine the anarchist approach to the
   problems of adolescence.

   Such an approach to child rearing is based upon the insight that
   children "do not constitute anyone's property: they are neither the
   property of the parents nor even of society. They belong only to their
   own future freedom." [Michael Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of
   Bakunin, p. 327] As such, what happens to a child when they are growing
   up shapes the person they become and the society they live in. The key
   question for people interested in freedom is whether "the child [is] to
   be considered as an individuality, or as an object to be moulded
   according to the whims and fancies of those about it?" [Emma Goldman,
   Op. Cit., p. 131] Libertarian child rearing is the means by which the
   individuality of the child is respected and developed.

   This is in stark contrast to standard capitalist claim that children
   are the property of their parents. If we accept that children are the
   property of their parents then we are implicitly stating that a child's
   formative years are spent in slavery, hardly a relationship which will
   promote the individuality and freedom of the child or the wider
   society. Little wonder that most anarchists reject such assertions.
   Instead we argue that the "rights of the parents shall be confined to
   loving their children and exercising over them . . . authority [that]
   does not run counter to their morality, their mental development, or
   their future freedom." Being someone's property (i.e. slave) runs
   counter to all these and "it follows that society, the whole future of
   which depends upon adequate education and upbringing of children . . .
   has not only the right but also the duty to watch over them." Hence
   child rearing should be part of society, a communal process by which
   children learn what it means to be an individual by being respected as
   one by others: "real freedom -- that is, the full awareness and the
   realisation thereof in every individual, pre-eminently based upon a
   feeling of one's dignity and upon the genuine respect for someone
   else's freedom and dignity, i.e. upon justice -- such freedom can
   develop in children only through the rational development of their
   minds, character and will." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 327]

   We wish to re-iterate again that a great deal of work remains to be
   done in this field. Therefore our comments should be regarded merely as
   tentative bases for further reflection and research by those involved
   with raising and educating children. There is, and cannot be, any "rule
   book" for raising free children, because to follow an inflexible rule
   book is to ignore the fact that each child and their environment is
   unique and therefore demands unique responses from their parents. Hence
   the principles of libertarian child rearing to which we will refer
   should not be thought of as rules, but rather, as experimental
   hypotheses to be tested by parents within their own situation by
   applying their intelligence and deriving their own individual
   conclusions.

   Bringing up children must be like education, and based on similar
   principles, namely "upon the free growth and development of the innate
   forces and tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for
   the free individual and eventually also for a free community, which
   shall make interference and coercion of human growth impossible."
   [Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 139] Indeed, child rearing and education cannot
   be separated as life itself is an education and so must share the same
   principles and be viewed as a process of "development and exploration,
   rather than as one of repressing a child's instincts and inculcating
   obedience and discipline." [Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain,
   p. 166]

   Moreover, the role of parental example is very important to raising
   free children. Children often learn by mimicking their parents --
   children do what their parents do, not as they say. If their mother and
   father lie to each other, scream, fight and so on, then the child will
   probably do so as well. Children's behaviour does not come out thin
   air, they are a product of the environment they are brought up in.
   Children can only be encouraged by example, not by threats and
   commands. So how parents act can be an obstacle to the development of a
   free child. Parents must do more than just say the right things, but
   also act as anarchists in order to produce free children.

   The sad fact is that most modern people have lost the ability to raise
   free children, and regaining this ability will be a long process of
   trial and error as well as parent education in which it is to be hoped
   that each succeeding generation will learn from the failures and
   successes of their predecessors and so improve. In the best-case
   scenario, over the course of a few generations the number of
   progressive parents will continue to grow and raise ever freer
   children, who in turn will become even more progressive parents
   themselves, thus gradually changing mass psychology in a libertarian
   direction. Such changes can come about very fast, as can be seen from
   various communes all over the world where society is organised
   according to libertarian principles. As Reich put it:

     "We have learned that instead of a jump into the realm of the
     Children of the Future, we can hope for no more than a steady
     advance, in which the healthy new overlaps the sick old structure,
     with the new slowly outgrowing the old." [Children of the Future,
     pp. 38-39]

   By means of freedom-based child rearing and education, along with other
   methods of consciousness raising, as well as encouraging resistance to
   the existing social order anarchists hope to prepare the psychological
   foundation for a social paradigm shift, from authoritarian to
   libertarian institutions and values. And indeed, a gradual cultural
   evolution toward increasing freedom does seem to exist. For example, as
   A.S. Neill suggested there is "a slow trend to freedom, sexual and
   otherwise. In my boyhood, a woman went bathing wearing stockings and a
   long dress. Today, women show legs and bodies. Children are getting
   more freedom with every generation. Today, only a few lunatics put
   cayenne pepper on a baby's thumb to stop sucking. Today, only a few
   countries beat their children in school." [Summerhill, p. 115]

   Most anarchists believe that we must practice what we preach and so the
   anarchist revolution begins at home. As anarchists raise their own
   children in capitalist society and/or are involved in the raising and
   education of the children of other parents, we can practice in part
   libertarian principles even before the revolution. As such, we think it
   is important to discuss libertarian child rearing.

J.6.1 What are the main obstacles to raising free children?

   The biggest obstacle is the training and character of most parents,
   physicians, and educators. Individuals within a hierarchical society
   create psychological walls/defences around themselves and these will
   obviously have an effect both on the mental and physical state of the
   individual and so their capacity for living a free life and
   experiencing pleasure. Such parents then try (often unconsciously) to
   stifle the life-energy in children. There are, for example, the child's
   natural vocal expressions (shouting, screaming, bellowing, crying,
   etc.) and natural body motility. As Reich noted:

     "Small children go through a phase of development characterised by
     vigorous activity of the voice musculature. The joy the infant
     derives from loud noises (crying, shrieking, and forming a variety
     of sounds) is regarded by many parents as pathological
     aggressiveness. The children are accordingly admonished not to
     scream, to be 'still,' etc. The impulses of the voice apparatus are
     inhibited, its musculature becomes chronically contracted, and the
     child becomes quiet, 'well-brought-up,' and withdrawn. The effect of
     such mistreatment is soon manifested in eating disturbances, general
     apathy, pallor of the face, etc. Speech disturbances and retardation
     of speech development are presumably caused in this manner. In the
     adult we see the effects of such mistreatment in the form of spasms
     of the throat. The automatic constrictions of the glottis and the
     deep throat musculature, with subsequent inhibition of the
     aggressive impulses of the head and neck, seems to be particularly
     characteristic." [Children of the Future, p. 128]

   "Clinical experience has taught us," Reich concluded, "that small
   children must be allowed to 'shout themselves out' when the shouting is
   inspired by pleasure. This might be disagreeable to some parents, but
   questions of education must be decided exclusively in the interests of
   the child, not in those of the adults." [Op. Cit., p. 128]

   Besides deadening life energy in the body, such stifling also inhibits
   the anxiety generated by the presence of anti-social, cruel, and
   perverse impulses within the psyche -- for example, destructiveness,
   sadism, greed, power hunger, brutality, etc. (impulses referred to by
   Reich as "secondary" drives). In other words, this reduces our ability
   to empathise with others and so the internal ethical guidelines we all
   develop are blunted, making us more likely to express such secondary,
   anti-social, drives. So, ironically, these secondary drives result from
   the suppression of the primary drives and the sensations of pleasure
   associated with them. These secondary drives develop because the only
   emotional expressions that can get through a person's defences are
   distorted, harsh, and/or mechanical. In other words, compulsive
   morality (i.e. acting according to externally imposed rules) becomes
   necessary to control the secondary drives which compulsion itself
   creates. By such processes, authoritarian child-rearing becomes
   self-justifying:

     "Psychoanalysts have failed to distinguish between primary natural
     and secondary perverse, cruel drives, and they are continuously
     killing nature in the new-born while they try to extinguish the
     'brutish little animal.' They are completely ignorant of the fact
     that it is exactly this killing of the natural principle which
     creates the secondary perverse and cruel nature, human nature so
     called, and that these artificial cultural creations in turn make
     compulsive moralism and brutal laws necessary." [Reich, Op. Cit., p.
     17-18]

   Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of
   secondary drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and
   guilt. The real solution is to let children develop what Reich calls
   natural self-regulation. This can be done only by not subjecting them
   to punishment, coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions,
   withdrawal of love, etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous
   expression of natural life-impulses. The systematic development of the
   emphatic tendencies of the young infant is the best way to "socialise"
   and restrict activities that are harmful to the others. As A.S. Neill
   pointed out "self-regulation implies a belief in the goodness of human
   nature; a belief that there is not, and never was, original sin."
   [Summerhill, p. 103]

   According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not
   forced to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to
   keep themselves clean and develop social qualities like courtesy,
   common sense, an interest in learning, respect for the rights of
   others, and so forth. However, once the child has been armoured through
   authoritarian methods intended to force it to develop such qualities,
   it becomes out of touch with its living core and therefore no longer
   able to develop self-regulation. In this stage it becomes harder and
   harder for the pro-social emotions to shape the developing mode of life
   of the new member of society. At that point, when the secondary drives
   develop, parental authoritarianism becomes a necessity.

   This oppression produces an inability to tolerate freedom. The vast
   majority of people develop this automatically from the way they are
   raised and is what makes the whole subject of bringing up children of
   crucial importance to anarchists. Reich concluded that if parents do
   not suppress nature in the first place, then no anti-social drives will
   be created and no authoritarianism will be required to suppress them:
   "What you so desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion
   and admonition is there in the new-born infant ready to live and
   function. Let it grow as nature requires, and change our institutions
   accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 47] So in order to raise psychologically
   healthy children, parents need to acquire self-knowledge, particularly
   of how internal conflicts develop in family relationships, and to free
   themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms of behaviour. The
   difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge and sufficiently
   de-conditioning themselves is obviously another obstacle to raising
   self-regulated children.

   However, the greatest obstacle is the fact that twisting mechanisms set
   in so very early in life, i.e. soon after birth. Hence it is important
   for parents to obtain a thorough knowledge of what rigid suppressions
   are and how they function, so that from the beginning they can prevent
   (or at least decrease) them from forming in their children. Finally,
   Reich cautioned that it is crucial to avoid any mixing of concepts:
   "One cannot mix a bit of self-regulation with a bit of moral demand.
   Either we trust nature as basically decent and self-regulatory or we do
   not, and then there is only one way, that of training by compulsion. It
   is essential to grasp the fact that the two ways of upbringing do not
   go together." [Op. Cit., p. 46]

J.6.2. What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods?

   According to Reich, the problems of parenting a free child actually
   begin before conception, with the need for a prospective mother to free
   herself as much as possible from chronic muscular tensions. It has been
   found in many studies that not only the physical health of the mother
   can influence the foetus. Various psychological stresses influence the
   chemical and hormonal environment, affecting the foetus.

   Immediately after birth it is important for the mother to establish
   contact with her child. This means, basically, constant loving
   attention to the baby, expressed by plenty of holding, cuddling,
   playing, etc., and especially by breast feeding. By such "orgonotic"
   contact (to use Reich's term), the mother is able to establish the
   initial emotional bonding with the new born, and a non-verbal
   understanding of the child's needs. This is only possible, however, if
   she is in touch with her own emotional and cognitive internal
   processes: "Orgonotic contact is the most essential experiential and
   emotional element in the interrelationship between mother and child,
   particularly prenatally and during the first days and weeks of life.
   The future fate of the child depends on it. It seems to be the core of
   the new-born infant's emotional development." [Children of the Future,
   p. 99] It is important for the father to establish orgonotic contact as
   well.

   Reich maintained that the practice of bottle feeding is harmful,
   particularly if it completely replaces breast feeding from the day of
   birth, because it eliminates one of the most important forms of
   establishing physical and emotional contact between mother and child.
   This lack of contact can then contribute in later life to "oral" forms
   of neurotic character structure or traits (see Chapter 9 of Alexander
   Lowen's Physical Dynamics of Character Structure). Another harmful
   practice in infant care is the compulsive-neurotic method of feeding
   children on schedule, invented by Pirquet in Vienna, which was
   devastatingly wrong and harmful to countless children. Frustration of
   oral needs through this practice (which is fortunately less in vogue
   now than it was fifty years ago), is guaranteed to produce neurotic
   armouring in infants. As Reich put it: "As long as parents, doctors,
   and educators approach infants with false, unbending behaviour,
   inflexible opinions, condescension, and officiousness, instead of with
   orgonotic contact, infants will continue to be quiet, withdrawn,
   apathetic, 'autistic,' 'peculiar,' and, later, 'little wild animals,'
   whom the cultivated feel they have to 'tame.'" [Op. Cit. p. 124]

   Another harmful practice is allowing the baby to "cry itself out."
   Thus: "Parking a baby in a baby carriage in the garden, perhaps for
   hours at a time, is a dangerous practice. No one can know what
   agonising feelings of fear and loneliness a baby can experience on
   waking up suddenly to find himself alone in a strange place. Those who
   have heard a baby's screams on such occasions have some idea of the
   cruelty of this stupid custom." [Neill, Summerhill, p. 336] Indeed, in
   The Physical Dynamics of Character Structure, Alexander Lowen has
   traced specific neuroses, particularly depression, to this practice.
   Hospitals also have been guilty of psychologically damaging sick
   infants by isolating them from their mothers, a practice that has
   undoubtedly produced untold numbers of neurotics and psychopaths.

   Neill summed up the libertarian attitude toward the care of infants as
   follows: "Self-regulation means the right of a baby to live freely
   without outside authority in things psychic and somatic. It means that
   the baby feeds when it is hungry; that it becomes clean in habits only
   when it wants to; that it is never stormed at nor spanked; that it is
   always loved and protected." Obviously self-regulation does not mean
   leaving the baby alone when it heads toward a cliff or starts playing
   with an electrical socket. Libertarians do not advocate a lack of
   common sense. We recognise that adults must override an infant's will
   when it is a question of protecting their physical safety: "Only a fool
   in charge of young children would allow unbarred bedroom windows or an
   unprotected fire in the nursery. Yet, too often, young enthusiasts for
   self-regulation come to my school as visitors, and exclaim at our lack
   of freedom in locking poison in a lab closet, or our prohibition about
   playing on the fire escape. The whole freedom movement is marred and
   despised because so many advocates of freedom have not got their feet
   on the ground." [Op. Cit., p. 105 and p. 106]

   Nevertheless, the libertarian position does not imply that a child
   should be punished for getting into a dangerous situation. Nor is the
   best thing to do in such a case to shout in alarm (unless that is the
   only way to warn the child before it is too late), but simply to remove
   the danger without any fuss: "Unless a child is mentally defective, he
   will soon discover what interests him. Left free from excited cries and
   angry voices, he will be unbelievably sensible in his dealing with
   material of all kinds." [Neil, Op. Cit., p. 108] Provided, of course,
   that he or she has been allowed self-regulation from the beginning, and
   thus has not developed any irrational, secondary drives.

   The way to raise a free child becomes clear when one considers how an
   unfree child is raised. Thus imagine the typical infant whose
   upbringing A.S. Neill described:

     "His natural functions were left alone during the diaper period. But
     when he began to crawl and perform on the floor, words like naughty
     and dirty began to float about the house, and a grim beginning was
     made in teaching him to be clean.

     "Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
     genitals; and he soon came to associate the genital prohibition with
     the acquired disgust about faeces. Thus, years later, when he became
     a travelling salesman, his story repertoire consisted of a balanced
     number of sex and toilet jokes.

     "Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours.
     Mother and father were most anxious to be correct -- to do the
     proper thing -- so that when relatives or next-door neighbours came,
     John had to show himself as a well-trained child. He had to say
     Thank you when Auntie gave him a piece of chocolate; and he had to
     be most careful about his table manners; and especially, he had to
     refrain from speaking when adults were speaking . . .

     "All his curiosity about the origins of life were met with clumsy
     lies, lies so effective that his curiosity about life and birth
     disappeared. The lies about life became combined with fears when at
     the age of five his mother found him having genital play with his
     sister of four and the girl next door. The severe spanking that
     followed (Father added to it when he came home from work) forever
     conveyed to John the lesson that sex is filthy and sinful, something
     one must not even think of." [Op. Cit., p. 96-7]

   Of course, parents' ways of imparting negative messages about sex are
   not necessarily this severe, especially in our allegedly enlightened
   age. However, it is not necessary for a child to be spanked or even
   scolded or lectured in order to acquire a sex-negative attitude.
   Children are very intuitive and will receive the message "sex is bad"
   from subtle parental cues like facial expressions, tone of voice,
   embarrassed silence, avoidance of certain topics, etc. Mere
   "toleration" of sexual curiosity and play is far different in its
   psychological effects from positive affirmation.

   Along the same lines, to prevent the formation of sex-negative
   attitudes means that nakedness should never be discouraged: "The baby
   should see its parents naked from the beginning. However, the child
   should be told when he is ready to understand that some people don't
   like to see children naked and that, in the presence of such people, he
   should wear clothes." Neill maintains that not only should parents
   never spank or punish a child for genital play, but that spanking and
   other forms of punishment should never be used in any circumstances,
   because they instil fear, turning children into cowards and often
   leading to phobias. "Fear must be entirely eliminated -- fear of
   adults, fear of punishment, fear of disapproval, fear of God. Only hate
   can flourish in an atmosphere of fear." Punishment also turns children
   into sadists: "The cruelty of many children springs from the cruelty
   that has been practised on them by adults. You cannot be beaten without
   wishing to beat someone else." ("Every beating makes a child sadistic
   in desire or practice." [Neil Op. Cit., p. 229, p. 124, p. 269 and p.
   271] This is obviously an important consideration to anarchists, as
   sadistic drives provide the psychological ground for militarism, war,
   police brutality, and so on. Such drives are undoubtedly also part of
   the desire to exercise hierarchical authority, with its possibilities
   for using negative sanctions against subordinates as an outlet for
   sadistic impulses.

   Child beating is particularly cowardly because it is a way for adults
   to vent their hatred, frustration, and sadism on those who are unable
   to defend themselves. Such cruelty is, of course, always rationalised
   with excuse like "it hurts me more than it does you," etc., or
   explained in moral terms, like "I don't want my boy to be soft" or "I
   want him to prepare him for a harsh world" or "I spank my children
   because my parents spanked me, and it did me a hell of a lot of good."
   But despite such rationalisations, the fact remains that punishment is
   always an act of hate. To this hate the child responds in kind by
   hating the parents, followed by fantasy, guilt, and repression. For
   example, the child may fantasise the father's death, which immediately
   causes guilt, and so is repressed. Often the hatred induced by
   punishment emerges in fantasies that are seemingly remote from the
   parents, such as stories of giant killing -- always popular with
   children because the giant represents the father. Obviously, the sense
   of guilt produced by such fantasies is very advantageous to organised
   religions that promise redemption from "sin." It is surely no
   coincidence that such religions are enthusiastic promoters of the
   sex-negative morality and disciplinarian child rearing practices that
   keep supplying them with recruits.

   What is worse, however, is that punishment actually creates "problem
   children." This is so because the parent arouses more and more hatred
   (and diminishing trust in other human beings) in the child with each
   spanking, which is expressed in still worse behaviour, calling for more
   spankings, and so on, in a vicious circle. In contrast, the
   "self-regulated child does not need any punishment," Neill argued, "and
   he does not go through this hate cycle. He is never punished and he
   does not need to behave badly. He has no use for lying and for breaking
   things. His body has never been called filthy or wicked. He has not
   needed to rebel against authority or to fear his parents. Tantrums he
   will usually have, but they will be short-lived and not tend toward
   neurosis." [Op. Cit., p. 166]

   We could cite many further examples of how libertarian principles of
   child-rearing can be applied in practice, but we must limit ourselves
   to these few. The basic principles can be summed up as follows: Get rid
   of authority, moralising, and the desire to "improve" and "civilise"
   children. Allow them to be themselves, without pushing them around,
   bribing, threatening, admonishing, lecturing, or otherwise forcing them
   to do anything. Refrain from action unless the child, by expressing
   their "freedom" restricts the freedom of others and explain what is
   wrong about such actions and never mechanically punish.

   This is, of course, a radical philosophy, which few parents are willing
   to follow. It is quite amazing how people who call themselves
   libertarians in political and economic matters draw the line when it
   comes to their behaviour within the family -- as if such behaviour had
   no wider social consequences!

J.6.3 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be good?

   Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or
   other-worldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice. True
   morality (i.e. respect for others and one-self) comes from inner
   conviction based on experience, it cannot be imposed from without by
   fear. Nor can it be inspired by hope of reward, such as praise or the
   promise of heaven, which is simply bribery. If children are given as
   much freedom as possible from the day of birth, if parents respect them
   as individuals and give a positive example as well as not being forced
   to conform to parental expectations, they will spontaneously learn the
   basic principles of social behaviour, such as cleanliness, courtesy,
   and so forth. But they must be allowed to develop them at their own
   speed, at the natural stage of their growth, not when parents think
   they should develop them. What is "natural" timing must be discovered
   by observation, not by defining it a priori based on one's own
   expectations.

   Can a child really be taught to keep themselves clean without being
   punished for getting dirty? According to many psychologists, it is not
   only possible but vitally important for the child's mental health to do
   so, since punishment will give the child a fixed and repressed interest
   in their bodily functions. As Reich and Lowen have shown various forms
   of compulsive and obsessive neuroses can be traced back to the
   punishments used in toilet training. As Neill observed: "When the
   mother says naughty or dirty or even tut tut, the element of right and
   wrong arises. The question becomes a moral one -- when it should remain
   a physical one." He suggested that the wrong way to deal with a child
   who likes to play with faeces is to tell him he is being dirty. The
   right way "is to allow him to live out his interest in excrement by
   providing him with mud or clay. In this way, he will sublimate his
   interest without repression. He will live through his interest; and in
   doing so, kill it." [Summerhill, p. 174]

   Similarly, sceptics will probably question how children can be induced
   to eat a healthy diet without threats of punishment. The answer can be
   discovered by a simple experiment: set out on the table all kinds of
   foods, from sweets and ice cream to whole wheat bread, lettuce,
   sprouts, and so on, and allow the child complete freedom to choose what
   is desired or to eat nothing at all if he or she is not hungry. Parents
   will find that the average child will begin choosing a balanced diet
   after about a week, after the desire for prohibited or restricted foods
   has been satisfied. This is an example of what can be called "trusting
   nature." That the question of how to "train" a child to eat properly
   should even be an issue says volumes about how little the concept of
   freedom for children is accepted or even understood, in our society.
   Unfortunately, the concept of "training" still holds the field in this
   and most other areas.

   The disciplinarian argument that that children must be forced to
   respect possessions is also defective, because it always requires some
   sacrifice of a child's play life (and childhood should be devoted to
   play, not to "preparing for adulthood," because playing is what
   children spontaneously do). The libertarian view is that a child should
   arrive at a sense of value out of his or her own free choice. This
   means not scolding or punishing them for breaking or damaging things.
   As they grow out of the stage of preadolescent indifference to
   possessions, they learn to respect it naturally.

   "But shouldn't a child at least be punished for stealing?" it will be
   asked. Once again, the answer lies in the idea of trusting nature. The
   concept of "mine" and "yours" is adult, and children naturally develop
   it as they become mature, but not before. This means that normal
   children will "steal" -- though that is not how they regard it. They
   are simply trying to satisfy their acquisitive impulses; or, if they
   are with friends, their desire for adventure. In a society so
   thoroughly steeped in the idea of respect for property as ours, it is
   no doubt difficult for parents to resist societal pressure to punish
   children for "stealing." The reward for such trust, however, will be a
   child who grows into a healthy adolescent who respects the possessions
   of others, not out of a cowardly fear of punishment but from his or her
   own self-nature.

   Most parents believe that, besides taking care of their child's
   physical needs, the teaching of ethical/moral values is their main
   responsibility and that without such teaching the child will grow up to
   be a "little wild animal" who acts on every whim, with no consideration
   for others. This idea arises mainly from the fact that most people in
   our society believe, at least passively, that human beings are
   naturally bad and that unless they are "trained" to be good they will
   be lazy, mean, violent, or even murderous. This, of course, is
   essentially the idea of "original sin" and because of its widespread
   acceptance, nearly all adults believe that it is their job to "improve"
   children. Yet according to libertarian psychologists there is no
   original sin. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that there is
   "original virtue." Wilhelm Reich found that externally imposed,
   compulsive morality actually causes immoral behaviour by creating cruel
   and perverse "secondary drives." Neill put it this way: "I find that
   when I smash the moral instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a
   good boy." [Op. Cit., p. 250]

   Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is the
   main recruiting tool of organised religions, as people who believe they
   are born "sinners" feel a strong sense of guilt and need for
   redemption. Parents to should eliminate any need for redemption, by
   telling the child that he is born good, not born bad. This will help
   keep them from falling under the influence of life-denying religions,
   which are inimical to the growth of a healthy character structure.
   Citing ethnological studies, Reich argued the following:

     "Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired
     sexual lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no
     sexual brutality between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because
     it is unnecessary in their society. Their sexual activity flows in
     normal, well-ordered channels which would fill any cleric with
     indignation and fear . . . They love the human body and take
     pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why young men
     and women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives are
     invaded by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which
     bring them 'culture' along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis,
     they begin to suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin
     to lead 'moral' lives, i.e. to suppress their sexuality, and from
     then on they decline more and more into a state of sexual distress,
     which is the result of sexual suppression. At the same time, they
     become sexually dangerous; murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and
     crimes of all sorts start to appear." [Children of the Future, p.
     193]

   Such crimes in our society would be greatly reduced if libertarian
   child rearing practices were widely followed. These are obviously
   important considerations for anarchists, who are frequently asked to
   explain how crime can be prevented in an anarchist society. The answer
   is that if people are not suppressed during childhood there will be far
   less anti-social behaviour, because the secondary-drive structure that
   leads to it will not be created in the first place. In other words, the
   solution to the so-called crime problem is not more police, more laws,
   or a return to the disciplinarianism of "traditional family values," as
   conservatives claim, but depends mainly on getting rid of such values.

   There are other problems as well with the moralism taught by organised
   religions. One danger is making the child a hater: "If a child is
   taught that certain things are sinful, his love of life must be changed
   to hate. When children are free, they never think of another child as
   being a sinner." [Neill, Op. Cit., p. 245] From the idea that certain
   people are sinners, it is a short step to the idea that certain classes
   or races of people are more "sinful" than others, leading to prejudice,
   discrimination, and persecution of minorities as an outlet for
   repressed anger and sadistic drives -- drives that are created in the
   first place by moralistic training during early childhood. Once again,
   the relevance for anarchism is obvious.

   A further danger of religious instruction is the development of a fear
   of life: "Religion to a child most always means only fear. God is a
   mighty man with holes in his eyelids: He can see you wherever you are.
   To a child, this often means that God can see what is being done under
   the bedclothes. And to introduce fear into a child's life is the worst
   of all crimes. Forever the child says nay to life; forever he is an
   inferior; forever a coward." [Neill, Op. Cit., p. 246] People who have
   been threatened with fear of an afterlife in hell can never be entirely
   free of neurotic anxiety about security in this life. In turn, such
   people become easy targets of ruling-class propaganda that plays upon
   their material and emotional insecurity, e.g. the rationalisation of
   imperialist wars, the Military-Industrial Complex, increased state
   powers, and so on as necessary to "preserve jobs", for security against
   external threats and so forth.

J.6.3 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?

   Another common objection to self-regulation is that children can only
   be taught to be "unselfish" through punishment and admonition. Again,
   however, such a view comes from a distrust of nature and is part of the
   common attitude that nature is mere "raw material" to be shaped by
   human beings according to their own wishes. The libertarian attitude is
   that empathy for others develops at the proper time:

     "To ask a child to be unselfish is wrong. Every child is an egoist
     and the world belongs to him. When he has an apple, his one wish is
     to eat that apple. The chief result of mother's encouraging him to
     share it with his little brother is to make him hate the little
     brother. Altruism comes later -- comes naturally -- if the child is
     not taught to be unselfish. It probably never comes at all if the
     child has been forced to be unselfish. By suppressing the child's
     selfishness, the mother is fixing that selfishness forever." [Neill,
     Summerhill, pp. 250-251]

   Unfulfilled wishes live on in the unconscious so children who are
   pressured too hard -- "taught" -- to be unselfish will, while
   conforming outwardly with parental demands, unconsciously repress part
   of their real, selfish wishes, and these repressed infantile desires
   will make the person selfish (and possibly neurotic) throughout life.
   Moreover, telling children that what they want to do is "wrong" or
   "bad" is equivalent to teaching them to hate themselves, and it is a
   well-known principle of psychology that people who do not love
   themselves cannot love others. Thus moral instruction, although it aims
   to develop altruism and love for others, is actually self-defeating,
   having just the opposite result. Moreover, such attempts to produce
   "unselfish" children (and so adults) actually works against developing
   the individuality of the child and they developing their own abilities
   (in particular their ability of critical thought). As Erich Fromm put
   it:

     "Not to be selfish implies not to do what one wishes, to give up
     one's own wishes for the sake of those in authority . . . Aside from
     its obvious implication, it means 'don't love yourself,' 'don't be
     yourself', but submit yourself to something more important than
     yourself, to an outside power or its internalisation, 'duty.' 'Don't
     be selfish' becomes one of the most powerful ideological tools in
     suppressing spontaneity and the free development of personality.
     Under the pressure of this slogan one is asked for every sacrifice
     and for complete submission: only those acts are 'unselfish' which
     do not serve the individual but somebody or something outside
     himself." [Man for Himself, p. 127]

   While such "unselfishness" is ideal for creating "model citizens" and
   willing wage slaves, it is not conducive for creating anarchists or
   even developing individuality. Little wonder Bakunin celebrated the
   urge to rebel and saw it as the key to human progress! Fromm goes on to
   note that selfishness and self-love, "far from being identical, are
   actually opposites" and that "selfish persons are incapable of loving
   others . . . [or] loving themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 131] Individuals
   who do not love themselves, and so others, will be more willing to
   submit themselves to hierarchy than those who do love themselves and
   are concerned for their own, and others, welfare. Thus the
   contradictory nature of capitalism, with its contradictory appeals to
   selfish and unselfish behaviour, can be understood as being based upon
   lack of self-love, a lack which is promoted in childhood and one which
   libertarians should be aware of and combat.

   Indeed, much of the urge to "teach children unselfishness" is actually
   an expression of adults' will to power. Whenever parents feel the urge
   to impose directives on their children, they would be wise to ask
   themselves whether the impulse comes from their own power drive or
   their own selfishness. For, since our culture strongly conditions us to
   seek power over others, what could be more convenient than having a
   small, weak person at hand who cannot resist one's will to power?
   Instead of issuing directives, libertarians believe in letting social
   behaviour develop naturally, which it will do after other people's
   opinions becomes important to the child. As Neill pointed out:

     "Everyone seeks the good opinion of his neighbours. Unless other
     forces push him into unsocial behaviour, a child will naturally want
     to do that which will cause him to be well-regarded, but this desire
     to please others develops at a certain stage in his growth. The
     attempt by parents and teachers to artificially accelerate this
     stage does the child irreparable damage." [Op. Cit., p. 256]

   Therefore, parents should allow children to be "selfish" and
   "ungiving", free to follow their own childish interests throughout
   their childhood. Every interpersonal conflict of interest should be
   grounds for a lesson in dignity on one side and consideration on the
   other. Only by this process can a child develop their individuality. By
   so doing they will come to recognise the individuality of others and
   this is the first step in developing ethical concepts (which rest upon
   mutual respect for others and their individuality).

J.6.4 Isn't "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for spoiling the
child?

   No. This objection confuses the distinction between freedom and
   license. To raise a child in freedom does not mean letting him or her
   walk all over you or others; it does not mean never saying "no." It is
   true that free children are not subjected to punishment, irrational
   authority, or moralistic admonitions, but they are not "free" to
   violate the rights of others. As Neill put it: "in the disciplined
   home, the children have no rights. In the spoiled home, they have all
   the rights. The proper home is one in which children and adults have
   equal rights." Or again: "To let a child have his own way, or do what
   he wants to at another's expense, is bad for the child. It creates a
   spoiled child, and the spoiled child is a bad citizen." [Summerhill, p.
   107 and 167]

   There will inevitably be conflicts of will between parents and
   children, and the healthy way to resolve them is discussion and coming
   to an agreement. The unhealthy ways are either to resort to
   authoritarian discipline or to spoil the child by allowing them to have
   all the social rights. Libertarian psychologists argue that no harm is
   done to children by insisting on one's individual rights, but that the
   harm comes from moralism, i.e. when one introduces the concepts of
   right and wrong or words like "naughty," "bad," or "dirty," which
   produce guilt.

   Therefore it should not be thought that free children are free to "do
   as they please." Freedom means doing what one likes so long as it does
   not infringe on the freedom of others. Thus there is a big difference
   between compelling a child to stop throwing stones at others and
   compelling him or her to learn geometry. Throwing stones infringes on
   others' rights, but learning geometry involves only the child. The same
   goes for forcing children to eat with a fork instead of their fingers;
   to say "please" and "thank you"; to tidy up their rooms, and so on. Bad
   manners and untidiness may be annoying to adults, but they are not a
   violation of adults' rights. One could, of course, define an adult
   "right" to be free of annoyance from anything one's child does, but
   this would simply be a license for authoritarianism, emptying the
   concept of children's rights of all content.

   As mentioned, giving children freedom does not mean allowing them to
   endanger themselves physically. For example, a sick child should not be
   asked to decide whether he wants to go outdoors or take his prescribed
   medicine, nor a run-down and overtired child whether she wants to go to
   bed. But the imposition of such forms of necessary authority is
   compatible with the idea that children should be given as much
   responsibility as they can handle at their particular age. Only in this
   way can they develop self-assurance. And, again, it is important for
   parents to examine their own motives when deciding how much
   responsibility to give their child. Parents who insist on choosing
   their children's clothes for them, for example, are generally worried
   that the child might select clothes that would reflect badly on their
   parents' social standing.

   As for those who equate "discipline" in the home with "obedience," the
   latter is usually required of a child to satisfy the adults' desire for
   power. Self-regulation means that there are no power games being played
   with children, no loud voice saying "You'll do it because I say so, or
   else!" But, although this irrational, power-seeking kind of authority
   is absent in the libertarian home, there still remains what can be
   called a kind of "authority," namely adult protection, care, and
   responsibility, as well as the insistence on one's own rights. As Neill
   observed: "Such authority sometimes demands obedience but at other
   times gives obedience. Thus I can say to my daughter, 'You can't bring
   that mud and water into our parlour.' That's no more than her saying to
   me, 'Get out of my room, Daddy. I don't want you here now,' a wish that
   I, of course, obey without a word." [Op. Cit., p. 156]. So there will
   still be "discipline" in the libertarian home, but it will be of the
   kind that protects the individual rights of each family member.

   Raising children in freedom also does not imply giving them a lot of
   toys, money, and so on. Reich's followers have argued that children
   should not be given everything they ask for and that it is better to
   give them too little than too much. Under constant bombardment by
   commercial advertising campaigns, parents today generally tend to give
   their children far too much, with the result that the children stop
   appreciating gifts and rarely value any of their possessions. This same
   applies to money, which, if given in excess, can be detrimental to
   children's' creativity and play life. If children are not given too
   many toys, they will derive creative joy out of making their own toys
   out of whatever free materials are at hand -- a joy of which they are
   robbed by overindulgence. Psychologists point out that parents who give
   too many presents are often trying to compensate for giving too little
   love.

   There is less danger in rewarding children than there is in punishing
   them, but rewards can still undermine a child's morale. This is
   because, firstly, rewards are superfluous and in fact often decrease
   motivation and creativity, as several psychological studies have shown
   (see [1]section I.4.11). Creative people work for the pleasure of
   creating; monetary interests are not central (or necessary) to the
   creative process. Secondly, rewards send the wrong message, namely,
   that doing the deed for which the reward is offered is not worth doing
   for its own sake and the pleasure associated with productive, creative
   activity. Thirdly, rewards tend to reinforce the worst aspects of the
   competitive system, leading to the attitude that money is the only
   thing which can motivate people to do the work that needs doing in
   society.

   These are just a few of the considerations that enter into the
   distinction between spoiling children and raising them in freedom. In
   reality, it is the punishment and fear of a disciplinarian home that
   spoils children in the most literal sense, by destroying their
   childhood happiness and creating warped personalities. As adults, the
   victims of disciplinarianism will generally be burdened with one or
   more anti-social secondary drives such as sadism, destructive urges,
   greed, sexual perversions, etc., as well as repressed rage and fear.
   The presence of such impulses just below the surface of consciousness
   causes anxiety, which is automatically defended against by
   psychological walls which leave the person stiff, frustrated, bitter
   and burdened with feelings of inner emptiness. In such a condition
   people easily fall victim to the capitalist gospel of
   super-consumption, which promises that money will enable them to fill
   the inner void by purchasing commodities -- a promise that, of course,
   is hollow.

   The neurotically enclosed person also tends to look for scapegoats on
   whom to blame his or her frustration and anxiety and against whom
   repressed rage can be vented. Reactionary politicians know very well
   how to direct such impulses against minorities or "hostile nations"
   with propaganda designed to serve the interests of the ruling elite.
   Most importantly, however, the respect for authority combined with
   sadistic impulses which is acquired from a disciplinarian upbringing
   typically produces a submissive/authoritarian personality -- a man or
   woman who blindly follows the orders of "superiors" while at the same
   time desiring to exercise authority on "subordinates," whether in the
   family, the state bureaucracy, or the company. Ervin Staub's Roots of
   Evil includes interviews of imprisoned SS men, who, in the course of
   extensive interviews (meant to determine how ostensibly "normal" people
   could perform acts of untold ruthlessness and violence) revealed that
   they overwhelmingly came from authoritarian, disciplinarian homes.

   In this way, the "traditional" (e.g., authoritarian, disciplinarian,
   patriarchal) family is the necessary foundation for authoritarian
   civilisation, reproducing it and its attendant social evils from
   generation to generation.

J.6.5 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual liberation?

   One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by
   parents and society in general. The teenage years are the time when
   sexual energy is at its height. Why, then, the absurd demand that
   teenagers "wait until marriage," or at least until leaving home, before
   becoming sexually active? Why are there laws in "advanced" countries
   like the United States that allow a 19-year-old "boy" who makes love
   with his 17-year-old girlfriend, with her full consent, to be arrested
   by the girl's parents (!) for "statutory rape"?

   To answer such questions, let us recall that the ruling class is not
   interested in encouraging mass tendencies toward liberty, independence
   and pleasure not derived from commodities but instead supports whatever
   contributes to mass submissiveness, docility, dependence, helplessness,
   and respect for authority -- traits that perpetuate the hierarchies on
   which ruling-class power and privileges depend.

   As sex is one of the most intense forms of pleasure and one of the most
   prominent contributors for intimacy and bonding with people
   emotionally, repression of sexuality is the most powerful means of
   psychologically crippling people and giving them a
   submissive/authoritarian character structure (as well as alienating
   people from each other). As Reich observed, such a character is
   composed of a mixture of "sexual impotence, helplessness, a need for
   attachments, a nostalgia for a leader, fear of authority, timidity, and
   mysticism" and "people structured in this manner are incapable of
   democracy. All attempts to build up or maintain genuine democratically
   directed organisations come to grief when they encounter these
   character structures. They form the psychological soil of the masses in
   which dictatorial strivings and bureaucratic tendencies of
   democratically elected leaders can develop." Sexual suppression
   "produces the authority-fearing, life-fearing vassal, and thus
   constantly creates new possibilities whereby a handful of men in power
   can rule the masses." [The Sexual Revolution, p. 82]

   No doubt most members of the ruling elite are not fully conscious that
   their own power and privileges depend on the mass perpetuation of
   sex-negative attitudes. Nevertheless, they unconsciously sense it.
   Sexual freedom is the most basic and powerful kind, and every
   conservative or reactionary instinctively shudders at the thought of
   the "social chaos" it would unleash -- that is, the rebellious,
   authority-defying type of character it would nourish. This is why
   "family values," and "religion" (i.e. discipline and compulsive sexual
   morality) are the mainstays of the conservative/reactionary agenda.
   Thus it is crucially important for anarchists to address every aspect
   of sexual suppression in society. This means affirming the right of
   adolescents to an unrestricted sex life.

   There are numerous arguments for teenage sexual liberation. For
   example, many teen suicides could be prevented by removing the
   restrictions on adolescent sexuality. This becomes clear from
   ethnological studies of sexually unrepressive tribal peoples:

     "All reports, whether by missionaries or scholars, with or without
     the proper indignation about the 'moral depravity' of 'savages,'
     state that the puberty rites of adolescents lead them immediately
     into a sexual life; that some of these primitive societies lay great
     emphasis on sexual pleasure; that the puberty rite is an important
     social event; that some primitive peoples not only do not hinder the
     sexual life of adolescents but encourage it is every way, as, for
     instance, by arranging for community houses in which the adolescents
     settle at the start of puberty in order to be able to enjoy sexual
     intercourse. Even in those primitive societies in which the
     institution of strict monogamous marriage exists, adolescents are
     given complete freedom to enjoy sexual intercourse from the
     beginning of puberty to marriage. None of these reports contains any
     indication of sexual misery or suicide by adolescents suffering from
     unrequited love (although the latter does of course occur). The
     contradiction between sexual maturity and the absence of genital
     sexual gratification is non-existent." [Reich, Op. Cit., p. 85]

   Teenage sexual repression is also closely connected with crime. If
   there are teenagers in a neighbourhood who have no place to pursue
   intimate sexual relationships, they will do it in dark corners, in cars
   or vans, etc., always on the alert and anxious lest someone discover
   them. Under such conditions, full gratification is impossible, leading
   to a build-up of tension and frustration. Thus they feel unsatisfied,
   disturb each other, become jealous and angry, get into fights, turn to
   drugs as a substitute for a satisfying sex life, vandalise property to
   let off "steam" (repressed rage), or even murder someone. As Reich
   noted, "juvenile delinquency is the visible expression of the
   subterranean sexual crisis in the lives of children and adolescents.
   And it may be predicted that no society will ever succeed in solving
   this problem, the problem of juvenile psychopathology, unless that
   society can muster the courage and acquire the knowledge to regulate
   the sexual life of its children and adolescents in a sex-affirmative
   manner." [Op. Cit., p. 271]

   For these reasons, it is clear that a solution to the "gang problem"
   also depends on adolescent sexual liberation. We are not suggesting, of
   course, that gangs themselves suppress sexual activity. Indeed, one of
   their main attractions to teens is undoubtedly the hope of more
   opportunities for sex as a gang member. However, gangs' typical
   obsessiveness with the promiscuous, pornographic, sadistic, and other
   "dark" aspects of sex shows that by the time children reach gang age
   they have already developed unhealthy secondary drives due to the
   generally sex-negative and repressive environment in which they have
   grown up. The expression of such drives is not what anarchists mean by
   "sexual freedom." Rather, anarchist proposals for teenage liberation
   are based on the premise that a libertarian childhood is the necessary
   condition for a healthy sexual freedom in adolescence.

   Applying these insights to our own society, it is clear that teenagers
   should have ample access to a private room where they can be
   undisturbed with their sexual partners. Parents should also encourage
   the knowledge and use of contraceptives and safe sex in general as well
   as respect for the other person involved in the relationship. This does
   not mean encouraging promiscuity or sex for the sake of it. Rather, it
   means encouraging teenagers to know their own minds and desires,
   refusing to be pressured by anyone into anything. As can be seen from
   experience of this anarchist activist during the 1930s:

     "One time, a companero from the Juventudes [libertarian youth
     organisation] came over to me and said, 'You, who say you're so
     liberated. You're not so liberated.' (I'm telling you this so youll
     see the mentality of these men.) 'Because if I ask you to give me a
     kiss, you wouldn't.

     "I just stood there staring at him, and thinking to myself, 'How do
     I get out of this one?" And then I said to him, 'Listen, when I want
     to go to bed with a guy, I'm the one that has to choose him. I don't
     go to bed with just anyone. You don't interest me as a man. I don't
     feel anything for you... Why should you want me to 'liberate
     myself,' as you put it, by going to bed with you? That's no
     liberation for me. That's just making love simply for the sake of
     making love.' 'No,' I said to him, 'love is something that has to be
     like eating: if you're hungry, you eat, and if you want to go to bed
     with a guy, then... Besides, I'm going to tell you something else .
     . . Your mouth doesn't appeal to me... And I don't like to make love
     with a guy without kissing him.'

     "He was left speechless! But I did it with a dual purpose in mind...
     because I wanted to show him that that's not the way to educate
     companeros... That's what the struggle of women was like in Spain --
     even with men from our own group -- and I'm not even talking about
     what it was like with other guys." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg,
     Free Women of Spain, pp. 116-7]

   So respecting yourself and others, it must be stressed, is essential.
   As Maurice Brinton pointed out, attempts at sexual liberation will
   encounter two kinds of responses from established society -- direct
   opposition and attempts at recuperation. The second response takes the
   form of "first alienating and reifying sexuality, and then of
   frenetically exploiting this empty shell for commercial ends. As modern
   youth breaks out of the dual stranglehold of repressive traditional
   morality and of the authoritarian patriarchal family it encounters a
   projected image of free sexuality which is in fact a manipulatory
   distortion of it." This can be seen from the use of sex in advertising
   to the successful development of sex into a major consumer industry.
   However, such a development is the opposite of the healthy sexuality
   desired by anarchists. This is because "sex is presented as something
   to be consumed. But the sexual instinct differs from certain other
   instincts" as it can be satisfied only by "another human being, capable
   of thinking, acting, suffering. The alienation of sexuality under the
   conditions of modern capitalism is very much part of the general
   alienating process, in which people are converted into objects (in this
   case, objects of sexual consumption) and relationships are drained of
   human content. Undiscriminating, compulsive sexual activity, is not
   sexual freedom -- although it may sometimes be a preparation for it
   (which repressive morality can never be). The illusion that alienated
   sex is sexual freedom constitutes yet another obstacle on the road to
   total emancipation. Sexual freedom implies a realisation and
   understanding of the autonomy of others." ["The Irrational in
   Politics", pp. 257-92, For Workers' Power, p. 277]

   Therefore, anarchists see teenage sexual liberation as a means of
   developing free individuals as well as reducing the evil effects of
   sexual repression (which, we must note, also helps dehumanise
   individuals by encouraging the objectification of others, and in a
   patriarchal society particularly of women).

J.6.6 But isn't this concern with sexual liberation just a distraction from
revolution?

   It would be insulting to teenagers to suggest that sexual freedom is,
   or should be, their only concern. Many teens have a well-developed
   social conscience and are keenly interested in problems of economic
   exploitation, poverty, social breakdown, environmental degradation, and
   the like. The same can be said of people of any age!

   It is essential for anarchists to guard against the attitude typically
   found in Marxist-Leninist parties that spontaneous discussions about
   sexual problems are a "diversion from the class struggle." Such an
   attitude is economistic (not to mention covertly ascetic), because it
   is based on the premise that economic class must be the focus of all
   revolutionary efforts toward social change. No doubt transforming the
   economy is important, but without mass sexual liberation no working
   class revolution can be complete as there will not be enough people
   around with the character structures necessary to create a lasting
   self-managed society and economy (i.e., people who are capable of
   accepting freedom with responsibility). Instead, the attempt to force
   the creation of such a system without preparing the necessary
   psychological soil for its growth will lead to a reversion to some new
   form of hierarchy and exploitation. Equally, society would be "free" in
   name only if repressive social morals existed and people were not able
   to express themselves as they so desire.

   Moreover, for many people breaking free from the sexual suppression
   that threatens to cripple them psychologically is a major issue in
   their lives. For this reason, few of them are likely to be attracted to
   the anarchist "freedom" movement if its exponents limit themselves to
   dry discussions of surplus value, alienated labour, and so forth.
   Instead, addressing sexual questions and problems must be integrated
   into a multi-faceted attack on the total system of domination. People
   should feel confident that anarchists are on the side of sexual
   pleasure and are not revolutionary ascetics demanding self-denial for
   the "sake of the revolution." Rather, it should be stressed that the
   capacity for full sexual enjoyment is an essential part of the
   revolution. Indeed, "incessant questioning and challenge to authority
   on the subject of sex and of the compulsive family can only complement
   the questioning and challenge to authority in other areas (for instance
   on the subject of who is to dominate the work process -- or the purpose
   of work itself). Both challenges stress the autonomy of individuals and
   their domination over important aspects of their lives. Both expose the
   alienated concepts which pass for rationality and which govern so much
   of our thinking and behaviour. The task of the conscious revolutionary
   is to make both challenges explicit, to point out their deeply
   subversive content, and to explain their inter-relation." [Maurice
   Brinton, "The Irrational in Politics", pp. 257-92, For Workers' Power,
   p. 278]

   We noted previously that in pre-patriarchal society, which rests on a
   communistic/communal social order, children have complete sexual
   freedom and that the idea of childhood asceticism develops as such
   societies turn toward patriarchy in the economic and social structure
   (see [2]section B.1.5). This sea-change in social attitudes toward
   sexuality allows the authority-oriented character structure to develop
   instead of the formerly non-authoritarian ones. Ethnological research
   has shown that in pre-patriarchal societies the general nature of work
   life in the community corresponds with the free development of children
   and adolescents -- that is, there are no rules coercing children and
   adolescents into specific forms of sexual life, and this creates the
   psychological basis for voluntary integration into the community and
   voluntary discipline in all forms of collective activity. This supports
   the premise that widespread sex-positive attitudes are a necessary
   condition of a viable libertarian socialism.

   Psychology also clearly shows that every impediment to free expression
   of children by parents, teachers, or administrative authorities must be
   stopped. As anarchists, our preferred way of doing so is by direct
   action. Thus we should encourage all to feel that they have every
   chance of building their own personal lives. This will certainly not be
   an obstacle to or a distraction from their involvement in the anarchist
   movement. On the contrary, if they can gradually solve the problems
   facing their private lives, they will work on other social projects
   with greatly increased pleasure and concentration.

   Besides engaging in direct action, anarchists can also support legal
   protection for free expression and sexuality (repeal of the insane
   statutory rape laws and equal rights for gays, for example), just as
   they support legislation that protects workers' right to strike, family
   leave, and so forth. However, as Reich observed, "under no
   circumstances will the new order of sexual life be established by the
   decree of a central authority." [The Sexual Revolution, p. 279] That
   was a Leninist illusion. Rather, it will be established from the bottom
   up, by the gradual process of ever more widespread dissemination of
   knowledge about the adverse personal and social effects of sexual
   repression, and the benefits of libertarian child-rearing and
   educational methods.

   A society in which people are capable of sexual happiness will be one
   where they prefer to "make love, not war," and so will provide the best
   guarantee for the general security. Then the anarchist project of
   restructuring the economic and political systems will proceed
   spontaneously, based on a spirit of joy rather than hatred and revenge.
   Only then can it be defended against reactionary threats, because the
   majority will be on the side of freedom and capable of using it
   responsibly, rather than unconsciously longing for an authoritarian
   father-figure to tell them what to do.

   Therefore, concern and action upon sexual liberation, libertarian child
   rearing and libertarian education are key parts of social struggle and
   change. In no way can they be considered as "distractions" from
   "important" political and economic issues as some "serious"
   revolutionaries like to claim. As Martha A. Ackelsberg notes in
   relation to the practical work done by the Mujeres Libres group during
   the Spanish Revolution:

     "Respecting children and educating them well was vitally important
     to the process of revolutionary change. Ignorance made people
     particularly vulnerable to oppression and suffering. More
     importantly, education prepared people for social life.
     Authoritarian schools (or families), based upon fear, prepared
     people to be submissive to an authoritarian government [or within a
     capitalist workplace]. Different schools and families would be
     necessary to prepare people to live in a society without
     domination." [Free Women of Spain, p. 133]

   The personal is political and there is little point in producing a free
   economy if the people in it are not free to lead a full and pleasurable
   life! As such, the issue of sexual freedom is as important as economic
   and social freedom for anarchists. This can be seen when Emma Goldman
   recounted meeting Kropotkin who praised a paper she was involved with
   but proclaimed "it would do more if it would not waste so much space
   discussing sex." She disagreed and a heated argument ensued about "the
   place of the sex problem in anarchist propaganda." Finally, she
   remarked "All right, dear comrade, when I have reached your age, the
   sex question may no longer be of importance to me. But it is now, and
   it is a tremendous factor for thousands, millions even, of young
   people." This, Goldman recalled, made Kropotkin stop short with "an
   amused smile lighting up his kindly face. 'Fancy, I didn't think of
   that,' he replied. 'Perhaps you are right, after all.' He beamed
   affectionately upon me, with a humorous twinkle in his eye." [Living My
   Life, vol. 1, p. 253]
   [3] J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists create?
   [4]up [5]J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"? 

References

   1. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secI4.txt#seci411
   2. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/secB1.txt#secb15
   3. //afaq/secJ5.html
   4. //afaq/secJcon.html
   5. //afaq/secJ7.html
