A FEW words about class and hierarchy. Nobody should ever have to define themselves in accordance with the prevailing class system. As a former member of the so-called ‘working’ or ‘lower’ classes, I would strongly advise others to do the same as I have and break out of this narrow and restrictive mentality and begin to judge yourselves in a more realistic and appropriate fashion. Not by trying to escape your appointed status by lengthening the digits in your bank balance like some kind of materialistic automaton, but in terms of personal development and establishing one’s real worth as a human being. To paraphrase Nietzsche: “Become who you are.”

I also happen to believe that the so-called ‘middle’ classes are barely any different to the ‘working’ classes because they, too, are in receipt of a salary and most do not own the means of production. Wage-slavery is relative and it is simply a question of how much people are getting paid and what their general standard of living is like. Class distinctions are completely artificial and based, as I have already intimated, chiefly on economic factors. Men and women have been reduced to economic units, or what has been described as homo economicus.

Whilst class can often involve things like manners, customs, speech and etiquette, these factors are another matter entirely and I therefore make a distinction between those who have had a particular upbringing and the likes of the upwardly-mobile bourgeoisie. Ordinarily, apart from making references to the ‘ruling’ class I rarely ever speak of class itself because making an issue out of it simply reinforces that which already exists and which has been determined by others as a way of keeping us in a state of economic dependancy.

As a National-Anarchist, I support decentralised village-communities and it is fair to say that this can involve a degree of economic collectivisation. Not in the more negative and coercive sense as it appeared under Stalin, of course, but in terms of people in the tribe sharing the tasks and pooling their resources. Small communities, however, need not develop into a class-based system and must also take into consideration those who adopt a more anarcho-individualist approach. In other words, some people might wish to subsist without engaging with the rest of the community and I believe that it is perfectly natural for there to be outsiders. At the same time, participation within more ‘primitive’ communities is contingent upon the survival of the individual, so people usually have to learn to work with others for the benefit of all concerned. Kropotkin called it ‘mutualism’.

A natural hierarchy is clearly very different to one based on notions of class and even the idea of ‘classlessness’ itself – thanks to the deconstructionists and postmodernists, not to mention the advocates of capitalist individualism – has come to mean little more than the eradication of all social ties and this is clearly something that we wish to avoid because it would be disastrous for any community wishing to survive and prosper.

In addition, it stands to reason that some people will be better at certain things than others. Organisation and ‘leadership,’ for example. This should not imply that people are to be ruled or governed, obviously. The criteria is simple: The strongest man has the task of clearing a fallen tree that is blocking the path; the fastest man earns his place at the hunt; and the thief is not permitted to look after the supply of village bananas. This is why, in many ways, my interpretation of National-Anarchism is a convenient umbrella term for the replenishment of the natural order.