Issues In Anarchism
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 02:34:19 PDT 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Issues_in_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Issues_in_anarchism/Archive_1
Issues in anarchism
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on
Anarchism
"Circle-A" anarchy symbol
History
Outline
Schools of thought
Feminist
Green
Naturist
Primitivist
Social ecology
Total liberation
Individualist
Egoist
Existentialist
Free-market
Philosophical
Mutualism
Postcolonial
African
Black
Queer
Religious
Christian
Jewish
Social
Collectivist
Parecon
Communist
Magonism
Without adjectives
Methodology
Agorism
Illegalism
Insurrectionary
Communization
Expropriative
Pacifist
Platformism
Especifismo
Relationship
Syndicalist
Synthesis
Theory
Practice
Anarchy
Anarchist Black Cross
Anarchist criminology
Anationalism
Anti-authoritarianism
Anti-capitalism
Anti-militarism
Affinity group
Autonomous social center
Black bloc
Classless society
Class struggle
Consensus democracy
Conscientious objector
Critique of work
Decentralization
Deep ecology
Direct action
Direct democracy
Free association
Free love
Freethought
Horizontalidad
Individualism
Isocracy
Law
Mutual aid
Participatory politics
Permanent autonomous zone
Prefigurative politics
Proletarian internationalism
Propaganda of the deed
Refusal of work
Revolution
Rewilding
Security culture
Self-ownership
Social ecology
Sociocracy
Somatherapy
Spontaneous order
Squatting
Temporary autonomous zone
Union of egoists
People
Armand
Bakunin
Berkman
Bonanno
Bookchin
Chomsky
Cleyre
Day
Dixon
Durruti
Ellul
Faure
Feyerabend
Godwin
Goldman
Ferrer
Kropotkin
Landauer
Magón
Makhno
Malatesta
Michel
Most
Proudhon
Rocker
Santillán
Spooner
Stirner
Thoreau
Tolstoy
Tucker
Volin
Ward
Warren
Zerzan
Issues
Animal rights
Capitalism
Criticism
Education
Left-wing
Lifestylism
Love and sex
Marxism
Nationalism
Religion
Violence
History
Paris Commune
Spanish Regional Federation of the IWA
Cantonal rebellion
Hague Congress
International Conference of Rome
Trial of the Thirty
Haymarket affair
May Day
Anarchist Exclusion Act
Congress of Amsterdam
Tragic Week
High Treason Incident
Manifesto of the Sixteen
Individualist anarchism in the United States
1919 United States bombings
Biennio Rosso
German Revolution of 1918–1919
Bavarian Soviet Republic
Kronstadt rebellion
Third Russian Revolution
Makhnovshchina
Amakasu Incident
Escuela Moderna
Individualist anarchism in Europe
Spanish Revolution of 1936
Barcelona May Days
Red inverted triangle
Labadie Collection
May 1968
Provo
LIP
Kate Sharpley Library
Australian Anarchist Centenary
Carnival Against Capital
1999 Seattle WTO protests
Occupy movement
Culture
A las Barricadas
Anarchist bookfair
Anarcho-punk
Arts
Culture jamming
DIY ethic
Films
Freeganism
Glossary
Independent Media Center
The Internationale
Jewish anarchism
Lifestylism
"No gods, no masters"
Popular education
"Property is theft!"
Radical cheerleading
Radical environmentalism
Squatting
Symbolism
Economics
Communization
Cooperative
Cost the limit of price
Economic democracy
Economic secession
General strike
Gift economy
Give-away shop
Market abolitionism
Mutual aid
Participatory economics
Really Really Free Market
Social ownership
Wage slavery
Workers' self-management
By region
Africa
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
French Guiana
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guatemala
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Malaysia
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Lists
Anarcho-punk bands
Books
Communities
Fictional characters
Films
Jewish anarchists
Musicians
Periodicals
Related topics
Anti-corporatism
Anti-consumerism
Anti-fascism
Anti-globalization
Anti-statism
Anti-war movement
Autarchism
Autonomism
Communism
Counter-economics
Definition of anarchism and libertarianism
Labour movement
Left communism
Left-libertarianism
Libertarianism
Libertarian Marxism
Libertarian socialism
Marxism
Situationist International
Socialism
Spontaneous order
Voluntaryism
BlackFlagSymbol.svg Anarchism portal
A coloured voting box.svg Politics portal
v
t
e
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds
the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful[1][2] as well as
opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of
human relations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Proponents of anarchism, known as
anarchists, advocate stateless societies based on
non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations.[11][12] While
anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and
harmful,[13] opposition to the state is not its central or sole
definition.[14] Anarchism can entail opposing authority or hierarchy
in the conduct of all human relations.[15][16][17][18]
Anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology[19] and much of its
economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian
interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or
participatory economics.[20] As anarchism does not offer a fixed body
of doctrine from a single particular worldview,[21] many anarchist
types and traditions exist, not all of which are mutually
exclusive.[22] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally,
supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete
collectivism.[23] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into
the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual
classifications.[24] Other classifications may add mutualism as a
third category while some consider it part of individualist
anarchism[25][26][27] and others regard it to be part of social
anarchism.[28][29]
There are many philosophical differences among anarchists concerning
questions of ideology, values and strategy. Ideas about how anarchist
societies should work vary considerably, especially with respect to
economics.[30] There are also disagreements about how such a society
might be brought about, with some anarchists being committed to a
strategy of nonviolence while others advocate armed
struggle.[31][32][33][34][35]
Contents
1 Definitional concerns
1.1 Individualist anarchism vs. social anarchism
2 Ends and means
2.1 Participation in statist democracy
2.2 Democracy in anarchism
2.3 Violence and non-violence
2.3.1 Pacifism
2.4 Individualism vs. collectivism
3 Identity politics
3.1 Gender
3.2 Ethnicity
3.3 Religion
4 Capitalism
4.1 Globalization
4.2 Left and right anarchism
5 Nationalism
6 Environment
7 Relations with the left
7.1 Communism
7.2 Marxism
8 See also
9 Explanatory notes
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
Definitional concerns
Main article: Definition of anarchism and libertarianism
See also: Anarchist terminology
Anarchist schools of thought encompass not only a range of individual
schools, but also a considerable divergence in the use of some key
terms. Some terms such as socialism have been subject to multiple
definitions and ideological struggle throughout the period of the
development of anarchism. Others such as capitalism are used in
divergent and often contradictory ways by different schools within the
tradition. In addition, the meanings of terms such as mutualism have
changed over time, sometimes without spawning new schools. All of
these terminological difficulties contribute to misunderstandings
within and about anarchism. A central concern is whether the term
anarchism is defined in opposition to hierarchy, authority and the
state, or state and capitalism. Debates over the meaning of the term
emerge from the fact that it refers to both an abstract philosophical
position and to intellectual, political and institutional traditions,
all of which have been fraught with conflict. Some minimal, abstract
definitions encourage the inclusion of figures, movements and
philosophical positions which have historically positioned themselves
outside, or even in opposition to, individuals and traditions that
have identified themselves as anarchist. While opposition to the state
is central, there is a lot of talk among scholars and anarchists on
the matter and various currents perceive anarchism slightly
differently.[citation needed]
While it might be true to say that anarchism is a cluster of political
philosophies opposing authority and hierarchical organization
(including the state, capitalism, nationalism and all associated
institutions) in the conduct of all human relations in favour of a
society based on voluntary association, freedom and decentralisation,
this definition has its own shortcomings as the definition based on
etymology (which is simply a negation of a ruler), or based on
anti-statism (anarchism is much more than that) or even the
anti-authoritarian (which is an a posteriori
concussion).[36][verification needed]
Nonetheless, major elements of the definition of anarchism include the
following:[36]
The will for a non-coercive society.
The rejection of the state apparatus.
The belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress
toward such a non-coercive society.
A suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.
Usages in political circles have varied considerably. In 1894, Richard
T. Ely noted that the term had "already acquired a variety of
meanings". In its most general sense, these included the view that
society is "a living, growing organism, the laws of which are
something different from the laws of individual action".[37] Several
years earlier in 1888, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker
included the full text of a "Socialistic Letter" by Ernest Lesigne in
his essay on "State Socialism and Anarchism". According to Lesigne,
there are two socialisms: "One is dictatorial, the other
libertarian".[38] As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist
philosophy, anarchism is placed on the far-left of the political
spectrum[19] and much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect
anti-authoritarian interpretations of left-wing politics such as
communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory
economics.[20] As anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine
from a single particular worldview,[21] many anarchist types and
traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely.[22] As a
result, anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally yet
maintain the common tenets of anarchism, supporting anything from
extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[39] Strains of
anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and
individualist anarchism, or similar dual classifications.[40]
Nonetheless, anti-capitalism is considered a necessary element of
anarchism by most anarchists.[41][42][43]
Individualist anarchism vs. social anarchism
Due to the many anarchist schools of thought, anarchism can be divided
into two or more categories, the most used being individualist
anarchism vs. social anarchism. Other categorizations may include
green anarchism and/or left and right anarchism. Terms like
anarcho-socialism or socialist anarchism can also be used as
synonymous for social anarchism, but this is rejected by most
anarchists since they generally consider themselves socialists of the
libertarian tradition and are seen as unnecessary and confusing when
not used as synonymous for libertarian or stateless socialism
vis-à-vis authoritarian or state socialism.[44][45][46][47] Anarchism
has been historically identified with the socialist and
anti-capitalist movement, with the main divide being between
anti-market anarchists who support some form of decentralised economic
planning and pro-market anarchists who support free-market socialism,
therefore such terms are mainly used by anarcho-capitalism theorists
and scholars who recognize anarcho-capitalism to differentiate between
the two.[48][49][50] For similar reasons, anarchists also reject
categorizations such as left[51] and right anarchism
(anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism),[52] seeing anarchism as a
libertarian socialist and radical left-wing or far-left ideology.[19]
While most anarcho-capitalists theorists and scholars divide anarchism
into social anarchism vis-à-vis individualist anarchism meaning
socialism vs. capitalism, seeing the two as mutually exclusive
although accepting all anarchist schools of thought under panarchy on
the basis of voluntaryism, anarchist theorists and scholars opposing
to anarcho-capitalism reject this, not seeing them as a struggle
between socialism and capitalism or as mutually exclusive, but instead
as complementary, with their differences mainly being based on the
means to attain anarchy, rather than on their ends, arguing against
certain anarcho-capitalist theorists and scholars who see
individualist anarchism as pro-capitalist and reiterating that
anarchism as a whole is socialist, meaning libertarian and
anti-statist socialism. Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as
radically individualists,[53] seeing anarcho-communism as the best
social system for the realization of individual freedom.[54]
Notwithstanding the name, collectivist anarchism is also seen as a
blend of individualism and collectivism.[55] Anarchism is generally
considered an individualist philosophy, opposing all forms of
authoritarian collectivism, but one which does see the individual or
the community as complementary rather than mutually exclusive, with
anarcho-communism and social anarchism in particular most rejecting
the individualist–collectivist dichotomy. Finally, social anarchism is
a term used in the United States to refer to Murray Bookchin's circle
and its omonymous journal.[56][57]
Schools of thought such as anarcha-feminism, anarcho-pacifism,
anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-transhumanism and green anarchism have
different economic views and can be either part of individualist
anarchism or social anarchism. To differentiate it from individualist
anarchism, anarchists prefer using social anarchism, a term used to
characterize certain strides of anarchism vis-à-vis individualist
anarchism, with the former focusing on the social aspect and generally
being more organisational as well as supporting decentralised economic
planning and the latter focusing on the individual and generally being
more anti-organisational as well as supporting a free-market form of
socialism, respectively, rather than seeing the two categories as
mutually exclusive or as socialism vis-à-vis capitalism, leading to
anarchism without adjectives.[58] Mutualism is seen as the middle or
third category between social anarchism and individualist anarchism,
although it has been considered part of both social anarchism[59][60]
and individualist anarchism.[25][61][62] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon spoke
of social individualism and described mutualism and the freedom it
pursued as the synthesis between communism and property.[63]
>From a materialist perspective, individualist anarchism is the
anarchist form in the pre-capitalist and largely agrarian and
merchantilist capitalism before the Industrial Revolution, during
which individualist anarchism became a form of artisanal and
self-employed socialism, especially in the United States. Instead,
social anarchism is anarchism in an industrial society, being the form
of industrial or proletarian socialism, with post-left anarchy and its
criticism of industrial technology and anti-workerism arising in a
post-industrial society. Some anarchists may see such categorisations
in these terms.[64] Despite their differences, these are all forms of
libertarian socialism. Before socialism became associated in the 20th
century with Marxist–Leninist states and similar forms of
authoritarian and statist socialism, considered by critics as state
capitalism and administrative command economies rather than planned
economies, the word socialism was a broad concept which was aimed at
solving the labour problem through radical changes in the capitalist
economy.[65] This caused issues between traditional anarchists and
anarcho-captalists, whose understanding of socialism is that of the
20th century Marxist–Leninist states and whose school of thought is
generally not recognized as part of anarchism.[66][67][68]
Anarchists such as Luigi Galleani and Errico Malatesta have seen no
contradiction between individualist anarchism and social
anarchism,[69] with the latter especially seeing the issues not
between the two forms of anarchism, but between anarchists and
non-anarchists.[70] Anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker argued that it
was "not Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of
Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism".[71] Similarly,
the view of an individualist–socialist divide is contested as
individualist anarchism is largely socialistic.[72][73][74][75][76]
Ends and means
See also: Direct action, Illegalism, and Propaganda of the deed
Among anarchists, there is no consensus on the legitimacy or utility
of violence in revolutionary struggle. For example, Mikhail Bakunin,
Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta wrote of violence
as a necessary and sometimes desirable force in revolutionary
settings. At the same time, they denounced acts of individual
terrorism, see Bakunin's "The Program of the International
Brotherhood" (1869)[77] and Malatesta's "Violence as a Social Factor"
(1895). Other anarchists such as Leo Tolstoy and Dorothy Day have been
advocates of pacifism.
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent,
possibly due to a number of high-profile violent actions, including
riots, assassinations, insurrections and terrorism committed by some
anarchists as well as persistently negative media portrayals.[78] Late
19th-century revolutionaries encouraged acts of political violence,
called propaganda of the deed, such as bombings and the assassinations
of heads of state to further anarchism. However, the term originally
referred to exemplary forms of direct action meant to inspire the
masses to revolution and propaganda of the deed may be violent or
nonviolent.
While all anarchists consider antimilitarism (opposition to war) to be
inherent to their philosophy,[79] anarcho-pacifists take this further
by following Tolstoy's belief in pacifism. Although numerous
anarchist-related initiatives have been based on the tactic of
nonviolence (see Earth First! and Food Not Bombs), many anarchists
reject pacifism as an ideology, instead supporting a diversity of
tactics. Authors Ward Churchill (Pacifism as Pathology, 1986) and
Peter Gelderloos (How Nonviolence Protects the State, 2005; "The
Failure of Nonviolence",[80] 2013) have published influential books
critical of pacifist doctrine which they view as ineffectual and
hypocritical. In a 2010 article, author Randall Amster argued for the
development of a "complementarity of tactics" to bridge the pacifist
and more militant aspects of anarchism.
As a result of anarchism's critical view of certain types of private
property, many anarchists see the destruction of property as an
acceptable form of violence or argue that it is not in fact violence
at all. In her widely cited 1912 essay Direct Action, Voltairine de
Cleyre drew on American historical events, including the destroying of
revenue stamps and the Boston Tea Party as a defense of such
activities.[81]
Many anarchists participate in subversive organizations as a means to
undermine the establishment, such as Food Not Bombs, radical labor
unions, alternative media and radical social centers. This is in
accordance with the anarchist ideal that governments are intrinsically
evil and that only by destroying the power of governments can
individual freedoms and liberties be preserved. However, some
anarchist schools in theory adopt the concept of dual power which
means creating the structures for a new anti-authoritarian society in
the shell of the old, hierarchical one.
Participation in statist democracy
See also: Criticisms of electoralism and Voluntaryism
Anarchist street art in Madison, Wisconsin declaring: "Our dreams
cannot fit in their ballot boxes"
While most anarchists firmly oppose voting, or otherwise participating
in the state institution, there are a few that disagree. The prominent
anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stood for election to the French
Constituent Assembly twice in 1848. In the 1890s, Paul Brousse
developed the concept of libertarian municipalism in Switzerland which
involved participating in local elections.[82] Anarchists have opposed
voting for multiple reasons. Taking part in elections has historically
resulted in radicals becoming part of the system they oppose rather
than ending it.[83][better source needed] Voting acknowledges the
state's legitimacy.[84]
During the 2004 United States presidential election, the anarchist
collective CrimethInc. launched "Don't Just Vote, Get Active", a
campaign promoting the importance of direct action rather than
electoral change. Anarchists in other countries often engage in
similar anti-voting campaigns and advocate a more pragmatic approach,
including voting in referenda.[85] Other prominent anarchists like
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have pledged their support for
progressive candidates such as Ralph Nader.[86] In addition to merely
voting, some anarchists such as Proudhon and more recently Icelandic
activist Smári McCarthy[87] have stood for and won elections to
national legislative bodies. American individualist anarchist Lysander
Spooner argued that voting was a legitimate means of self-defense
against the state and noted that many supporters of the state consider
both voting and abstention to be acknowledgments of the state's
legitimacy.[88] Spooner's essay "No Treason"[89] offers an
individualist anarchist rebuttal to the argument that existing
democratic governments are justified by majority consent.
During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, there was debate
within anarchist circles about whether to take an abstentionist
position, vote for independence,[90] or to vote to remain in the
United Kingdom, thus anarchists rarely fitted into the easy binary of
Yes/No voters of the referendum,[91] with all seeking to go beyond the
choices offered at the ballot box. There was also a debate about what
Scottish independence would mean for the anarchist movement and social
struggle.[92] Groups like the Anarchist Federation in Scotland (mainly
in Edinburgh and Glasgow) took a critical stance skeptical of the
benefits of Scottish independence.[91][93][94]
Within the United Kingdom, there was considerable debate around the
Brexit vote in 2016. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to the
European Union, yet the vote was seen as one imposed by two factions
of the right-wing.[95] Yet again, there was debate about whether to
vote to Remain in the European Union, abstain (some left communists
argued for abstaining)[96] or vote to Leave since the United Kingdom
government (the Conservative Party) was mostly in favour of remain
while UK Independence Party and far-right parties favoured Leave.
There was also debate within the left amongst anarchists and those who
considered themselves to have a Lexit (Left Exit position).[97] The
victory of the Leave side united anarchists, whether voters or
abstainers, against the racist incidents and rise of right-wing
populism and neo-nationalism which was considered to have happened
following the result of the vote.[98] Many anarchists and
anti-authoritarian leftists argue that Brexit was negative for social
struggles and migrants in particular[99] and considerable efforts were
made to analyze why the Leave result happened.[100]
Democracy in anarchism
For individualist anarchists, "the system of democracy, of majority
decision, is held null and void. Any impingement upon the natural
rights of the person is unjust and a symbol of majority tyranny".[101]
Libertarian municipalist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist
anarchists for opposing democracy[102] and said majority rule is
consistent with anarchism.[103] While preferring the term assembly
rather than democracy, Bookchin has in turn been accused of municipal
statism, i.e. non-anarchism.[104] Later, Bookchin renounced anarchism
to identify himself as an advocate of Communalism.
Violence and non-violence
Main article: Anarchism and violence
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent due
mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots,
assassinations and insurrections involving anarchists. However, the
use of terrorism and assassination is condemned by most anarchist
ideology, although there remains no consensus on the legitimacy or
utility of violence. Some anarchists have opposed coercion while
others have supported it, particularly in the form of violent
revolution on the path to anarchy.[105]
Some anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in
nonviolence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate nonviolent resistance as
the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often
see violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue that as
such violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some of
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's French followers even saw strike action as
coercive and refused to take part in such traditional socialist
tactics.
Other anarchists advocate Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent
Communication that relates to peoples fundamental needs and feelings
using strategies of requests, observations and empathy yet providing
for the use of protective force while rejecting pacifism as a
compromising strategy of the left that just perpetuates violence.
Other anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta saw
violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force. Malatesta took
the view that it is "necessary to destroy with violence, since one
cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies [the means of life and
for development] to the workers" (Umanità Nova, number 125, 6
September 1921).[106]
Between 1894 and 1901, individual anarchists assassinated numerous
heads of state, including:
French President Sadi Carnot (1894)
Empress consort Elisabeth of Austria (1898)
King Umberto I of Italy (1900)
United States President William McKinley (1901)
Such propaganda of the deed was not popular among anarchists and many
in the movement condemned the tactic. President William McKinley's
assassin Leon Czolgosz claimed to be a disciple of Emma Goldman.
Goldman disavowed the act, although she did not condemn Czolgosz's
motivations in doing it. Goldman included in her definition of
anarchism the observation that all governments rest on violence and
this is one of the many reasons they should be opposed. Goldman
herself did not oppose tactics like assassination until she went to
Russia, where she witnessed the violence of the Russian state and the
Red Army. From then on, Goldman condemned the use of terrorism,
especially by the state, but she still supported most other forms of
revolutionary violence throughout her life. In a debate with a
pacifist five years before her death, she countered that "the
organized force used against the followers of Gandhi has finally
forced them to use violence, much to the distress of Gandhi" and
concluded that "as a method of combating the complex social injustices
and inequalities, non-resistance cannot be a decisive factor"
(non-resistance was the term for nonviolence used by Tolstoy and other
early 20th century pacifists). Goldman at this time was an information
officer for the anarchist militias of the Spanish Revolution which
were committed to armed struggle.[107]
Depictions in the press and popular fiction (for example, a malevolent
bomb-throwing anarchist in Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent) helped
create a lasting public impression that anarchists are violent
terrorists. This perception was enhanced by events such as the
Haymarket riot, where anarchists were blamed for throwing a bomb at
police who came to break up a public meeting in Chicago. More
recently, anarchists have been involved in protests against World
Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
meetings across the globe which the media has described as violent or
riots. Traditionally, May Day in London has also been a day of
marching, but in recent years the Metropolitan Police have warned that
a "hardcore of anarchists" are intent on causing violence. Anarchists
often respond that it is the police who initiate violence at these
demonstrations, with anarchists who are otherwise peaceful sometimes
forced to defend themselves. The anarchists involved in such protests
often formed black blocs at these protests and some engaged in
property destruction, vandalism, or in violent conflicts with police,
although others stuck to non-violent principles. Those participating
in black blocs distinguish between violence and property destruction
as they claim that violence is when a person inflicts harm to another
person while property destruction or property damage is not violence,
although it can have indirect harm such as financial harm. Most
anarchists do not consider the destruction of property to be violent
as do most activists who believe in non-violence.
Pacifism
See also: Anarcho-pacifism
Anarchist protesters in Boston opposing state-waged war
Most anarchists consider opposition to militarism to be inherent in
their philosophy. Some anarchists take it further and follow Leo
Tolstoy's belief in non-violence (note that these anarcho-pacifists
are not necessarily Christian anarchists as Tolstoy was), advocating
nonviolent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly
anarchist revolution.
Anarchist literature often portrays war as an activity in which the
state seeks to gain and consolidate power, both domestically and in
foreign lands. Many anarchists subscribe to Randolph Bourne's view
that "war is the health of the state".[108] Anarchists believe that if
they were to support a war, they would be strengthening the
state—indeed, Peter Kropotkin was alienated from other anarchists when
he expressed support for the British[citation needed] in World War
I.[109]
Individualism vs. collectivism
Wiki letter w.svg
This section is missing information about Tucker's and Spooner's
understanding of private property (a product of one's labour) and how
it was understood differently by other anarchists (privately owned
land and means of production). Please expand the section to include
this information. Further details may exist on the talk page. (May
2021)
While some anarchists favour collective property or no property,
others such as some American individualist anarchists like Benjamin
Tucker and Lysander Spooner support a form of private property while
opposing property titles to unused land. Tucker argues that
collectivism in property is absurd: "That there is an entity known as
the community which is the rightful owner of all land, [...] I
maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no
existence".[110] He was particularly adamant in his opposition to
communism, even to the point of asserting that those who opposed
private property were not anarchists: "Anarchism is a word without
meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control
his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange
in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private
property is of necessity an Archist".[111] Similarly, Albert Meltzer
argued that since individualist anarchists like Tucker promote the
idea of private armies, they actually support a "limited State",
contending that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is
free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of
countering it".[112] Anarcho-communists reject the criticism, pointing
to the principle of voluntary association that underpins their theory
and differentiates it from state communism.[113] Some individualist
anarchists are willing to recognize such communism as a legitimate
form. Kevin Carson writes that "free market, libertarian communist,
syndicalism, and other kinds of collectivist anarchists must learn to
coexist in peace and mutual respect today, in our fight against the
corporate state, and tomorrow, in the panarchy that is likely to
succeed it".[114]
Some forms of anarcho-communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are
strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing
anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realisation of
individual freedom.[53] Hence, most anarcho-communists view
anarcho-communism itself as a way of reconciling the opposition
between the individual and society.[54] Furthermore, post-left
anarchists like Bob Black went as far as to argue that "communism is
the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent
contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a
misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the
individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of
"emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You
may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is
a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest
individual development with the greatest communal unity".[115] Max
Baginski has argued that property and the free market are just other
"spooks", what Stirner called to refer mere illusions, or ghosts in
the mind, writing: "Modern Communists are more individualistic than
Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are
spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the
individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus
creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am
a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the
Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of
demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation.
Individualism and Communism go hand in hand".[116] Peter Kropotkin
argued that "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount
of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the
community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic
freedom better than any other form of association, because it can
guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work
instead of a day's work".[117] Dielo Truda similarly argued that
"[t]his other society will be libertarian communism, in which social
solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in
which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony".[118] In "My
Perspectives" of Willful Disobedience (2: 12), it was argued as such:
"I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism,
individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human
exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and
feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique
and struggle".[119]
The Right to Be Greedy is a book published in 1974 by an American
Situationist collective called For Ourselves: Council for Generalized
Self-Management which Black describes it in its preface as an
"audacious attempt to synthesize a collectivist social vision of
left-wing origin with an individualistic (for lack of a better word)
ethic usually articulated on the right".[120] Its authors say that
"[t]he positive conception of egoism, the perspective of communist
egoism, is the very heart and unity of our theoretical and practical
coherence".[121] The book was highly influenced by the work of Max
Stirner, with Black humorously suggesting that it was a synthesis of
Marxism and Stirner's philosophy which may be called
Marxism–Stirnerism just as he wrote an essay on Groucho-Marxism,[122]
writing in the preface to The Right to be Greedy: "If
Marxism-Stirnerism is conceivable, every orthodoxy prating of freedom
or liberation is called into question, anarchism included. The only
reason to read this book, as its authors would be the first to agree,
is for what you can get out of it".[120]
Although commonly misconcepted, Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the
sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it
from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the
division between workers and owners of productive property.[note 1]
Marx and Engels believed that an international proletarian revolution
would bring about a socialist society which would then eventually give
way to a communist stage of social development which would be a
classless, stateless, moneyless, humane society erected on common
ownership. However, Marx's view of classlessness was not the
subordination of society to a universal interest (such as a universal
notion of equality), but it was about the creation of the conditions
that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and
desires, making his notion of communist society radically
individualistic.[126] Marx was a proponent of two principles, the
first ("To each according to his contribution") applied to socialism
and the second ("From each according to their ability, to each
according to their needs") to an advanced communist society. Although
his position is often confused or conflated with distributive
egalitarianism in which only the goods and services resulting from
production are distributed according to a notional equality, Marx
eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in
nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as
opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic
logic.[127] He is a believer in human freedom and human development.
For Marx, the "true realm of freedom" consists in the "development of
human powers as an end in itself".[128] He conceives of a communist
society as one in which "the full and free development of every
individual forms the ruling principle".[129] Marx justified the forms
of equality he did advocate such as the communal ownership and control
of the economy on the grounds that they led to human freedom and human
development rather than simply because they were egalitarian, writing
that in such a society there are "[u]niversally developed individuals,
whose social relations, as their own communal relations, are hence
also subordinated to their own communal control". This communal
control includes "their subordination of their communal, social
productivity as their social wealth".[130]
Identity politics
Gender
See also: Anarcha-feminism and Ecofeminism
Emma Goldman
Anarcha-feminism is a kind of radical feminism that espouses the
belief that patriarchy is a fundamental problem in society, but it was
not explicitly formulated as such until the early 1970s during the
second-wave feminist movement.[131]
Early first-wave feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist
views and William Godwin is often considered a feminist anarchist
precursor. Early French feminists such as Jenny d'Héricourt and
Juliette Adam also criticised the misogyny in the anarchism of
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon during the 1850s. While most anarchists of the
period did not take these ideas seriously, others such as Florence
Finch Kelly and Moses Harman held gender equality as a topic of
significant importance.[132] Anarcha-feminism garnered further
attention through the work of early 20th-century authors and theorists
including Emma Goldman[133][134] and Voltairine de
Cleyre.[135][136][137]
In the Spanish Civil War, an anarcha-feminist group called Mujeres
Libres organized to defend both anarchist and feminist ideas.[138]
Ethnicity
See also: Black anarchism and Postcolonial anarchism
Black anarchism opposes the existence of a state, capitalism and
subjugation and domination of people of color and favors a
non-hierarchical organization of society.[139][140][141][142]
Theorists include Ashanti Alston, Lorenzo Komboa Ervin and Sam Mbah.
Some of these theorists have had past experiences with the Black
Panther Party and came to anarchism after they became critical of the
Black Panther Party's brand of Marxist–Leninism. Anarchist People of
Color (APOC) was created as a forum for non-white anarchists to
express their thoughts about racial issues within the anarchist
movement, particularly within the United States. Anti-Racist Action is
not an anarchist group, but many anarchists are involved. It focuses
on publicly confronting antisemites, racists, supremacists and others
such as the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi groups and the like.
Most modern and historical anarchists describe themselves as
anti-racists. Many early anarchists, notably Lucy Parsons (a person of
color and formerly an enslaved American), viewed racism as one of many
negative side-effects of capitalism and expected that it would vanish
in a post-capitalist world. However, among modern anarchists
anti-racism plays a more prominent role and racism is typically viewed
as one of several forms of social hierarchy and stratification which
must be destroyed. No anarchist organizations has ever included racism
as part of its platform and many—particularly modern
formations—include explicit anti-racism, with the national-anarchist
movement being rejected as part of anarchism for his perceived racism,
among other reasons. For instance, American anarchists were alone in
opposing racism against Chinese and Mexican workers in the late 19th
century and early 20th century. Since the late 1970s, anarchists have
been involved in fighting the rise of neo-fascist groups. In Germany
and the United Kingdom, some anarchists worked within militant
anti-fascist groups alongside members of the Marxist left. They
advocated directly combating fascists with physical force rather than
relying on the state. Since the late 1990s, a similar tendency has
developed within anarchism in the United States.
Anti-Racist Action is one of the largest grassroots anti-fascist and
anti-racist organizations in North America today and counts many
anarchists among its members. Their tactics, centered around directly
confronting neo-fascist and white-supremacist groups, are considered
controversial both within the anarchist movement (where they are
sometimes portrayed as well-intentioned, but ineffective) and in
mainstream society (where they are often portrayed as violent and
disruptive).
Many anarchists also oppose the concept of race itself, arguing that
it has no biological basis in science and is a social construction
designed to divide the working class and preserve capitalism.
A minority of historically prominent anarchists have been accused of
racism, e.g. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon[143] and Mikhail Bakunin.[144]
Religion
Main article: Anarchism and religion
See also: Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism, Islamic anarchism,
and Jewish anarchism
>From Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin to the Spanish
anarcho-syndicalists, most anarchists have questioned or opposed
organized religion, believing that most organized religions are
hierarchical or authoritarian and more often than not aligned with
contemporary power structures like the state and capital. Nonetheless,
others reconcile anarchism with religion.
Christian anarchists believe that there is no higher authority than
God and oppose earthly authority such as government and established
churches. They believe that Jesus' teachings and the practice of the
early Church were clearly anarchistic. Some of them feel that the
teachings of the Nazarenes and other early groups of followers were
corrupted by contemporary religious views, most notably when
Theodosius I declared Nicene Christianity the official religion of the
Roman Empire. Christian anarchists who follow Jesus' directive to turn
the other cheek are usually strict pacifists, although some believe in
a limited justification of defense, especially defense of others. The
most famous advocate of Christian anarchism was Leo Tolstoy, author of
The Kingdom of God Is Within You, who called for a society based on
compassion, nonviolent principles and freedom. Christian anarchists
tend to form experimental communities (such as the Catholic Worker).
They also occasionally resist taxation.
Buddhist anarchism originated in the influential Chinese anarchist
movement of the 1920s. Taixu, one of the leading thinkers and writers
of this school, was deeply influenced by the work of Christian
anarchists like Tolstoy and by the ancient Chinese well-field system.
In the late 19th century, the Ghadar movement in India (see Har
Dayal), influenced by Buddhist thought and by Swami Dayananda
Saraswati (founder of Arya Samaj), saw anarchism as a way of
propagating the ancient culture of the Arya (not to be confused with
the much later appropriation of Aryan identity by Nazism).[145]
Buddhist anarchism was later revived in the 1960s by writers such as
Gary Snyder; an incarnation of this school of thought was popularized
by Jack Kerouac in his book The Dharma Bums.
With its focus on the environment and equality along with its often
decentralized nature, Neopaganism has led to a number of Neopagan
anarchists. One of the most prominent is Starhawk, who writes
extensively about both spirituality and activism.
Discussing the anarchist movement in Britain in 2002, Adam K. has
argued that it "has an especially ignorant and hegemonistic perception
of the Muslim community" which he attributed to "the [A]nglo-centric
nature of the movement". Quoting the statement that "Islam is an enemy
of all freedom loving people" from an anarchist magazine, he argues
that this is "no different to the bigoted rhetoric of George Bush or
even BNP leader Nick Griffin".[146]
Capitalism
Main article: Anarchism and capitalism
See also: Anarcho-capitalism
Throughout all of its history, anarchism has been defined by its
proponents in opposition to capitalism which they believe can be
maintained only by state violence.[147] Anarchists generally follow
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in opposing ownership of workplaces by
capitalists and aim to replace wage labor with workers' associations.
These anarchists also agree with Peter Kropotkin's comment that "the
origin of the anarchist inception of society [lies in] the criticism
[...] of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian
conceptions of society" rather than in simple opposition to the state
or government.[148] They argue that the wage system is hierarchical
and authoritarian in nature and consequently capitalism cannot be
anarchist.[149] Conversely, anarcho-capitalists generally support wage
labor and oppose workplace democracy which most anarchists support,
claiming that wage labor is voluntary. However, most anarchists argue
that certain capitalist transactions, including wage labor, are not
voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist
society requires coercion which violates both anarchist principles and
anarcho-capitalism's non-aggression principle itself.[150] Anarchists
who support wage labor do so as long as the employers and employees
are paid equally for equal hours worked[151] and neither party has
authority over the other. By following this principle, no individual
profits from the labor of another. Those anarchists describe the wages
received in such an employer-employee relationship as the individual
laborer's full product and generally envisione that in such a society
every worker would be self-employed and own their own private means of
production, free to walk away from employment contracts.[152]
Some supporters argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
individualist anarchism.[153][154][155] However, most early
individualist anarchists considered themselves "fervent
anti-capitalists [who see] no contradiction between their
individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism".[156] Many
defined themselves as socialists. These early individualist anarchists
defined capitalism in various ways, but it was often discussed in
terms of usury: "There are three forms of usury, interest on money,
rent on land and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt
of any of these is a usurer".[157] Excluding these, they tended to
support free trade, free competition and varying levels of private
property such as mutualism based on occupation and use property
norms.[158][159][160] It is this distinction which has led to the rift
between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Historically, anarchists
considered themselves socialists and opposed to capitalism, therefore
anarcho-capitalism is considered by many anarchists today as not being
a form of anarchism.[161]
Furthermore, terms like anarcho-socialism or socialist anarchism are
rejected by most anarchists since they generally consider themselves
socialists of the libertarian tradition, but they are nevertheless
used by anarcho-capitalism theorists and scholars who recognize
anarcho-capitalism to differentiate between the two.[162][49][163]
Ultimately, anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard, who coined the
term itself and developed such philosophy through the 1970s, stated
that individualist anarchism is different from capitalism due to the
individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value[164] and
many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at
all,[66][67] or that capitalism itself is compatible with
anarchism.[66][68] seeing it instead as a form of New Right
libertarianism.[66]
Anarchist organisations such as the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo
(Spain) and the Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland) generally
take an explicitly anti-capitalist stance. In the 20th century,
several economists began to formulate a form of radical American
libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism. This has met resistance
from those who hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive or
statist and many anarchists and scholars do not consider
anarcho-capitalism to properly cohere with the spirit, principles, or
history of anarchism.[165] While other anarchists and scholars regard
anarchism as referring only to opposition to the non-privatisation of
all aspects of the state and do consider anarcho-capitalism to be a
form of anarchism,[166] Gary Chartier[167] has joined Kevin
Carson,[168][169] Roderick T. Long,[170][171] Charles W. Johnson,[172]
Sheldon Richman[173][174][175] and Chris Matthew Sciabarra[176] in
maintaining that because of its heritage and its emancipatory goals
and potential radical market anarchism should be seen by its
proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that
market anarchists can and should call themselves socialists, echoing
the language of libertarian socialists like American individualist
anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and British Thomas
Hodgskin.[177]
In particular, Chartier has argued that proponents of a genuinely free
market, termed freed market to distinguish them from the common
conception which these left-libertarians (referred to as left-wing
market anarchists[178] or market-oriented left-libertarians)[175]
believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges,[179]
should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global
anti-capitalist movement while emphasizing that the abuses the
anti-capitalist movement highlights result from state-tolerated
violence and state-secured privilege rather than from voluntary
cooperation and exchange. Indeed, proponents of this approach strongly
affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets
while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas
support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical and
pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy;
and thoroughly radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender,
sexuality and race.[180][177]
One major issue and divide between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
are the terms capitalism and socialism themselves. For
anarcho-capitalists, capitalism means the free market rather than
actually existing capitalism (of which they are critics, arguing that
the problem rests on corporatism and state capitalism, a term coined
by German socialist Wilhelm Liebknecht,[181] but whose concept can be
traced back to anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin[182][183] and Jan
Wacław Machajski,[184][185][186][187] rather than capitalism itself)
as advocated by anti-capitalists[188][189] and socialism is conflated
with state socialism and Marxist–Leninist states. However, the term
socialism originally included any opponent of capitalism, a term
coined in the 18th century to mean a construed political system built
on privileges for the owners of capital.[190][191][192]
Contra anarcho-capitalists, anarchists argue that capitalism
necessarily rests on the state to survive and state capitalism is seen
as the inevitable result of both capitalism and state socialism.
Furthermore, the free market itself for classical economists such as
Adam Smith did not necessarily refer to a market free from government
interference as it is now commonly assumed or how anarcho-capitalists
see it, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege,
monopolies and artificial scarcities, implying that economic rents,
i.e. profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be
reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free
competition.[193] While anarcho-capitalists who argue for private
property which supports absentee and landlordism ownership rather than
occupation and use property norms as well as the homestead principle
are considered right-libertarians rather than anarchists (this is due
to anarchism generally viewing any absentee ownership and ownership
claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate[194]
and seeing the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation as
advocated by some anarcho-capitalists as anathema to traditional
schools of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy
that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a
premise),[195] other anarcho-capitalists are closer to mutualism and
are considered part of free-market anarchism which argue that a true
free-market or laissez-faire system would be best served under
socialism rather than capitalism.[196][197]
As a whole, anarchism is seen part of the socialist tradition, with
the main divide being between anti-market anarchists (most social
anarchists, including anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists and
collectivist anarchists) who support some form of decentralised
economic planning and pro-market anarchists (certain individualist
anarchists, including free-market anarchists and mutualists) who
support free-market socialism. As such, Chartier has argued that
anarcho-capitalists should reject capitalism and call themselves
free-market advocates,[198] writing that "it makes sense for
[freed-market advocates] to name what they oppose "capitalism." Doing
so calls attention to the freedom movement's radical roots, emphasizes
the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state,
underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to
non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures
that advocates of freedom aren't confused with people who use market
rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity
between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary
people around the world who use "capitalism" as a short-hand label for
the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their
lives".[175]
Another major issue and divide within anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
is that of property, more specifically the issues of private property.
By property, or private property, ever since Proudhon's book What is
Property?, published in 1840, anarchists meant possession (or what
other socialists, including Marxists and communists, distingue as
personal property) which he considered as liberty ("Property is
liberty") versus productive property (such as land and infrastructure,
or what Marxists terms the means of production and the means of labor)
which he considered as theft ("Property is theft"), causing him to
also say "Property is impossible".[199]
Individualist anarchists like Tucker started calling possession as
property, or private property. Anarcho-capitalists generally make no
such distinction. Such distinction is extremely important to
anarchists and other socialists because in the capitalist mode of
production private and personal property are considered to be exactly
equivalent. They make the following distinctions:
Personal property, or possession, includes items intended for
personal use (e.g. one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, vehicles and
sometimes money).[200] It must be gained in a socially fair manner and
the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.
Anarchists generally agree that private property is a social
relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a
relationship between person and thing), e.g. artifacts, factories,
mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts
and seas. In this context, private property and ownership means
ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions.
To anarchists and socialists alike, the term private property
refers to capital or the means of production while personal property
refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.[201][202]
Globalization
Many anarchists are actively involved in the anti-globalization
movement, seeing corporate globalization as a neocolonialist attempt
to use economic coercion on a global scale, carried out through state
institutions such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, Group
of Eight and the World Economic Forum. Globalization is an ambiguous
term that has different meanings to different anarchist factions. Many
anarchists use the term to mean neocolonialism and/or cultural
imperialism (which they may see as related). Others, particularly
anarcho-capitalists, use globalization to mean the worldwide expansion
of the division of labor and trade which they see as beneficial so
long as governments do not intervene. Anarcho-capitalists and market
anarchists also see the worldwide expansion of the division of labor
through trade (globalization) as a boon, but they oppose the
regulation and cartelization imposed by the World Bank, World Trade
Organization and "managed trade" agreements such as the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA). Many also object to fiat money issued by central
banks and resulting debasement of money and confiscation of wealth.
Groups such as Reclaim the Streets[203] were among the instigators of
the so-called anti-globalization movement.[204]
The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999 is generally regarded
as the first of the major anti-globalization protests.[205] Anarchists
such as the WOMBLES have on occasion played a significant role in
planning, organising and participating in subsequent protests.[206]
The protests tended to be organised on anarchist direct action
principles with a general tolerance for a range of different
activities ranging from those who engage in tactical frivolity to the
black blocs.[207]
Left and right anarchism
The term left anarchism, or left-wing anarchism, has been occasionally
used to distinguish social anarchism from anarcho-capitalism and
anti-state right-libertarian philosophies.[208][209] "Left anarchists"
refer to political philosophies which posit a future society in which
private property is replaced by reciprocity and non-hierarchical
society.[210][211] The term left anarchism is sometimes used
synonymously with libertarian socialism,[212] left-libertarianism, or
social anarchism.[51] Anarchists typically discourage the concept of
left-wing theories of anarchism on grounds of redundancy and that it
lends legitimacy to the notion that anarchism is compatible with
capitalism[213][214] or nationalism.[215][216]
Syndicalist Ulrike Heider categorized anarchism into left anarchism,
right anarchism and green anarchism.[217] The term right anarchism, or
right-wing anarchism, has been used to refer to schools of thoughts
which are not generally considered part of anarchism, including
anarcho-capitalism[66][68] and national-anarchism.[218]
Nationalism
Main article: Anarchism and nationalism
See also: National-anarchism and Postcolonial anarchism
Anarchism has a long history of opposing imperialism, both in the core
nations (the colonizers) and the periphery nations (the colonized). In
general, anarchists have preferred to focus on building revolutions at
home and doing solidarity work for comrades in other countries, e.g.
Guy Aldred was jailed for printing Shyamji Krishnavarma's The Indian
Sociologist. Another example of this was Rudolf Rocker, a prominent
German anarchist and anti-fascist who was particularly active amongst
Jewish workers. In his Nationalism and Culture, he argued for a
"federation of European peoples" which would include Jews. Rejecting
biological theories of race and the concept of nation, he argued that
since it was European states that had conquered and colonized the rest
of the world, successful libertarian organization amongst Europeans
was "the first condition for the creation of a world federation which
will also secure the so-called colonial peoples the same rights for
the pursuit of happiness. Many modern anarchists and other
anti-imperialists share this approach.[219]
Historically, anarchism was supportive of the anationalist movement as
well as of the Esperanto language,[220][221] a language constructed to
serve as a politically and ethnically neutral international language.
After the Spanish Civil War, Francoist Spain persecuted anarchists and
Catalan nationalists, among whom the use of Esperanto was
extensive.[222] The so-called national-anarchist movement is not
recognized as part of anarchism by anarchists and scholars due to
anarchism opposition to nationalism, the nation state, tribalism and
neo-tribalism and national-anarchism's perceived racism and sexism,
arguing that it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the
radical right rather than an entirely new
dimension.[223][224][225][226] Some accuse national-anarchists of
being white nationalists who promote ethnic and racial separatism
while others argue they want the militant chic of calling themselves
anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that
accompanies such a claim.[227][228]
During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, there was debate
within anarchist circles about whether to take an abstentionist
position, vote for independence,[90] or to vote to remain in the
United Kingdom,[91] therefore anarchists rarely fitted into the easy
binary of Yes/No voters of the referendum,[229] with all seeking to go
beyond the choices offered at the ballot box. There was also a debate
about what Scottish independence would mean for the anarchist movement
and social struggle.[92] Groups like the Anarchist Federation in
Scotland (mainly in Edinburgh and Glasgow) took a critical stance
skeptical of the benefits of Scottish independence.[91][93] Scottish
anarchists argued that Scottish independence and Scottish nationalism
diverted energy away from grassroots struggles and that the movement
for Scottish independence sucked people towards Scottish nationalism
and electoral politics.[230]
Environment
See also: Anarcho-primitivism, Ecofeminism, Green anarchism, Green
syndicalism, and Social ecology
The environment and sustainability have been an issue for anarchists
from at least as far back as Peter Kropotkin's 1899 book Fields,
Factories and Workshops, but since the late 1970s anarchists in
English-speaking world and European countries have been agitating for
the natural environment. Eco-anarchists or green anarchists often
embrace deep ecology, a worldview that strives to cultivate
biodiversity and sustainability. Eco-anarchists often use direct
action against what they see as Earth-destroying institutions. Of
particular importance is the Earth First! movement that takes action
such as tree sitting. The more militant Earth Liberation Front which
grew out of Earth First! also has connections with the anarchist
movement. Another important component is ecofeminism which sees the
domination of nature as a metaphor for the domination of women.
Murray Bookchin's work on social ecology, David Watson's work with
Fifth Estate magazine, Steve Booth's work in the United Kingdom
publication Green Anarchist and Graham Purchase's writings on green
syndicalism have all contributed to the broad variety and scope of
green anarchist/eco-anarchist thought and action. Green anarchism also
involves a critique of industrial capitalism and for some green
anarchists (including anarcho-primitivists) civilization itself.
Relations with the left
On May 1937 the President of Republican Spain, Manuel Azaña, then
living in the parliament house in Exposition Park, talked by telephone
to the President of Catalonia, Luis Companys, who was in his office in
the Palace of the Generalitat. The conversation had been going on for
some time, when it was sharply interrupted by an anarchist in the
Telefónica who said: "This conversation will have to stop. We have
more interesting things to do than listen to your stupid
conversations." The line was then broken.
—Jaume Miravitlles[231]
While many anarchists (especially those involved in the
anti-globalization movement) continue to see themselves as a leftist
movement, some thinkers and activists believe it is necessary to
re-evaluate anarchism's relationship with the traditional left. Like
many radical ideologies, most anarchist schools of thought are to some
degree sectarian. There is often a difference of opinion within each
school about how to react to, or interact with, other schools. Many
anarchists draw from a wide range of political perspectives, such as
the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the Situationists,
ultra-leftists, autonomist Marxism and various indigenous cultures.
A movement called post-left anarchy seeks to distance itself from the
traditional left—communists, socialists, social democrats and the
like—and to escape the confines of ideology in general. Post-leftists
argue that anarchism has been weakened by its long attachment to
contrary leftist movements and single issue causes (anti-war,
anti-nuclear and so on). It calls for a synthesis of anarchist thought
and a specifically anti-authoritarian revolutionary movement outside
of the leftist milieu. Important groups and individuals associated
with post-left anarchy include CrimethInc., the magazine Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed and its editor Jason McQuinn, Bob Black, Hakim
Bey and others.
The term post-anarchism was originated by Saul Newman, first receiving
popular attention in his book From Bakunin to Lacan, a synthesis of
classical anarchist theory and poststructuralist thought. Subsequent
to Newman's use of the term, it has taken on a life of its own and a
wide range of ideas including autonomism, post-left anarchy,
Situationism, postcolonialism and Zapatismo. By its very nature,
post-anarchism rejects the idea that it should be a coherent set of
doctrines and beliefs. Key thinkers nonetheless associated with
post-anarchism include Saul Newman, Todd May, Gilles Deleuze and Félix
Guattari.[232]
Some activists calling themselves insurrectionary anarchists are
critical of formal anarchist labor unions and federations and advocate
informal organization, carrying out acts of resistance in various
struggles. Proponents include Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo M.
Bonanno, author of works including Armed Joy and The Anarchist
Tension. This tendency is represented in the United States in
magazines such as Willful Disobedience and Killing King Abacus.
Communism
While communism is proposed as a form of social and economic
organisation by many anarchists, other anarchists consider it a danger
to the liberty and free development of the individual.[233] Most
schools of anarchism have recognized a distinction between libertarian
and authoritarian forms of communism.[234] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said
of communism that "whether of the utopian or the Marxist variety, that
it destroyed freedom by taking away from the individual control over
his means of production",[235] adding: "Communism is exploitation of
the strong by the weak".[236] Mikhail Bakunin stated: "I hate
Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me
humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a Communist, because
Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of
the State all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to
the concentration of property in the hands of the State".[237]
However, Bakunin was speaking of authoritarian and statist forms of
communism and socialism (see also state capitalism and its origins and
early uses of the term) as verified by the last line which mentions
state property—anarcho-communists explicitly reject state property and
authority, especially centralized authority—and famously proclaimed:
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and
brutality".[238] Even American individualist anarchist Benjamin
Tucker, who insisted on the voluntary nature of all association and
opposed communism along with majority rule, organized religion and the
institution of marriage due to their compulsory nature,[239] argued:
"Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist. This
excludes from Anarchism all believers in compulsory Communism. As for
the believers in voluntary Communism (of whom there are precious few),
they are of necessity believers in the liberty to hold private
property, for to pool one's possessions with those of others is
nothing more or less than an exercise of proprietorship".[111]
Karl Marx's communist society is actually based on free association
which he called a community of freely associated individuals.[240]
Marx's communist society is one in which "the full and free
development of every individual forms the ruling principle" and "the
free development of each is the condition for the free development of
all".[241] Hence, Marx justified the forms of equality he did advocate
such as the communal ownership and control of the economy on the
grounds that they led to human freedom and human development, arguing
that "the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor which is
determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the
very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material
production.[242] According to Allen Woods, a communist society is one
that has transcended class antagonisms and "would not be one in which
some truly universal interest at last reigns, to which individual
interests must be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which
individuals freely act as the truly human individuals they are",
making Marx's communist society radically individualistic.[126]
Although Peter Kropotkin, one of the leading proponents of
anarcho-communism while also opposing statist communism, argued for an
economic model of free distribution between all individuals, many
individualist anarchists oppose communism in all its forms on the
grounds that voluntary communism is not practicable. Individualist
anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, Victor Yarros and Henry Appleton
have denied that communism is a genuine form of anarchism.[243] They
rejected its strategies and argued that it is inherently
authoritarian.[244] In the opinion of Appleton, "Communism, being
opposed to natural law, must necessarily call upon unnatural methods
if it would put itself into practice" and employ "pillage, brute
force, and violence".[245] As a response, Albert Meltzer argued that
since individualist anarchists like Tucker promote the idea of private
armies, they actually support a "limited State", contending that it
"is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic
and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering
it".[112] Anarcho-communists also reject the criticism, pointing to
the principle of voluntary association that underpins their theory and
differentiates it from statist communism.[113] Some individualist
anarchists are willing to recognize such communism as a legitimate
form. Kevin Carson writes that "free market, libertarian communist,
syndicalism, and other kinds of collectivist anarchists must learn to
coexist in peace and mutual respect today, in our fight against the
corporate state, and tomorrow, in the panarchy that is likely to
succeed it".[114]
As a response, there emerged in the 1980s United States the tendency
of post-left anarchy which was influenced profoundly by egoism in
aspects such as the critique of ideology. Jason McQuinn says that
"when I (and other anti-ideological anarchists) criticize ideology, it
is always from a specifically critical, anarchist perspective rooted
in both the skeptical, individualist-anarchist philosophy of Max
Stirner".[246] Bob Black and Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher also
strongly adhere to Stirnerist egoism. A reprinting of The Right to be
Greedy in the 1980s was done with the involvement of Black who also
wrote the preface to it.[120] In the book's preface, Black has
humorously suggested the idea of "Marxist Stirnerism" just as he wrote
an essay on "groucho-marxism",[122] writing: "If Marxism-Stirnerism is
conceivable, every orthodoxy prating of freedom or liberation is
called into question, anarchism included. The only reason to read this
book, as its authors would be the first to agree, is for what you can
get out of it".[120]
Hakim Bey has said: "From Stirner's "Union of Self-Owning Ones" we
proceed to Nietzsche's circle of "Free Spirits" and thence to Charles
Fourier's "Passional Series", doubling and redoubling ourselves even
as the Other multiplies itself in the eros of the group".[247] Bey
also wrote: "The Mackay Society, of which Mark & I are active members,
is devoted to the anarchism of Max Stirner, Benj. Tucker & John Henry
Mackay. [...] The Mackay Society, incidentally, represents a
little-known current of individualist thought which never cut its ties
with revolutionary labor. Dyer Lum, Ezra & Angela Haywood represent
this school of thought; Jo Labadie, who wrote for Tucker's Liberty,
made himself a link between the American "plumb-line" anarchists, the
"philosophical" individualists, & the syndicalist or communist branch
of the movement; his influence reached the Mackay Society through his
son, Laurance. Like the Italian Stirnerites (who influenced us through
our late friend Enrico Arrigoni) we support all anti-authoritarian
currents, despite their apparent contradictions".[248]
Marxism
Anarchism has had a strained relationship with Marxism since Karl
Marx's life. The dispute between Marx and Mikhail Bakunin highlighted
the differences between anarchism and Marxism, with Bakunin
criticizing Marx for his authoritarian bent.[249] Bakunin also
argued—against certain ideas of a number of Marxists—that not all
revolutions need to be violent. For instance, he strongly rejected
Marx's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a concept that
vanguardist socialism, including Marxist–Leninism, would use to
justify one-party rule from above by a party representing the
proletariat.[250] Bakunin insisted that revolutions must be led by the
people directly while any "enlightened elite" must only exert
influence by remaining "invisible [...] not imposed on anyone [...]
[and] deprived of all official rights and significance".[251] He held
that the state should be immediately abolished because all forms of
government eventually lead to oppression.[250]
Bakunin has sometimes been called the first theorist of the concept of
a new class, meaning that a class of intellectuals and bureaucrats
running the state in the name of the people or the proletariat—but in
reality in their own interests alone. Bakunin argued that the "State
has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: a priestly
class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class. And finally, when all
the other classes have exhausted themselves, the State then becomes
the patrimony of the bureaucratic class and then falls—or, if you
will, rises—to the position of a machine". Bakunin also had a
different view as compared to Marx's on the revolutionary potential of
the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat. As such, "[b]oth agreed
that the proletariat would play a key role, but for Marx the
proletariat was the exclusive, leading revolutionary agent while
Bakunin entertained the possibility that the peasants and even the
lumpenproletariat (the unemployed, common criminals, etc.) could rise
to the occasion".[252] Bakunin "considers workers' integration in
capital as destructive of more primary revolutionary forces. For
Bakunin, the revolutionary archetype is found in a peasant milieu
(which is presented as having longstanding insurrectionary traditions,
as well as a communist archetype in its current social form—the
peasant commune) and amongst educated unemployed youth, assorted
marginals from all classes, brigands, robbers, the impoverished
masses, and those on the margins of society who have escaped, been
excluded from, or not yet subsumed in the discipline of emerging
industrial work. [...] [I]n short, all those whom Marx sought to
include in the category of the lumpenproletariat".[253]
While both anarchists and Marxists share the same final goal, the
creation of a free, egalitarian society without social classes and
government, they strongly disagree on how to achieve this goal.
Anarchists, especially social anarchists, believe that the classless,
stateless society should be established by the direct action of the
masses, culminating in social revolution and refusing any intermediate
stage such as the dictatorship of the proletariat on the basis that
such a dictatorship will become a self-perpetuating fundament.
However, libertarian Marxists argue that Marx used the phrase to mean
that the worker control at the point of production and not a party
would still be a state until society is reorganized according to
socialist principles. For Bakunin, the fundamental contradiction is
that for the Marxists "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the
state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the
masses, they have first to be enslaved".[254] Ultimately, the main
divide between anarchism and Marxism is between decentralisation and
centralisation, with anarchists favouring decentralisation and
Marxists arguing that due to the Industrial Revolution and later
stages of the Industrial Revolution a certain degree of authority and
centralisation has become necessary or inevitable.[255]
Anarchists and many non-Marxist libertarian socialists reject the need
for a transitory state phase, claiming that socialism can only be
established through decentralized, non-coercive organization. The
phrases barracks socialism or barracks communism became a shorthand
for this critique, evoking the image of citizens' lives being as
regimented as the lives of conscripts in a barracks.[256] Ironically,
the term barracks communism[257] (Kasernenkommunismus)[258] was coined
by Marx himself[259] to refer to a crude, authoritarian, forced
collectivism and communism where all aspects of life are
bureaucratically regimented and communal. Originally, Marx used the
expression to criticise the vision of Sergey Nechayev outlined in "The
Fundamentals of the Future Social System"[259][260] which had a major
influence on other Russian revolutionaries like Pyotr Tkachev and
Vladimir Lenin.[261][262][263][264][265][266][excessive citations] The
term barracks here does not refer to military barracks, but to the
workers' barracks-type primitive dormitories in which industrial
workers lived in many places in the Russian Empire of the time.[267]
Later, political theorists of the Soviet Union applied this term to
China under Mao Zedong.[257] Still later during the Soviet perestroika
period, the term was used to apply to the history of the Soviet Union
itself.[267]
Noam Chomsky is critical of Marxism's dogmatic strains and the idea of
Marxism itself, but he still appreciates Marx's contributions to
political thought. Unlike some anarchists, Chomsky does not consider
Bolshevism "Marxism in practice", but he does recognize that Marx was
a complicated figure who had conflicting ideas. While acknowledging
the latent authoritarianism in Marx, Chomsky also points to the
libertarian strains that developed into the council communism of Rosa
Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek. However, his commitment to libertarian
socialism has led him to characterize himself as an anarchist with
radical Marxist leanings. As a response to those critiques,
libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political
philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism.
Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism,
emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism[268] and its derivatives
such as Stalinism and Maoism, among others. Libertarian Marxism is
also often critical of reformist positions, such as those held by
social democrats. Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx
and Friedrich Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The
Civil War in France,[269] emphasizing the Marxist belief in the
ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need
for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its
liberation.[270] Along with anarchism, libertarian Marxism is one of
the main currents of libertarian socialism.[271]
See also
Anarchism and issues related to love and sex
Explanatory notes
In reality, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels rejected equality as a
social ideal and as a permanent yardstick against which social
arrangements should be judged. This can be seen in their reaction to
the programme of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany
(SDAP).[123]
In March 1875, Engels complained in a letter to August Bebel (one
of the founders and leaders of the SDAP which in 1875 merged with the
General German Workers' Association into the Socialist Workers' Party
of Germany) that the programme mistakenly advocated "[t]he elimination
of all social and political inequality" rather than "the abolition of
all class distinctions". For Engels, the goal of total social equality
was impossible and represented the ambitions of an underdeveloped form
of socialism, arguing and making the following point as an example:
As between one country, one province and even one place and
another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality
which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The
living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from
those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm
of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old
"liberty, equality, fraternity," a concept which was justified in
that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development,
but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools,
ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental
confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been
discovered.[124]
In Philosophy and Real Politics (2008), Raymond Geuss argues that
Marx makes two main points about equality in his 1875 Critique of the
Gotha Programme. Firstly, Marx claims that it makes no sense to speak
of equality in the abstract because we can only understand what it
means for x to be equal or unequal with y if we first specify the
dimensions along which they are being compared. For x to be equal to y
is for them to be equal in a particular concrete respect. If x and y
are people then they can only be judged equal relative to particular
criteria such as their height, how many shoes they own, or how much
cake they have eaten. Therefore, one can only be in favour of equality
along specific dimensions such as equality of cake consumption and
never equality as an abstract ideal. Secondly, Marx claims that
advocating equality along one dimension such as everyone in a society
earning the same amount of money per hour worked will lead to
inequality along other dimensions. If everyone earning an equal amount
per hour of work would lead to those who work more having more money
than those who work less. As a result, those unable to work a large
amount, if at all, such as disabled people, old people, or women who
are expected to do the majority of housework, will be unequal with
those who can work more such as the able-bodied, young people, or men.
Those doing manual labour and so unable to work long hours due to
fatigue will be unequal to those who engage in non-manual labour and
so can work more hours. If a society decides to instead ensure
equality of income by paying all workers the same daily wage, then
there would still be inequality along other dimensions. Workers who do
not have to provide for a family with their wage will have more
disposable income than workers with families. Therefore, Geuss argues
that we can never reach full equality, but merely move equality and
inequality around along different dimensions.[125]
In Marx on Equality (2014), Allen Woods similarly argued that
"Marx thinks the idea of equality is actually a vehicle for bourgeois
class oppression, and something quite different from the communist
goal of the abolition of classes. [...] A society that has transcended
class antagonisms, therefore, would not be one in which some truly
universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must
be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals
freely act as the truly human individuals they are. Marx's radical
communism was, in this way, also radically individualistic".[126]
References
Malatesta, Errico. "Towards Anarchism". Man!. Los Angeles:
International Group of San Francisco. OCLC 3930443. Agrell, Siri (14
May 2007). "Working for The Man". The Globe and Mail. Archived from
the original on 16 May 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2008. "Anarchism".
Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
2006. Archived from the original on 14 December 2006. Retrieved 29
August 2006. "Anarchism". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy: 14. 2005. "Anarchism is the view that a society without
the state, or government, is both possible and desirable". The
following sources cite anarchism as a political philosophy:
Mclaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate.
p. 59. ISBN 978-0-7546-6196-2. Johnston, R. (2000). The Dictionary of
Human Geography. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. p. 24. ISBN
0-631-20561-6.
Slevin, Carl (2003). McLean, Aiaun; McMillan, Allistair, eds.
"Anarchism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford
University Press.
"Principles of The International of Anarchist Federations".
Archived 5 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine International of
Anarchist Federations. "The IAF – IFA fights for : the abolition of
all forms of authority whether economical, political, social,
religious, cultural or sexual".
Goldman, Emma. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy". Anarchism and
Other Essays. "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of
the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the
human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles
and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based
on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real
social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free
access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life,
according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations".
Tucker, Benjamin. Individual Liberty. "They found that they must
turn either to the right or to the left, — follow either the path of
Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and
Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism.
[...] Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies
divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both
as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly,
sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to
believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far
as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying
her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who
distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end
to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her.
These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every
sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the
first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of
the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of
politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of
Gambetta and the socialism of the socialism off Karl Marx".
Ward, Colin (1966). "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization".
Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's
anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state
forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of
them fight against it". (p. 9) "[...] Bakunin did not convert the
League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade
them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne
Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly
attacking authority in both Church and State".
Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of
Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of
Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose
Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.
Kropotkin, Peter. "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal". "That is
why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects,
when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the
mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical
organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to
maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without
which no human or animal society can exist".
"B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?". An
Anarchist FAQ. "Anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g.,
illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy — hierarchy being
the institutionalisation of authority within a society".
Woodcock, George. "Anarchism". Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"ANARCHISM, a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government
and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express
man's natural social tendencies".
Kropotkin, Peter. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. "In a
society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which
already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take
a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state
in all its functions".
McLean; McMillan 2003; Craig 2005, p. 14.
McLaughlin 2007, p. 28. "Anarchists do reject the state, as we
will see. But to claim that this central aspect of anarchism is
definitive is to sell anarchism short".
Proudhon 1849. "Anarchy is the condition of existence of adult
society, as hierarchy is the condition of primitive society. There is
a continual progress in human society from hierarchy to anarchy".
Bakunin 1882. "In a word, we reject all legislation, all
authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal
influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that
it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters
against the interests of the immense majority in subjection to them.
This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists".
Armand 1926. "In practice, any individual who, because of his or
her temperament or because of conscious and serious reflection,
repudiates all external authority or coercion, whether of a
governmental, ethical, intellectual, or economic order, can be
considered an anarchist. Everyone who consciously rejects the
domination of people by other people or by the social ambiance, and
its economic corollaries, can be said to be an anarchist as well".
Wilbur, Shawn P. (19 February 2018). "The Anarchist Encyclopedia:
Hierarchy". Libertarian Labyrinth. "The anarchists are against all
hierarchy, be it moral or material. They oppose to it the respect for
liberty and the absolute autonomy of the individual".
Brooks 1994, p. xi; Kahn 2000; Moynihan 2007.
Guerin 1970, p. 35.
Marshall 1993, pp. 14–17.
Sylvan 2007, p. 262.
McLean; McMillan 2003.
Fowler 1972; Kropotkin 2002, p. 5; Ostergaard 2009, p. 14.
Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1918). "Anarchism". The Encyclopedia
Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge. Vol. 1. New York. p. 624.
LCCN 18016023. OCLC 7308909 – via Hathi Trust.
Hamilton, Peter (1995). Émile Durkheim. New York: Routledge. p.
79. ISBN 978-0415110471.
Faguet, Émile (1970). Politicians & Moralists of the Nineteenth
Century. Freeport: Books for Libraries Press. p. 147. ISBN
978-0-8369-1828-1.
Bowen, James; Purkis, Jon (2004). Changing Anarchism: Anarchist
Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester University Press. p.
24. ISBN 9780719066948.
Knowles, Rob (Winter 2000). "Political Economy From Below:
Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected Discourse in Histories of
Economic Thought". History of Economics Review. 31 (31): 30–47.
doi:10.1080/10370196.2000.11733332. S2CID 141027974.
Honderich, Ted (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-866132-0.
Carter, April (1978). "Anarchism and violence". Nomos. American
Society for Political and Legal Philosophy. 19: 320–340. JSTOR
24219053.
Trevijano, Carmen García (2001). Ted Honderich (ed.). Enciclopedia
Oxford de filosofía (in Spanish). Tecnos. ISBN 978-84-309-3699-1.
Fiala, Andrew (2017). "Anarchism". Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Williams, Dana M. (2018). "Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic
movements". Sociology Compass. 12 (6). Wiley. doi:10.1111/soc4.12582.
ISSN 1751-9020.
Williams, Dana M. (2019). "Tactics: Conceptions of Social Change,
Revolution, and Anarchist Organisation". In Levy, Carl; Adams, Matthew
S. (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. Springer Publishing.
ISBN 978-3-319-75620-2.
McLaughlin 2007, pp 25–26.
Richard Theodore Ely, Socialism: An Examination of Its Nature, Its
Strength and Its Weakness (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1894), p. 3.
Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They
Agree and Wherein They Differ.
McLean and McMillan 2003.
Anarchism; Fowler 1972; Kropotkin 2002, p. 5; Ostergaard 2009, p. 14.
Anarchist survey highlighting a general opposition to capitalism:
"2010 Anarchist Survey report". Archived from the original on 14 March
2012. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
Chomsky, Noam (1991). "On Capitalism". Chomsky.info. Archived from
the original on 28 September 2013. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
"catastrophe of capitalism"
Anarchist FAQ collective. "Is "anarcho-capitalism" a form of
capitalism?". Archived from the original on 2 December 2013. Retrieved
26 November 2013.
Iverson, Stan. (1968). "Sex and Anarcho-socialism". Sex Marchers.
p. 57. "Libertarian Socialism, or if you please, anarcho-socialism
[...]".
Walford, George (1979). Ideologies and Their Functions: A Study in
Systematic Ideology. pp. 139–145.
McNally, David (1993). "'Proudhon did Enormous Mischief': Marx's
Critique of the First Market Socialists". Against the Market:
Political Economy, Market Socialism and the Marxist Critique. Verso.
Sturgis, Amy H. (2003). Presidents from Hayes Through McKinley:
Debating the Issues in Pro and Con Primary Documents. Greenwood
Publishing Group. p. 106. "Composed of many differing strains of
thought (such as mutualism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-socialism,
and anarcho-communism), anarchism revolves around the concept of
noncoercion and the belief that force is illegitimate and unethical".
Busky, Donald F. (1 January 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global
Survey. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2. ISBN 9780275968861. "The
same may be said of anarchism: social anarchism—a nonstate form of
socialism—may be distinguished from the nonsocialist, and, in some
cases, procapitalist school of individualist anarchism".
Ostergaard, Geoffrey (2008). "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary
of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.
Bylund, Per (19 March 2019). "The Trouble With Socialist
Anarchism". Mises Institute. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
Thagard, Paul. 2002. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press. p. 153.
Heider, Ulrike (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right and Green. San
Francisco: City Lights Books.
Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own". Mother
Earth (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than
Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are
spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the
individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus
creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am
a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the
Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of
demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation.
Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; Novatore, Renzo (1924).
"Towards the Creative Nothing"; Gray, Christopher (1974). Leaving the
Twentieth Century. p. 88; Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason".
"[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The
apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a
misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the
individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of
"emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You
may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is
a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest
individual development with the greatest communal unity".
Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy". "Communism is
the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty —
provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy
[...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other
form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury,
in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; Truda,
Dielo (1926). "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists".
"This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social
solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in
which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; "My Perspectives".
Willful Disobedience (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between
individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the
struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as
false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are
impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; Brown, L. Susan
(2002). The Politics of Individualism. Black Rose Books; Brown, L.
Susan (2 February 2011). "Does Work Really Work?".
Morriss, Brian (1993). Bakukunin: The Philosophy of Freedom. Black
Rose Books Ltd. p. 115.
Bookchin, Murray (1995). "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism:
An Unbridgeable Chasm". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 31 March
2019.
Ehrlich, Howard J. (2013). "The Best of Social Anarchism" Archived
2019-03-31 at the Wayback Machine. See Sharp Press. Retrieved 31 March
2019.
Esenwein, George Richard (1989). Anarchist Ideology and the
Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898. p. 135. "Anarchism without
adjectives referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a
doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist,
collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, [...] [it] was
simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of
different anarchist schools".
Bowen, James; Purkis, Jon (2004). Changing Anarchism: Anarchist
Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester University Press. p.
24. ISBN 9780719066948.
Knowles, Rob (Winter 2000). "Political Economy From Below:
Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected Discourse in Histories of
Economic Thought". History of Economics Review. 31 (31): 30–47.
doi:10.1080/10370196.2000.11733332. S2CID 141027974.
Hamilton, Peter (1995). Émile Durkheim. New York: Routledge. p.
79. ISBN 978-0415110471.
Faguet, Émile (1970). Politicians & Moralists of the Nineteenth
Century. Freeport: Books for Libraries Press. p. 147. ISBN
978-0-8369-1828-1.
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1848). What Is Property?.
"G.1.4 Why is the social context important in evaluating
Individualist Anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Archived 15 March 2013 at
the Wayback Machine
Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An
Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. 75.
Marshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of
Anarchism. Oakland, California: PM Press. p. 565. ISBN
978-1-60486-064-1.: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the
'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share
a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their
self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of
practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists,
even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called
right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."; Sabatini, Peter
(Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed (41). "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard
represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total
elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is
quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the
public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with
each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else
purchasing these services from capitalist venders. [...] [S]o what
remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in
hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of
Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."; Meltzer, Albert (1
January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against. AK Press. p. 50.
ISBN 978-1-873176-57-3. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism"
dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with
Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."; Goodway, David
(2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. p. 4. ISBN
978-1-84631-025-6.: "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently
employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism',
largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative
connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been
vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of
anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing
laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray
Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words
'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become
necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the
left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."; Newman, Saul (2010).
The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN
978-0-7486-3495-8.: "It is important to distinguish between anarchism
and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by
the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism).
There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like
Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard
who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all
transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist
perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist)
and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of
economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies,
oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in
a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no
truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it
neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in
practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The
individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow
economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which,
as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".
See also the following sources:
K, David (2005). What is Anarchism?. Bastard Press.
Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible. Chapther 38.
London: Fontana Press. ISBN 0-00-686245-4.
MacSaorsa, Iain (2009). Is 'Anarcho' Capitalism Against the
State?. Spunk Press.
Wells, Sam (January 1979). Anarcho-Capitalism is Not
Anarchism, and Political Competition is Not Economic Competition.
Frontlines 1.
See also the following sources:
Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn
Rand. Chapter "Government". Dutton Adult.
Doyle, Kevin (2002). Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate
Utopias. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 447–448.
Sheehan, Seán M. (2003). Anarchism Reaktion Books. p. 17.
Kelsen, Hans (1988). The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein
Publishing. p. 110.
Tellegen, Egbert; Wolsink, Maarten (1998). Society and Its
Environment: an introduction. Routledge. p. 64.
Jones, James (2004). The Merry Month of May. Akashic Books. pp. 37–38.
Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart (2004). Political Theorists in
Context. Routledge. p. 238.
Bookchin, Murray (2004). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press. p. 37.
Berkman, Alexander (2005). Life of an Anarchist. Seven Stories
Press. p. 268.
Galleani, Luigi (1925). "The End of Anarchism?". The Anarchist
Library. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
Malatesta, Errico (1924). "Note to the article "Individualism and
Anarchism" by Adamas". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty (129). p. 2.
Martin, James J. (1953). Men Against the State: the State the
Expositors of Individualist Anarchism. Dekalb, Illinois: The Adrian
Allen Associates.
Tucker, Benjamin (1970). Liberty. Greenwood Reprint Corporation.
7–8. p. 26. "Liberty has always insisted that Individualism and
Socialism are not antithetical terms; that, on the contrary, the most
... not of Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of
Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism."
McKay, Iain, ed. (2012). "Section G – Is Individualist Anarchism
Capitalistic?". An Anarchist FAQ. Vol. II. Stirling: AK Press. ISBN
9781849351225.
Franks, Benjamin (August 2013). Freeden, Michael; Stears, Marc
(eds.). "Anarchism". The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies.
Oxford University Press: 385–404.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0001.
Carson, Kevin (2017). "Anarchism and Markets". In Jun, Nathan J.
(2017). Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy. BRILL. p. 81.
ISBN 9789004356894.
Bakunin, Mikhail. "Works of Mikhail Bakunin 1869". Marxists
Internet Archive. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
Albert, Michael. Anarchism?! Archived 2007-08-17 at the Wayback
Machine. Z Communications. Retrieved 6 September 2006.
"War is the Health of the State". Anarchists see war as an
activity in which the state seeks to gain and consolidate power both
domestically and in foreign lands and subscribe to Randolph Bourne's
view that "war is the health of the state".
"The Failure of Nonviolence"
de Cleyre, Voltairine (1912). Direct Action.
Smith, George H. "The Ethics of Voting". Archived 4 April 2005 at
the Wayback Machine
"J.2 What is direct action?". Archived 27 June 2006 at the Wayback Machine
Peacott, Joe, "Voting Anarchists: An Oxymoron or What?" Archived
2007-08-08 at the Wayback Machine. BAD Broadside #8, Boston Anarchist
Drinking Brigade, 1992; Ward, Colin "The Case Against Voting",
originally published in New Society on 15 May 1987; reprinted in
Freedom, Vol. 48, No. 6, June 1987; "Choose and Lose – The anarchist
case against voting and electoralism" Archived 2007-07-23 at the
Wayback Machine. Infoshop.org.
"Thinking about anarchism – Referendums" Archived 2007-11-09 at
the Wayback Machine. Workers Solidarity No 69, published in March
2002. Retrieved 7 September 2006.
"chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website". chomsky.info. Archived
from the original on 30 September 2015. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
Henley, Jon (30 October 2016). "Iceland elections leave ruling
centre-right party in driving seat". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 April
2018.
Spooner, Lysander, No Treason, no. 2, part 1.
"No Treason". Archived from the original on 4 October 2002.
Retrieved 21 July 2006.
"The Anarchist Vote". Bella Caledonia. 16 September 2014.
Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Independent and free? A Glasgow anarchist's take on Scottish
independence". Libcom.org. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Some quick thoughts on Scottish independence". Libcom.org.
Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Don't Mourn. Organise. | Edinburgh anarchist statement on the
referendum result". AFed Scotland. 19 September 2014. Retrieved 19
December 2016.
"Appeal to Yes Voters for Direct Action". Edinburgh Anarchist
Federation. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved
19 December 2016.
"14 observations on Brexit and Lexit in the UK EU membership
referendum". Libcom.org. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Brexit vote: another sign of global capitalism's deepening
crisis". Libcom.org. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Brexit for tanks? The EU and the working class". Libcom.org.
Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Making sense of the Brexit tide of reaction and the reality of
the racist vote – Andrew Flood". Libcom.org. Retrieved 19 December
2016.
"Brexit means… what? Hapless ideology and practical consequences".
libcom.org. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"Taking Leave of their senses – What does the Brexit vote mean? –
Mouvement Communiste and Kolektivně proti kapitálu". Libcom.org.
Retrieved 19 December 2016.
Horowitz, Irving Louis (2005). The Anarchists. Aldine Transaction. p. 49.
Bookchin, Murray. The Democratic Dimensions of Anarchism
Bookchin, Murray. "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm".
Black, Bob. "Anarchy after Leftism". Chapter 5.
Fowler, R. B. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4.
(December 1972), pp. 743–744.
"The Revolutionary "Haste". Archived 10 February 2003 at the Wayback Machine
Porter, David, ed. (2006). Vision on Fire: Emma Goldman on the
Spanish Revolution Archived 2013-11-07 at the Wayback Machine. AK
Press. p. 226–228.
"War Is the Health of the State by Randolph Bourne". Struggle.ws.
Retrieved 2 April 2018.
Encyclopedia Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-Alekseyevich-Kropotkin
Martin, James J. Men Against the State. p. 220.
The New Freewoman, p. 218.
Meltzer, Albert (2000). Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK
Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1873176573.
"A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social
anarchists?". An Anarchist FAQ. Archived 22 September 2008 at the
Wayback Machine
Carson, Kevin. "Mutualist FAQ: Getting There".
Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason".
Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own". Mother
Earth (2: 3).
Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy".
"Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" (1926). Dielo Truda.
"My Perspectives". Willful Disobedience (2: 12).
Black, Bob (1974). "Preface to The Right to be Greedy by For
Ourselves" Archived 2009-11-02 at the Wayback Machine.
The Right To Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of
Demanding Everything.
Gross, David. "Theses on Groucho Marxism". Archived from the
original on 5 April 2010. Retrieved 2 November 2009.
Marx, Karl (1875). "Critique of the Gotha Program".
Engels, Friedrich (1875). "Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau".
Geuss, Raymond (2008). Philosophy and Real Politics. pp. 76–80.
Woods, Allen (2014). The Free Development of Each: Studies on
Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy. "Marx on
Equality". pp. 253, 266.
Nielsen, Kai (August 1987). "Rejecting Egalitarianism". Political
Theory (15: 3). pp. 411–423.
Marx 1991, p. 959.
Marx 1990, p. 739.
Marx 1993, p. 158, p. 162.
"Anarcho-Feminism – Two Statements – Who we are: An
Anarcho-Feminist Manifesto". Archived 11 October 2006 at the Wayback
Machine
Marsh, Margaret S. Anarchist Women, 1870–1920. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 1981.
Marshall, p. 409.
Intimate, p. 94.
Presley, 1979.
Presley, Sharon (18 February 2000). "Libertarian Feminist Heritage
Series: Voltairine de Cleyre". Anarchy Archives. Retrieved 17 December
2016.
Falk 2003, p. 195.
O'Carroll, Aileen. "Mujeres Libres: Women anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution". Workers Solidarity. Archived from the original on
26 September 2015. Retrieved 27 September 2005.
Ribeiro, Pedro. Senzala or Quilombo: Reflections on APOC and the
fate of Black Anarchism.
"Black Anarchism". Anarchist Panther. Archived 13 March 2008 at
the Wayback Machine
@narchist Panther Zine (October 1999). 1st ed. Vol. 1.
Samudzi, Zoé; Anderson, William C.; Kaba, Mariame (5 June 2018).
As Black As Resistance: Finding the Conditions for Liberation. Chico,
California: AK Press. ISBN 9781849353168.
Schapiro, J. Salwyn (1945). "Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of
Fascism". American Historical Review. The American Historical Review,
Vol. 50, No. 4. 50 (4): 714–737. doi:10.2307/1842699. JSTOR 1842699.
Bakunin quoted by Shlomo Avineri in Radical Theology, the New
Left, and Israel, p. 245–246. "An article in Auschwitz. Beginning of a
New Era? Reflections on the Holocaust", edited by Eva Fleishner, KTAV
Publishing House, Inc.; The Cathedral Church of St. John Divine;
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1977, p. 241–254.
Ghadar Movement: Ideology, Organisation and Strategy, Harish K.
Puri, Guru Nanak Dev University Press, Amritsar: "The only account of
Hardayal's short stay in that island Martinique, comes from Bhai
Parmanand, a self exiled Arya Samajist missionary from Lahore, who
stayed a month with him there. Har Dayal used that time, says
Parmanand, to discuss plans to found a new religion: his model was the
Buddha. He ate mostly boiled grain, slept on the bare floor and spent
his time in meditation in a secluded place. Guy Aldred, a famous
English radical and friend, tells us of Hardayal's proclaimed belief
at that time in the coming republic "which was to be a Church, a
religious confraternity ... its motto was to be: atheism,
cosmopolitanism and moral law' Parmamand says that Har Dayal acceded
to his persuasion to go to the USA and decided to make New York a
centre for the propagation of the ancient culture of the Aryan." (p.
55) and "the ideal social order would be the one which approximated to
the legendary Vedic period of Indian history because, as Har Dayal
affirmed, practical equality existed only in that society, where there
were no governors and no governed, no priests and no laymen, no rich
and no poor." (p. 112), referencing The Social Conquest of the Hindu
Race and Meaning of Equality.
"Anarchist Orientalism and the Muslim Community in Britain".
Retrieved 3 May 2007.
Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism: The History of a
Movement. See Sharp Press. p. 6.
Anarchism, p. 158.
Morris, Brian, Anthropology and Anarchism, "Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed" (no. 45); Mckay, Iain, The legacy of Voltairine De
Cleyre, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 44; L. Susan Brown, The
Politics of Individualism.
McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section F – Is
"anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ.
Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 5 December 2011. Retrieved
3 December 2011.
Cheyney, Ryan C. (November 1980). "Social Justice and the Right to
the Labor Product". Political Theory (8: 4). p. 506.
"Individual Liberty: Labor and Its Pay". Archived from the
original on 7 April 2005. Retrieved 11 August 2005.
Bottomore, Tom (1991). "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist
Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference. p. 21. ISBN 0-63118082-6.
Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social
Thought, Anarchism entry, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, p. 13: "Their
successors today, such as Murray Rothbard, having abandoned the labor
theory of value, describe themselves as anarcho-capitalists".
See the following sources:
Bullosk, Alan; Trombley, Stephen (ed.) (1999). The Norton
Dictionary of Modern Thought. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 30.
Barry, Norman (2000). Modern Political Theory. Palgrave, p. 70.
Adams, Ian (2002). Political Ideology Today. Manchester
University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135.
Grant, Moyra (2003). Key Ideas in Politics. Nelson Thomas. p.
91. ISBN 0-7487-7096-8.
Heider, Ulrike (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green. City
Lights. p. 3.
Avrich, Paul (1996). Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of
Anarchism in America. Abridged paperback edition. p. 282.
Tormey, Simon (2004). Anti-Capitalism, One World. pp. 118–119.
Raico, Ralph (2004). Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th
Century. École Polytechnique, Centre de Recherche en Épistémologie
Appliquée, Unité associée au CNRS.
Busky, Donald (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.
Praeger/Greenwood. p. 4.
Heywood, Andrew (2002). Politics: Second Edition. Palgrave. p. 61.
Offer, John (2000). Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments.
Routledge. p. 243.
Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government:
The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market
in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p.
107 and p. 104)
James J. Martin. Men against the State. p. 208.
Madison, Charles A. (1945). "Anarchism in the United States".
Journal of the History of Ideas. 6 (1): 46–66. doi:10.2307/2707055.
JSTOR 2707055.
Madison, Charles A. (1943). "Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and
Anarchist". New England Quarterly. The New England Quarterly, Vol. 16,
No. 3. 16 (3): 444–467. doi:10.2307/361029. JSTOR 361029.
Non-capitalist market anarchists support private possession along
Warren's, Proudhon's, or similar lines. In contrast,
anarcho-capitalists support private property along Lockean or similar
lines.
As Peter Marshall notes in his history of anarchism, "few
anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist
camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and
social justice." Demanding the Impossible, p. 565.
Busky, Donald F. (1 January 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global
Survey. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2. ISBN 9780275968861. "The
same may be said of anarchism: social anarchism—a nonstate form of
socialism—may be distinguished from the nonsocialist, and, in some
cases, procapitalist school of individualist anarchism."
Byldun, Per (19 March 2019). "The Trouble With Socialist
Anarchism". Mises Institute. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
Rothbard, Murray. "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?". LewRockwell.com.
Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The
Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and
Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, David Weick, Anarchist
Justice; Brian Morris, "Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism:
Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black,
Libertarian as Conservative
1) Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New
Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7. 2) Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion
to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and
Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231.
Chartier, Gary (2009). Economic Justice and Natural Law.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Carson, Kevin A. (2008). Organization Theory: A Libertarian
Perspective. Charleston, SC:BookSurge.
Carson, Kevin A. (2010). The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A
Low-Overhead Manifesto. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
Long, Roderick T. (2000). Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand.
Washington, DC:Objectivist Center
Long, Roderick T. (2008). "An Interview With Roderick Long"
Johnson, Charles W. (2008). "Liberty, Equality, Solidarity: Toward
a Dialectical Anarchism." Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part
of a Free Country? In Long, Roderick T. and Machan, Tibor Aldershot:
Ashgate pp. 155–88.
Richman, Sheldon (23 June 2010). "Why Left-Libertarian?" The
Freeman. Foundation for Economic Education.
Richman, Sheldon (18 December 2009). "Workers of the World Unite
for a Free Market" Archived 22 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine."
Foundation for Economic Education.
Sheldon Richman (3 February 2011). "Libertarian Left: Free-market
anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal Archived 2012-05-09 at the Wayback
Machine." The American Conservative. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
Sciabarra, Chris Matthew (2000). Total Freedom: Toward a
Dialectical Libertarianism. University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State
University Press.
See Gary Chartier, "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Oppose
Capitalism," "Free-Market Anti-Capitalism?" session, annual
conference, Association of Private Enterprise Education (Cæsar's
Palace, Las Vegas, NV, April 13, 2010); Gary Chartier, "Advocates of
Freed Markets Should Embrace 'Anti-Capitalism'"; Gary Chartier,
Socialist Ends, Market Means: Five Essays. Cp. Tucker, "Socialism."
Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not
Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality,
Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY:Minor
Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 1–16.
Gillis, William (2011). "The Freed Market." In Chartier, Gary and
Johnson, Charles. Markets Not Capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Minor
Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 19–20.
Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson (eds). Markets Not
Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality,
Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions; 1st
edition (November 5, 2011
Liebknecht, Wilhelm (1896). "Our Recent Congress". Justice.
Retrieved 31 May 2007.
Gouldner, A. W. (November 1982). "Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and
the First International". Theory and Society. (11: 6). pp. 853–884.
Gouldner argues that Bakunin formulated an original critique of
Marxism as "the ideology, not of the working class, but of a new class
of scientific intelligentsia—who would corrupt socialism, make
themselves a new elite, and impose their rule on the majority" (pp.
860–861).
Slavic Review (50: 1) (Spring 1991). pp. 127–143.
Bottomore, Thomas B. (1964). Elites and Society p. 54.
Shatz, Marshall S. "Jan Waclaw Machajski: A Radical Critic Of The
Russian Intelligentsia And Socialism". Archived from the original on
26 October 2009. Retrieved 26 October 2009.
Fox, Michael S. "Ante Ciliga, Trotskii and State Capitalism:
Theory, Tactics and Reevaluation during the Purge Era, 1935–1939"
(PDF). Archived from the original on 27 October 2009. Retrieved 27
October 2009.
"Why is state socialism just state capitalism?". Archived 19
December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
Makdisi, Saree; Casarino, Cesare; Karl, Rebecca E. (1996). Marxism
Beyond Marxism. Routledge. p. 198.
Sayers, Sean (1998). Marxism and Human Nature. Routledge. p. 105.
"L'Angleterre a-t-elle l'heureux privilège de n'avoir ni
Agioteurs, ni Banquiers, ni Faiseurs de services, ni Capitalistes ?".
In Clavier, Étienne (1788). De la foi publique envers les créanciers
de l'état : lettres à M. Linguet sur le n° CXVI de ses annales (in
French). p. 19.
Braudel, Fernand (1979). The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization and
Capitalism 15th–18th Century. Harper and Row.
Hodgson, Geoffrey (2015). Conceptualizing Capitalism:
Institutions, Evolution, Future. University of Chicago Press. p. 252.
Popper, Karl (1994). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge
Classics. ISBN 978-0-415-61021-6.
McElroy, Wendy (1995). "Intellectual Property: The Late Nineteenth
Century Libertarian Debate". Libertarian Heritage (14). ISBN
1-85637-281-2. Retrieved 24 June 2005.
Birch, Paul (1998). "Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City
States" (PDF). Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes. no. 28: 4. ISSN
0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2010.
Nick Manley (7 May 2014). "Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez
Faire Economic Theory: Part One". Center for a Stateless Society.
Retrieved 23 April 2019.
Nick Maley (9 May 2014). "Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez
Faire Economic Theory: Part Two". Center for a Stateless Society
Retrieved 29 April 2019.
"Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace "Anti-Capitalism".
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1840). What is Property? Or, an Inquiry
into the Principle of Right and of Government.
Friedland, William H.; Rosberg, Carl G. (1965). African Socialism.
Stanford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0804702034.
"B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?". An Anarchist
FAQ. Archived from the original on 14 November 2017. Retrieved 29
April 2018.
"End Private Property, Not Kenny Loggins". Jacobin. Archived from
the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018.
"Reclaim the Streets" Donnacha DeLong, RTÉ News Online 2002.
Retrieved 5 September 2006.
"The New Anarchists", Graeber, David, New Left Review 13,
January–February 2002. Retrieved 6 September 2006.
"G8 Summit – J18: Global Carnival Against Corporate Tyranny,
London, England", C. L. Staten, EmergencyNet News journalist, writing
for RTÉ's website in 2002. Retrieved 5 September 2006
"May Day demonstrations: Who's who". BBC NEWS. 2003-04-28.
Retrieved 2020-04-02.
"Anarchism as a Scapegoat of the 21st century: violence, anarchism
and anti-globalisation protests" Archived 2007-10-21 at the Wayback
Machine, Thrall issue #21, 2001. Retrieved 5 September 2006.
Paul, Ellen Frankel. Miller, Fred Dycus. Paul, Jeffrey. 1993. (no
title listed) Cambridge University Press. p. 115.
Chomsky, Noam (2003). Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 398.
Chomsky, Noam. Language and Politics. AK Press. p. 153.
Peacock, Adrian. 1999. Two Hundred Pharaohs, Five Billion Slaves.
Ellipsis London.
Goodwin, Barbara (2007). Using Political Ideas. John Wiley & Sons.
Brooks, Thom (2002). Book Reviews. Journal of Applied Philosophy.
19 (1). 75–90. doi:10.1111/1468-5930.00206.
McKay, Iain (2007). "Section F.7.3 - Can there be a 'right-wing'
anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN
978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section F.7.3 - Can there
be a 'right-wing' anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org.
Archived from the original on 17 November 2011. Retrieved 21 January
2012.
McKay, Iain (2007). "Section D.6 - Are anarchists against
Nationalism?". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN
978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section D.6 - Are
anarchists against Nationalism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org.
Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green. San Francisco:
City Lights Books. 1994.
Griffin 2003; Goodrick-Clarke 2003; Macklin 2005; Sykes 2005;
Sunshine 2008; Sanchez 2009.
"Precarity, or Why 69 is Pink (w/Mondo Foti!)". Daily Kos.
Retrieved 3 May 2007.
Firth, Will. "Esperanto kaj anarkiismo". "Anarkiistoj estis inter
la pioniroj de la disvastigo de Esperanto. En 1905 fondiĝis en
Stokholmo la unua anarkiisma Esperanto-grupo. Sekvis multaj aliaj: en
Bulgario, Ĉinio kaj aliaj landoj. Anarkiistoj kaj
anarki-sindikatistoj, kiuj antaŭ la Unua Mondmilito apartenis al la
nombre plej granda grupo inter la proletaj esperantistoj, fondis en
1906 la internacian ligon Paco-Libereco, kiu eldonis la Internacian
Socian Revuon. Paco-libereco unuiĝis en 1910 kun alia progresema
asocio, Esperantista Laboristaro. La komuna organizaĵo nomiĝis
Liberiga Stelo. Ĝis 1914 tiu organizaĵo eldonis multe da revolucia
literaturo en Esperanto, interalie ankaŭ anarkiisma. Tial povis evolui
en la jaroj antaŭ la Unua Mondmilito ekzemple vigla korespondado inter
eŭropaj kaj japanaj anarkiistoj. En 1907 la Internacia Anarkiisma
Kongreso en Amsterdamo faris rezolucion pri la afero de internacia
lingvo, kaj venis dum la postaj jaroj similaj kongresaj rezolucioj.
Esperantistoj, kiuj partoprenis tiujn kongresojn, okupiĝis precipe pri
la internaciaj rilatoj de la anarkiistoj".
"El Movimiento naturista". Archived from the original on 20 March
2012. Retrieved 3 June 2014. "Proliferarán así diversos grupos que
practicarán el excursionismo, el naturismo, el nudismo, la
emancipación sexual o el esperantismo, alrededor de asociaciones
informales vinculadas de una manera o de otra al anarquismo.
Precisamente las limitaciones a las asociaciones obreras impuestas
desde la legislación especial de la Dictadura potenciarán
indirectamente esta especie de asociacionismo informal en que
confluirá el movimiento anarquista con esta heterogeneidad de
prácticas y tendencias. Uno de los grupos más destacados, que será el
impulsor de la revista individualista Ética será el Ateneo Naturista
Ecléctico, con sede en Barcelona, con sus diferentes secciones la más
destacada de las cuales será el grupo excursionista Sol y Vida."; "La
insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la
Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923–1938)" (PDF). Archived from the
original (PDF) on 18 June 2013. Retrieved 6 May 2011.
del Barrio, Toño; Lins, Ulrich. La utilización del esperanto
durante la Guerra Civil Española. Paper for the International Congress
on the Spanish Civil War (Madrid, 27–29 November 2006).
Griffin 2003.
Goodrick-Clarke 2003.
Macklin 2005.
Sykes 2005.
Sunshine 2008.
Sanchez 2009.
Afedscotland (18 September 2014). "Referendum rant from an
immigrant". AFed Scotland. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
"The SNP, Scottish Nationalism, and the Class Struggle: Yesterday,
Today, and Tomorrow". AFed Scotland. Archived from the original on 20
December 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
Harper, Clifford, ed. (1994). Prolegomena: To a Study of the
Return of the Repressed in History. London: Rebel Press. ISBN
0-946061-13-0.
"Post anarchist clearing house".
Kropotkin, Peter, "Communism and Anarchy" Archived 2005-10-20 at
the Wayback Machine.
Liberty (Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order) (1881–1908); 3
September 1881; 1, 3; APS Online, p. 3; Tucker uses the terms
"voluntary" and "compulsory" communisms. Some market anarchists reject
the distinction.
"Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph" (2006). Encyclopædia Britannica.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. "What Is Property?" ISBN 1-4191-9353-8 p. 221.
Quoted in Paul Thomas, Karl Marx and the Anarchists, Routledge
(1980), p. 303.
Maximov, G. P., ed. (1953).The Political Philosophy of Bakunin.
New York: The Free Press. p. 269.
Madison, Charles A. "Anarchism in the United States". Journal of
the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, January 1945, p. 56.
Marx, Karl (1846). The German Ideology. "It follows from all we
have been saying up till now that the communal relationship into which
the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their
common interests over against a third party, was always a community to
which these individuals belonged only as average individuals, only
insofar as they lived within the conditions of existence of their
class — a relationship in which they participated not as individuals
but as members of a class. With the community of revolutionary
proletarians, on the other hand, who take their conditions of
existence [...] under their control, it is just the reverse; it is as
individuals that the individuals participate in it. [...] Communism
differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of
all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first
time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of
hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and
subjugates them to the power of the united individuals. Its
organization is, therefore, essentially economic, the material
production of the conditions of this unity; it turns existing
conditions into conditions of unity. The reality, which communism is
creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that
anything should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality
is only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals
themselves".
Marx, Karl (1848). The Communist Manifesto. "Chapther II.
Proletarians and Communists".
Marx, Karl (1894). Capital, Volume III. "Part VII. Revenues and
their Sources".
For instance, Benjamin Tucker says: "Yes, genuine Anarchism is
consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is
inconsistent Manchesterism". Tucker, Benjamin. "Labor and Its Pay".
Archived 2005-04-07 at the Wayback Machine. From Individual Liberty:
selections from the writings of Benjamin T. Tucker); Victor Yarros
says: "There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and
no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in
defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism".
Yarros, Victor S. "A Princely Paradox". Archived 27 September 2007 at
the Wayback Machine. Liberty. Vol 4. No. 19. Saturday, 9 April 1887,
whole number 97. Henry Appleton says: "All Communism, under whatever
guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing
under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be
invented". Appleton, Henry. "Anarchism, True and False". Liberty 2.24.
no. 50. 6 September 1884. p. 4.; Clarence Lee Swartz says: "One of the
tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this:
Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it
is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of
freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones
labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and
Communist-Anarchists deny private property". Swartz, Clarence Lee.
"What is Mutualism?".
Brooks, Frank H. (ed) (1994) The Individualist Anarchists: An
Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908), Transaction Publishers, p. 76.
Appleton, Henry. "The Boston Anarchists". Archived 2005-12-14 at
the Wayback Machine. Liberty, Vol. 4, No. 3, May 26, 1886, Whole No.
81.
"What is Ideology?" by Jason McQuinn
Bey, Hakim (1994). Immediatism. AK Press. p. 4. Archived 5
December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
"An esoteric interpretation of the I.W.W. preamble". The Anarchist
Library. Archived from the original on 7 October 2011. Retrieved 3
October 2011.
Bakunin, Mikhail (1971) [5 October 1872]. "Letter to La Liberté".
In Dolgoff, Sam (ed.). Bakunin on Anarchy. Translated by Dolgoff, Sam.
Retrieved 8 September 2009 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
Woodcock, George (1975) [1962]. Anarchism. Harmondsworth, England:
Penguin Books. p. 158. ISBN 0-14-020622-1..
Bakunin, Mikhail (1973). Lehning, Arthur (ed.). Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings (PDF). Evergreen. pp. 191–192. ISBN 0-224-00893-5.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 August 2020.
Robertson, Ann. "Marxism and Anarchism: The Philosophical Roots of
the Marx-Bakunin Conflict – Part Two" (PDF). Workerscompass.org.
Retrieved 1 April 2018.
Thoburn, Nicholas (2003). "The Lumpenproletariat and the
Proletarian Unnamable". Deleuze, Marx and Politics. Routledge. ISBN
9780415753845.
Bakunin, Mikhail (1971) [1873]. "Statism and Anarchy". In Dolgoff,
Sam (ed.). Bakunin on Anarchy. Translated by Dolgoff, Sam. Retrieved 8
September 2009 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
Engels, Friedrich (1978) [1874]. "On Authority". In Tucker, Robert
C. (ed.). The Marx-Engels reader (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. ISBN
978-0-393-05684-6. LCCN 77016635. OCLC 318414641. Retrieved 18 March
2019 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
Sperber, Jonathan (2013). Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life.
W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 9780871403544.
"Казарменный коммунизм" [Barracks Communism]. Great Soviet
Encyclopedia (in Russian).
Duncan, Graeme Campbell (December 1976). Marx and Mill: Two Views
of Social Conflict and Social Harmony. Cambridge University Press. p.
194. ISBN 9780521291309.
Lenin, Vladimir (2001). Marxism versus Anarchism. Resistance
Books. p. 88. ISBN 9781876646035.
Glavnyye osnovy budushchego obshchestvennogo stroya (Главные
основы будущего общественного строя). According to Marx, it was
printed in the second issue of Narodnaya rasprava available in Geneva
in December 1869, but it was labelled "St.Petersburg, winter 1870".
McClellan, Woodford (1973). "Nechaevshchina: An Unknown Chapter".
Slavic Review. 32 (3): 546–553. doi:10.2307/2495409. ISSN 0037-6779.
JSTOR 2495409.
Mayer, Robert (1993). "Lenin and the Concept of the Professional
Revolutionary". History of Political Thought. 14 (2): 249–263. ISSN
0143-781X. JSTOR 26214357.
"The Influences of Chernyshevsky, Tkachev, and Nechaev on the
political thought of V.I. Lenin". Retrieved 25 March 2019.
"Сергей Нечаев: "темный чуланчик" русской революции" [Sergei
Nechaev: the "dark closet" of the Russian revolution]. МирТесен –
рекомендательная социальная сеть (in Russian). Retrieved 25 March
2019.
Kimball, Alan (1973). "The First International and the Russian
Obshchina". Slavic Review. 32 (3): 491–514. doi:10.2307/2495406. ISSN
0037-6779. JSTOR 2495406. S2CID 164131867.
Read, Christopher (2005). Lenin: A Revolutionary Life. London:
Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-20649-5.
Busgalin, Alexander; Mayer, Günter (2008). "Kasernenkommunismus".
Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus. 7: I. Spalten. pp.
407–411 (PDF text)
Gorter, Herman; Pannekok, Anton; Pankhurst, Sylvia; Ruhl, Otto
(2007). Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Workers Councils. Red
and Black.
Screpanti, Ernesto (2007). Libertarian Communism: Marx Engels and
the Political Economy of Freedom. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Draper, Hal (1971). "The Principle of Self-Emancipation in Marx
and Engels". Archived 23 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Socialist
Register (4).
Chomsky, Noam. "Government In The Future". Archived 21 November
2010 at the Wayback Machine Lecture at the Poetry Center of the New
York YM-YWHA.
Further reading
Gordon, Uri (2007). Anarchy Alive!: Anti-Authoritarian Politics
from Practice to Theory. Sydney: Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2683-2.
OCLC 154769337.
Gordon, Uri (2007). "Anarchism and Political Theory: Contemporary
Problems". The Anarchist Library. Retrieved 4 May 2019.
Kerl, Eric (July–August 2010). "Contemporary anarchism".
International Socialist Review (72). Retrieved 4 May 2019.
External links
Media related to Issues in anarchism at Wikimedia Commons
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Issues in anarchism. Please
take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need
the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this
simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20120105095946/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20120314184800/http://www.anarchistsurvey.com/results/
to http://www.anarchistsurvey.com/results/
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20130928043924/http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1991----02.htm
to http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1991----02.htm
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20021004072643/http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
to http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20080922025342/http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html
to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the
instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Issues in anarchism. Please
take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need
the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this
simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20051214233855/http://www.againstpolitics.com/market_anarchism/appleton_boston.htm
to http://www.againstpolitics.com/market_anarchism/appleton_boston.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the
instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Issues in anarchism. Please
take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need
the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this
simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20070516094548/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070514.wxlanarchist14/BNStory/lifeWork/home
to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070514.wxlanarchist14/BNStory/lifeWork/home/
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20060627215135/http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ2.html
to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ2.html
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20030210201006/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchists/malatesta/rev_haste.html
to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchists/malatesta/rev_haste.html
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20061011013823/http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/Anarcho-FeminismTwoStatements.htm
to http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/Anarcho-FeminismTwoStatements.htm
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20050407014846/http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker37.html
to http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker37.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the
instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Issues in anarchism/Archive 1
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Issues in anarchism
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of
this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one,
please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
Contents
1 Appears to contradict article Patriarchy
2 It's probably just me
3 Merge?
4 Proposed merge from definitional concerns in anarchist theory
4.1 Leftover material from merge
5 Really repetitive line
6 Messed up
7 Zaxlebax: Undue Weight
8 External links modified
Appears to contradict article Patriarchy
I have tagged this article because it appears to contradict something
stated in Patriarchy. Please see the discussion on that article's talk
page for full details, and reply there if you want to comment.
Thanks.—greenrd 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just me
But Anarcho-Capitalism? To quote the internet: "WTF?" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by 142.162.198.171 (talk) 17:19, 14 September
2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?
Sounds like a good idea. I was about to propose the same. Jacob Haller
16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to anarcho-wikipedian otaku for historical posterity: the
merge referred to is Major conflicts within anarchist thought to this
article. Skomorokh incite 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed merge from definitional concerns in anarchist theory
Definitional concerns can uncontroversially be said to be issues in
anarchism; the question I am posing is whether it is better to give
definitional concerns in anarchist theory it's own article, or to make
it a major section of this article. The main issue, I think, is that
that article is far from comprehensive; it has a lede of acceptable
length and a rather good section on the Zaxlebax problem, but the
remainder of the article is made up of stub sections. I favour merging
all non-discrete underdeveloped articles on aspects of one topic into
a single article, beating that article into shape, and then
re-splitting sections into their own articles as appropriate once they
become fully developed. Isolated articles have too few eyes on them
and tend to be the forgotten projects of a small handful of editors,
whereas articles like Anarchism for example are frequently revised and
updated. Please indicate your support or opposition to the proposed
merge here. Skomorokh incite 14:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think it is a good idea to merge these two articles
creating a Definitional concerns section in the Issues in anarchism
article. The Definitional concerns in anarchist theory may be a
remnant of the Anarchist POV wars as it seems to be intended to
clarify the terminological fallacies and misunderstandings. Lord
Metroid (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. definitional concerns in anarchist theory was a way to
address substantive terminological issues which editors were gaming to
impose particular POVs on articles. The issues there need to be
addressed somewhere, but, as these definitional issues are, in fact,
current issues for the movement, this page seems to be a fine place to
address them. Libertatia (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see we are in agreement; I'm going to go ahead and
merge the articles, with Definitional concerns as the first subsection
of this article Skomorokh incite 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leftover material from merge
The following is unused content from the now-merged definitional
concerns in anarchist theory. If you can think of an appropriate place
to use this, list of basic anarchism topics perhaps, please feel free.
Skomorokh incite 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many terms can either designate specific forms of anarchism or
broader trends within anarchism. In rough alphabetical order:
"Agorism" can refer to a counter-economic strategies or to
market propertarian left-libertarianism.
In the socialist tradition, "collectivist anarchism" refers to
those forms, outlined by Mikhail Bakunin, among others, which combine
community ownership of most or all of the means of production with
community payment for labor. In certain other traditions,
"collectivist anarchism" refers to social/communal anarchism in
general.
"Communal anarchism" refers to collectivist anarchism,
communist anarchism, and collectivist or communist forms of other
schools (e.g. of anarcho-syndicalism).
"Individualist anarchism" can refer to egoist anarchism or
various forms of market anarchism.
"Social anarchism" most often refers to collectivist
anarchism, communist anarchism, and collectivist or communist forms of
other schools (e.g. of anarcho-syndicalism). It can also refer to the
circle around the periodical "Social Anarchism."
In the socialist tradition, "socialist anarchism" refers to
any form which opposes presently-existing capitalism and consciously
favors a more egalitarian society, e.g. some forms of agorism,
collectivist anarchism, communist anarchism, most forms of mutualist
anarchism. In some other libertarian traditions, "socialist anarchism"
may be limited to non-market forms of socialist anarchism.
"Syndicalism" can refer to labor-union-centered strategies, or
specifically to social anarchist versions of these.
"Voluntary socialism" was Francis D. Tandy's term for his form
of individualist anarchism.
"Distributism" is a Roman Catholic tradition which is
sometimes considered a form of left-libertarianism.
"Industrialism" can refer to any of industrialization (not an
anarchist ideology), a certain classical-liberal tradition, and
industrial unionism.
Really repetitive line
There are two phrases in this article that are nearly identical. The
first, under "Ends and Means" reads
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent,
possibly due to a number of high-profile violent actions, including
riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism committed by some
anarchists as well as persistently negative media portrayals.
The next occurrence, under "Violence and non-violence" goes
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due
mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots,
assassinations, and insurrections involving anarchists.
Maybe someone should rewrite one of these sentences? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by 167.1.143.100 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2008
(UTC)[reply]
Messed up
The following two sentences convey a biased view:
Historically, anarchists considered themselves socialists and opposed
to capitalism. Thus, anarcho-capitalism is considered by many
anarchists today as not being true anarchism.
The terms "socialists" and "capitalism" seem to be used in a modern
way, creating somewhat an opposition between the invidual anarchists,
which seem to be included in the categorial term "anarchists" in the
cited sentence, and the anarcho-capitalists. But that's not true, as
one can truly see by reading the works of Spooner and Tucker cited on
this page. Capitalism unterstood as a model of a free-market
consisting of bargaining individuals free of coercion through states
or the likes of them was in the mind of Spooner and Tucker (just read
the cited paragraphs). So creating a fake opposition between
anarcho-capitalists and individual anarchists is just original
research and pushing an anti-anarcho-capitalist position
The term "socialist" in its historical context is NOT the same as it
is used today, or even compared to the "socialists" of e.g. China or
former Soviet Union. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism#The_.22Zaxlebax.22_Problem
Please read these better formulated paragraphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism_and_free_market_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Individualist_anarchism
80.121.36.169 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zaxlebax: Undue Weight
Why do we have an entire section devoted to explaining the use of a
term that is not even the subject of the article? It would be better
if we simply summarize the zaxlebax problem in a sentence or two...
"The word anarchism is used in different ways by different people
(what Roderick Long has referred to as the "zaxlebax problem")."
Interested readers can link from there to the full discussion on the
actual article about the zaxlebax problem. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin
(talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also, there are absolutely no secondary sources for this.
I propose that the section be removed. Bob A (talk) 21:21, 9 November
2009 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Issues in
anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add
{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it.
Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep
me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Added archive
https://web.archive.org/20050404190517/http://fuckthevote.org:80/TheEthicsofVoting
to http://fuckthevote.org/TheEthicsofVoting
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked
parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list