m robot Adding: arz:اناركيه |
67.202.78.10 (talk) →Origins: adding section on logical structure of anarchism vs. ochlarchism |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
*Note: the term "libertarianism" has [[Libertarianism (disambiguation)|other meanings]] as well.</ref> Accordingly, "[[libertarian socialism]]" is used as a synonym for non-individualist anarchism,<ref>{{cite book|last=Perlin |first=Terry M. |title=Contemporary Anarchism |publisher=Transaction Publishers |year=1979 |page=40}}</ref> that is, socialist anarchism.<ref>Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739</ref> |
*Note: the term "libertarianism" has [[Libertarianism (disambiguation)|other meanings]] as well.</ref> Accordingly, "[[libertarian socialism]]" is used as a synonym for non-individualist anarchism,<ref>{{cite book|last=Perlin |first=Terry M. |title=Contemporary Anarchism |publisher=Transaction Publishers |year=1979 |page=40}}</ref> that is, socialist anarchism.<ref>Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739</ref> |
||
==Logical structure== |
|||
I. The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix an means negation of, as in anaerobe vs aerobe; and arch means superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates, as in archbishop (et. f. gr. archos, archein; eng. arch, be arch; nor. erke, herske). |
|||
- Thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, etc. are alternatives to, and the opposite of, different forms of superior and subordinate positions, non economic and economically: Political/administrative rank and economic/income hierarchies broadly defined and in real terms , i.e. respectively (1) statism and (2) capitalism. |
|||
- And thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. |
|||
- Thus: anarchy means without government, which is different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people (and not always the same as public sector). |
|||
- And thus: The different perspectives of the concept of anarchy are defined |
|||
- as an updated social scientifical resesarch front based on the methodology of natural sciences, the hypothetical deductive method, as suggested by Pjotr Kropotkin in his book "Modern Science and Anarchism" (1903-13) and confirmed on later anarchist congresses. |
|||
- as anarchy vs other -archies, |
|||
.- with the IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchist human rights, etc., |
|||
Furthermore, these concepts should be considered in real terms, not formal or symbolic terms. Anarchists are interested in what de facto and in reality, are going on in society, not formal or symbolic values, government, rule and hierarchies. Symbolic and formal things and positions are only interesting to the extent they influence realities. |
|||
In the book "Modern Science and Anarchism" (1903-13) a.o.t. Peter Kropotkin declares - and gives the reason why - anarchism is a sociological science broadly defined, including political economy, etc., and is defined as an updated research front of libertarian social scientifical research, using the methods of modern natural sciences, i.e. mathematical relations, statistics etc. Anarchism: "Its method of investigation is that of the exact natural sciences, by which every scientific conclusion must be verified... (using) ... the concrete language of natural sciences, -- so we proceed in dealing with the facts of social life... not by the dialectic method, but by the natural-scientific method, the method of induction and deduction... We had better give up using the sonorous words which only conceal the superficiality of our semi-learning. In their time the use of these words was, perhaps, unavoidable -- their application could never have been useful. No struggle can be successful if it is an unconscious one, and if it does not render itself a clear and concise account of its aim... |
|||
Perhaps we are wrong and they are right. But in order to ascertain who is right, it will not do either to quote this and that authority, to refer to Hegel's trilogy, or to argue by the "dialectic method." This question can be settled only by taking up the study of economic relations as facts of natural science. Whithout entering into further discussion of the principles of Anarchism and the Anarchist programme of action, enough has been said, I think, to show the place of Anarchism among the modern sociological sciences. Anarchism is an attempt to apply to the study of the human institutions the generalizations gained by means of the natural-scientific inductive method;and an attempt to foresee the future steps of mankind on the road to liberty, equality, and fraternity, with a view to realizing the greatest sum of happiness for every unit of human society. In Anarchism there is no room for those pseudo-scientific laws with which the German metaphysicians of the twenties and thirties had to consent themselves. Anarchism does not recognize any method other than the natural-scientific. |
|||
This method it applies to all the so-called humanitarian sciences, and, availing itself of this method as well as of all researches which have recently been called forth by it, Anarchism endeavors to reconstruct all the sciences dealing with man, and to revise every current idea of right, justice, etc., on the bases which have served for the revision of all natural sciences. Whether or not Anarchism is right in its conclusions, will be shown by a scientific criticism of its bases and by the practical life of the future. But in one thing it is absolutely right: in that it has included the study of social institutions in the sphere of natural-scientific investigations; has forever parted company with metaphysics; and makes use of the method by which modern natural science .... were developed. Owing to this, the very mistakes which Anarchism may have made in its researches can be detected the more readily. But its conclusions can be verified only by the same natural-scientific, inductive-deductive method by which every science and every scientific concept of the universe is created." |
|||
This basic principle of Anarchism, per definition or seen as a methodological working hypothesis, is still valid and confirmed on all later anarchist congresses discussing this question in a scientifical, matter of fact, way. This libertarian, scientifical, way of thinking and research, praxeology i.e. human action research included, is the way to settle disputes, make action programs based on the anarchist principles in general, and develope anarchism further, - it is the basic methodological framework of anarchism and the Anarchist International. The other basic principles of anarchism are presented and discussed at (Click on) Economical-Political Map and via links of this web-site. |
|||
The most basic principles related directly to Kropotkin's definition of anarchy, anarchism and social sciences in general, as an updated research front, are the following: |
|||
( 1 ) Anarchies vs archies. Societal, political-economical systems, including organizations and political tendencies; economical, political or politological, sociological and anthropological systems, may be anarchies or the negation of anarchy = archies. Thus the total amount of societal systems S = anarchy + archy <=> S = anarchies + archies. Anarchy = anarchism, with respect to societal systems broadly defined. |
|||
( 2 ) Archies may be expressed as x-archy, where x is one of a set of systems characteristics of archs, say, ( mon, olig, poly, plut, ochl, matri, patri, hier, etc; but not an) or a logical union of several x-es reflecting different forms of archy/archies as opposed to anarchy/anarchies, i.e. the negation of x-archy = archies. |
|||
( 3 ) Possibility of anarchy. It is assumed that these terms reflect concepts that may be defined in a way that anarchy is not impossible in reality, i.e. the amount of anarchies in real terms is greater than the empty set, zero. Anarchy is matter of degree = tendency. Anarchy, i.e. an anarchist social system, may have 100% or a significant degree of anarchy, i.e. less than 100%, but above a given significant level. |
|||
( 4 ) Significant anarchist tendency = anarchy. As anarchy is the negation of x-archy it may not have any amount, i.e. significant tendency towards or of x-archy. Thus anarchy may have zero or insignificant tendency towards or of archies. The significant level is defined on aggregated dimensions. |
|||
( 5 ) Dimensions: a) There are an economic dimension and a non-economical dimension in societal, political-economical, system context: One aggregated economical, and one aggregated non-economical dimension, i.e. political/administrative rank broadly defined. Empirically this reflect economic remuneration and political/administrative rank of organizational social systems' maps broadly defined. b) The economical dimension measures socialism vs capitalism, where the degree of capitalism is the tendency towards or of economical archies (x-archy) and the non-economical dimension is autonomy vs statism, where the degree of statism is the tendency towards or of political/administrative archies. c) Along these two dimensions different forms of anarchy and archies (x-archy), are measured and mapped. The degree of socialism = 100% - degree of capitalism. The degree of autonomy = 100% - degree of statism. Socialism and autonomy are defined as insignificant degree of capitalism and statism respectively, and capitalism and statism is defined as significant degree of statism and capitalism respectively. Thus, socialism and autonomy are defined as significant degree of socialism and autonomy, and capitalism and statism are defined as insignificant degree of socialism and autonomy respectively . |
|||
( 6 ) Anarchism and other -isms. Anarchy is the negation of archies related to the economical and political/administrative dimensions, i.e. socialism and autonomy. Capitalism is economical plutarchy, including hierarchy and may be other x-archies broadly defined in an economical context. Statism is political/administrative monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule), the archies of rivaling states within the state, i.e. chaos; and the tyranny of structurelessness i.e. disorganization, and/or political plutarchy, and it may also include other archies, say, being matriarchy, if the main rulers are women. Furthermore |
|||
1. Statism without (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism); |
|||
2. statism plus (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = fascism (populism included); |
|||
3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism; |
|||
4. (economical) plutarchy/capitalism without statism = liberalism. |
|||
Libertarian (in the meaning of 'libertaire' (french) or 'libertær' (nordic)), and real democracy (realdemocracy) are synonyms for anarchist, anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy and anarchism are sometimes called the third alternative, social form, or way. (This must not be mixed up with Tony Blair's non-anarchist "third way = neue mitte" of Gerard Schröder, or Adolf Hitler's "dritte reich".) |
|||
Archies (x-archy) are defined equal to authority and State/government in societal context. Thus authority and State/government in societal context are liberalism, fascism and marxism broadly defined. And thus anarchy and anarchism are systems without any authority and State/government, in societal context, i.e. economical and political/administrative, also called political broadly defined. These societal, political concepts of state/government and authority, must not be mixed up with statism and the authoritarian degree, as defined related to economical-political mapping. Furthermore insignificant tendency towards or of State/government is not State/government, and insignificant tendency towards or of authority is not authority, but anarchy and anarchism. |
|||
( 7 ) Significant level at 50%. Anarchy has less than 50% tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy, aggregated on the two relevant dimensions, on a scale from 0 => 100%. Thus more than 50 % tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy of relevant x-es, aggregated on the economic and/or the non-economic dimension, are not anarchist, not anarchy. Thus anarchy has 100-50% degree of socialism and 100-50% degree of autonomy, and archies have less of one or both, i.e. more than 50% degree of capitalism and/or statism. |
|||
( 8 ) Anarchy defined: Anarchy and anarchism mean system, coordination and management without ruling and rulers (not without rules). i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery, and archies mean system, management and coordination with ruling and rulers, i.e. the negation of anarchy and anarchism. From greek 'an', as in anaerobe vs aerobe, i.e. keeping what is essential of the object, (in this case system, management, coordination) but without the special characteristic mentioned in the suffix, i.e. 'arch', ruling and ruler(s), from archos (ruler) and archein (ruling, being first). |
|||
( 9 ) Not totalitarian: The question of anarchism and anarchy vs archies is limited to the societal political-economical systems' management and coordination. What is interesting in anarchist perspective is whether or not the economical-political system has authority, i.e. ruling and rulers - or not, with respect to the societal managent and coordination. Other uses of the words anarchy vs x-archy and anarchies vs archies are principally irrelevant to anarchism, and should in general be avoided. |
|||
(10) Not valid concepts. Concepts as anarcho-archy = anarchy-x-archy in any form, meaning system, coordination and management "both with and without ruling and rulers" at the same time and place, are not allowed for, because such concepts are contradictive, and thus are nonsens and not logical and scientifical, because this is in reality not possible, and anarchism and anarchy is about realities. Thus anarcho-marxism, anarcho-capitalism = anarchy-plutarchy, anarcho-ochlarchy, anarcho-chaos, anarchy = chaos, anarchism = anarchy = minimal state or libertarian state, state in general, anarcho-statism, anarcho-authority, etc, are nonsens and not valid concepts, but confused Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" that is not anarchist, but authoritarian, i.e. chaotic, and should be avoided. |
|||
In addition to these axioms and most basic principles of social sciences, anarchy and anarchism and other -isms, other principles of policy defining authority more precise and concrete in a societal context, structural and functional, performance included, must be introduced, and the significant level of anarchy vs archies must be calibrated for applied and practical research and analysis. This is a.o.t. discussed on the file (click on:) Economical-Political Map , search for 'calibration' and 'principles'. |
|||
1. The economical dimension - the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections, also direct democracy. Markets however mean "one dollar (or other means of payment) - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic, i.e. not plutarchical, as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistical, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.) |
|||
2. The political/adminstrative dimension - the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy , monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector. |
|||
3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector. |
|||
4. The IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchist human rights, etc., |
|||
The basic principles of anarchism are: The negation of authority and all of its power, hierarchies and juridical laws. Freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, free contract, free initiative, atheism, antimilitarism, internationalism, decentralism, autonomy and federalism, self management and libertarian communalism - from each according to ability - to each according to needs. The aim is more anarchist systems, i.e. a movement towards more human rights and the best of the ideals of the French revolution, fairness and efficiency, less rank and income differences. These concepts and principles should be considered all in all, not partially, and reflect anarchist constitution . |
|||
II.They reflect different aspects of autonomy broadly defined, and socialism, as negations of statism and capitalism respectively. The basic social dimensions, (1) statism vs autonomy and (2) capitalism vs socialism, have many aspects. Different perspectives, the feminist, environmental, intergenerational, subordinate positions due to lack of structure or organization, people on their knees or flat on their face because of drugs, etc.; are included in the concepts of rank an income broadly defined. |
|||
Thus: Freedom, i.e. free people, freedom without damaging the freedom of other people, i.e not to be a slave, and not to make others slave for you, but live by own work. Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Social justice means a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism... |
|||
Religious and guru organizations are principally considered as special forms of (political)/administrative rank and economic hierarchies, i.e. mainly based on psychological power & ruling techniques, and non atheist ideology. Anarchism is not, and should not, be expanded towards a totalitarian system. Other kinds of hierarchies, say, in sports, games, etc., are, as long as it is fair play, mainly not relevant from anarchist perspective. Scientific validity is not a political/administrative rank question, and authority must not be mixed up with competence. This should not be forgotten in education & research, and economics & politics, broadly defined. |
|||
Practically speaking anarchy, anarchism, etc. are systems and human relations with relatively small economic and rank differences, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized. However, the anarchist ideal at the top of the economic political map, i.e. with no such hierarchies at all, should not be forgotten as a leading star and standard for economic and political/administrative navigation. Say, two people stranded on an island, may co-operate without coercion to survive, i.e. anarchy, or act as superior vs subordinate, i.e. hierarchy and more or less chaos... To be anarch, or to be an arch, that is the question... "An arch" in this context may be interpreted as both a ruler or to be ruled, bow, i.e. an arch in the Latin meaning. Elsewhere we stick to the Greek version. |
|||
III. The geometry of economic political mapping, i.e. the EP-map, is illustrated on fig.1 (click on EP-map). Assuming two basic orthogonal dimensions, the political, i.e. statism vs autonomism, and the economical, i.e. socialism vs capitalism, we identify four main economic-political forms. Thus, there are two basic dimensions for a system's coordinates: |
|||
(1) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%]autonomous, wholly statist, or somewhere between; |
|||
(2) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%] socialist, wholly capitalist, or somewhere between. |
|||
The four corners: A wholly autonomous and socialist systemis wholly anarchist, and located at the top of the map. A wholly statist and capitalist system is wholly authoritarian [fascist], i.e. located at the bottom of the map, where the authoritarian degree, the relative distance from the top of the map, is 100%. |
|||
A wholly autonomous & capitalist system is located at the right corner [liberalism]. A wholly statist & socialist system is located at the left corner [marxism]. The four edges: Wholly autonomous systems are located at the upper right edge, i.e. the autonomous edge. Wholly statist systems are located at the bottom left edge, i.e. the statist edge. Wholly socialist systems are located at the upper left edge, i.e. the socialist edge. Wholly capitalist systems are located at the bottom right edge, i.e. the capitalist edge. A wholly statist system is zero autonomous, and vice versa. A wholly capitalist system is zero socialist, and vice versa. |
|||
IV. The two borderlines and four quadrants: Half [1/2 = 50%] autonomous systems are located at the autonomous borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the autonomous edge and the statist edge. All systems between the autonomous borderline and the autonomous edge are autonomous, i.e. significant. Other systems are statist. Half [1/2 = 50%] socialist systems are located at the socialist borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the socialist edge and the capitalist. Systems between the socialist borderline and the socialist edge are socialist, i.e. significant. Other systems are capitalist. |
|||
The two borderlines divide the map in four quadrants: |
|||
(Top) Anarchism, i.e. socialism and autonomy; |
|||
(Left) Marxism, i.e. socialism and statism; |
|||
(Right) Liberalism, i.e. capitalism and autonomy; |
|||
(Bottom) Fascism, i.e. capitalism and statism. |
|||
The four quadrants are divided in four sectors each, i.e. each of the main economic-political forms, 1. anarchism, 2. marxism, 3. fascism and 4. liberalism, illustrated by the four quadrants on the map, are divided into four subsections, called sectors, along the same dimensions. |
|||
V. The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimension, taking into account the 16 subsections of the four main quadrants: |
|||
1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social individualist anarchism close to the middle of the map. |
|||
2. Marxist semi-libertarian collectivism close to the anarchist left; social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist, authoritarian and chaotic left-socialism and leninism (State communism) on the left and down. |
|||
3. Liberalism, i.e. social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and semilibertarian individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. Conservatism, i.e. not social or liberal, and the extreme right are authoritarian and more or less chaotic. |
|||
4. Left, right and ultra fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with populism close to the middle. The populist sector (as the others) may be divided in a left , general, and right tendency. |
|||
VI. Another important dimension is the libertarian vs authoritarian, the 'altitude' of the map stated by the authoritarian degree, AUT%. Furthermore 100% - AUT% gives the libertarian or anarchist degree. Assuming that the degree of statism and capitalism contributes symmetrically to the authoritarian degree, the contour intervals are indicated by the distance from the anarchist ideal, the top of the map. The semi-libertarian and libertarian area of the map, are above the circle segment of 50% authoritarian degree. The area below 50% authoritarian degree is significantly authoritarian. |
|||
Anarchy is the highest form of social order, thus the erroneous statement "chaotic anarchy" is similar to "chaotic order" = "chaotic non-chaotic", i.e. a contradiction and meaningless. A system or society cannot at the same time be both anarchist and non-anarchist, i.e. chaotic. If a system is chaotic, it is not found in the anarchist quadrant on the EP map, but left, down or right. Anarchist policy is typically consistent, flexible, but not opportunistic, related to principles; while authoritarian policy typically is chaotic, opportunistic, conglomerate aggregates. Economic-political power corrupts, and total power corrupts absolutly. Conflicts among "states within the state", and olig- and other archical corruption, repression, coercion and other chaotic behavior, i.e. mutually included, are well known. Chaos is typically found at more than 67% authoritarian degree below zero, i.e. basically totalitarian systems. Don't forget the Oslo convention about anarchy vs chaos. |
|||
The degree of anarchy is 100% minus the authoritarian degree, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Systems with authoritarian degree less than 50% outside the anarchist quadrant are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian, but not anarchist. Thus, mixed concepts as anarcho- capitalism, liberalism, marxism, populism, statism, chaos, authoritarian, totalitarian, etc. are all contradictions, inconsistent and meaningless. A system's coordinates cannot practically be located in two or more quadrants of the map at the same time. A system's coordinates reflect the system seen all in all, i.e. what is significant. |
|||
An example of a chaotic, and thus not valid proposed "definition" of anarchy, is the following: "Anarchy means without ruler or any form of centralized, coercive government." In real terms this definition excludes monarchy, but does not rule out decentralized forms of plutarchy (capitalism), oligarchy (majority or minority dictatorship), hierarchy (significant rank or economic differences, or government by guru/priests), polyarchy (government by many persons, of whatever order or class; opposed to monarchy) and ochlarchy (mob rule) from the concept of anarchy, and thus is contradictive. A definition of anarchy which does not exclude plutarchy, hierarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy in a proper way, is of course not valid, and thus wrong similar to Orwellian "1984-newspeak" or a definition of 2+2 = 3 or 4 or 5, which does contradict reality for all known things as we know them, because no thing doubles itself or disappears by itself arbitrary at the same moment, in reality. And thus 2+2=4, and nothing else. 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 is wrong. Magic and contradictions are fraud or virtual reality, not reality, as far as we know it today. By the way, so called chaos-theory is wrongly called so, because it is not really chaotic and contradictive, but express a form of natural order and is quite simple to explain mathematically... although somewhat more complicated than the formula of anarchy. |
|||
VII. The left-right dimension of the economic-political map goes from 100% statism and socialism on the left wing, to 100% capitalism and autonomism on the right. The extreme left and right sectors (subsystems) are usually associated with a typical ideal state-socialist planning system (brown&red statism) and a typical perfect competitive market system (autonomous plutarchy, blue&brown capitalism) respectively. The progressive-reactionary dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension. This axis goes from 100% socialism and autonomism as the most progressive, to 100% capitalism and statism as the most reactionary. |
|||
Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience, and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences. There are an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration), and a non economic dimension, constituting rank. Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. Economic political systems may be based on: |
|||
1. Small income differences [= socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and |
|||
2. Small rank differences [=autonomy] vs large [= statism]. |
|||
Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 16 subsystems. |
|||
Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of map), and anarchism is economic-political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences. The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy. |
|||
The state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. However, the political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism, see EP map. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism. Furthermore, this anarchist concept of state, the "ranks above the grassroots", i.e. the system with superior and subordinate positions, must not be mixed up with the nonscientific "1984-newspeak" concept, interpreted as both: 1. the country as a whole, which usually is a much too wide concept, and 2. the often too narrow view of the state as the federal or central public administration. By the way, any land needs coordination on country level, in some cases, say, by referendum. |
|||
VIII. The media discuss political mapping, but sometimes a bit confused, because of lack of logical, scientific structure. This may reflect a lack of structure in political science, due to an empirical, and sometimes party political, approach. Anarchist analysis and research are based on a nomothetical approach as conceptual framework, and thus a more logical structure, illustrated by the economic political map. |
|||
To understand the nature of economic political systems, theoretical and empirical, the following is an important theorem: |
|||
(1) If a system moves rightwards from the upper, i.e. advanced, part of the socialdemocrat sector, the system reaches the anarchist sector of social individualism. |
|||
(2) And if it moves sufficient further right, it reaches the social liberal sector. |
|||
(3) Thus, such an anarchist system is found in the middle between an advanced social democrat system and an advanced social liberal. |
|||
Anarchism is typically found in the middle, and not, say far left or right. The above mentioned type of anarchy is not the ideal form with a degree of anarchy = 100%, at the top of the map. But still it is significant. To put it simple, anarchism is freedom without harming other peoples freedom, not freedom at others expense, economic and political broadly defined. |
|||
This resolution should also be seen in the context of earlier AIT & ANORG-IFA material. A further movement upwards on the EP map, i.e. 1) even more socialism & autonomy, coordinate & self managed people, efficiency & fairness; and 2) less income & rank differences, subordinate & superior positions; is requested and strongly recommended. |
|||
IX. The idea of socialism vs capitalism as "common vs private property right to the means of production" must not be superficially interpreted. Private property right to the means of production means exclusive rights to dominate others economically, a system with large income differences, based on privileges or so called free, capitalist markets, i.e. plutarchy, and thus not anarchy or anarchist. Common or collective property right to the means of production is the negation of this, i.e. a system with small income differences. |
|||
Thus, common property right to the means of production must not be mixed up with public sector, since it may include cooperatives, markets, private possession, self employed and private sector enterprise in general, i.e. if regulated compatible with small income differences. On the other hand, public sector may sometimes have a rich bureaucracy with exclusive rights as mentioned above, and thus be capitalist. A similar notion is valid for the degree of statism vs autonomy. The most important is the over all economic political balances of strength, not the private vs public sector & plan vs market mix. |
|||
X. Anarchy means without government, which is anything that is not anarchy related to the economic political map, i.e. marxism, liberalism or fascism: Different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people. Anarchist systems and human relations are found in the main quadrant of anarchism on the map, and different forms of government systems are located in the main quadrants of marxism, fascism or liberalism. |
|||
Anarchist systems may be more or less close to the anarchist ideal at the top of the map, i.e. without government at 100% or somewhat less degree of anarchy, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Furthermore, it reflects being without hierarchy in the meaning of large rank and/or income differences, practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. |
|||
The economic and the political/administrative coordinate should ideally be estimated in the best way, reflecting all relevant facts, aggregated in the most relevant way: 1. An estimate of economic democracy vs capitalism (economical plutarchy), and 2. political/administrative democracy vs statism. |
|||
XI. Practical examples of anarchist societies: |
|||
As examples of relatively anarchist societies on a larger scale, the situation in a part of Spain during the civil war 1936-39 (anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism), and in Norway after 1994 (social individualist anarchism, the third alternative and social form), may be mentioned. Here we will concentrate on the modern times in stead of worshipping the past. |
|||
==Origins== |
==Origins== |
||
{{main|History of anarchism}} |
{{main|History of anarchism}} |
Revision as of 03:39, 3 March 2009
Part of a series on |
Anarchism |
---|
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider compulsory government unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable.[1][2] Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[3]
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[4][5][6] Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[7] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain,[8] with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today anarcho-capitalism and agorism).[9][10][11][12] Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. Some anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] However, the central tendency of anarchism is represented by communist anarchism, with anarcho-individualism being a philosophical/literary anarchist phenomenon rather than a social movement.[13] Some anarchists fundamentally oppose all forms of coercion, while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and terrorism, on the path to anarchy.[14]
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",[15][16] from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἄρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")[17] + -ισμός (-ismos, from a stem -ιζειν, -izein). Since the nineteenth century, the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1970s in the United States; its use as a synonym is especially common outside the U.S.[18] Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is used as a synonym for non-individualist anarchism,[19] that is, socialist anarchism.[20]
Logical structure
I. The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix an means negation of, as in anaerobe vs aerobe; and arch means superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates, as in archbishop (et. f. gr. archos, archein; eng. arch, be arch; nor. erke, herske).
- Thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, etc. are alternatives to, and the opposite of, different forms of superior and subordinate positions, non economic and economically: Political/administrative rank and economic/income hierarchies broadly defined and in real terms , i.e. respectively (1) statism and (2) capitalism.
- And thus: Anarchy, anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively.
- Thus: anarchy means without government, which is different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people (and not always the same as public sector).
- And thus: The different perspectives of the concept of anarchy are defined
- as an updated social scientifical resesarch front based on the methodology of natural sciences, the hypothetical deductive method, as suggested by Pjotr Kropotkin in his book "Modern Science and Anarchism" (1903-13) and confirmed on later anarchist congresses.
- as anarchy vs other -archies,
.- with the IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchist human rights, etc.,
Furthermore, these concepts should be considered in real terms, not formal or symbolic terms. Anarchists are interested in what de facto and in reality, are going on in society, not formal or symbolic values, government, rule and hierarchies. Symbolic and formal things and positions are only interesting to the extent they influence realities.
In the book "Modern Science and Anarchism" (1903-13) a.o.t. Peter Kropotkin declares - and gives the reason why - anarchism is a sociological science broadly defined, including political economy, etc., and is defined as an updated research front of libertarian social scientifical research, using the methods of modern natural sciences, i.e. mathematical relations, statistics etc. Anarchism: "Its method of investigation is that of the exact natural sciences, by which every scientific conclusion must be verified... (using) ... the concrete language of natural sciences, -- so we proceed in dealing with the facts of social life... not by the dialectic method, but by the natural-scientific method, the method of induction and deduction... We had better give up using the sonorous words which only conceal the superficiality of our semi-learning. In their time the use of these words was, perhaps, unavoidable -- their application could never have been useful. No struggle can be successful if it is an unconscious one, and if it does not render itself a clear and concise account of its aim...
Perhaps we are wrong and they are right. But in order to ascertain who is right, it will not do either to quote this and that authority, to refer to Hegel's trilogy, or to argue by the "dialectic method." This question can be settled only by taking up the study of economic relations as facts of natural science. Whithout entering into further discussion of the principles of Anarchism and the Anarchist programme of action, enough has been said, I think, to show the place of Anarchism among the modern sociological sciences. Anarchism is an attempt to apply to the study of the human institutions the generalizations gained by means of the natural-scientific inductive method;and an attempt to foresee the future steps of mankind on the road to liberty, equality, and fraternity, with a view to realizing the greatest sum of happiness for every unit of human society. In Anarchism there is no room for those pseudo-scientific laws with which the German metaphysicians of the twenties and thirties had to consent themselves. Anarchism does not recognize any method other than the natural-scientific.
This method it applies to all the so-called humanitarian sciences, and, availing itself of this method as well as of all researches which have recently been called forth by it, Anarchism endeavors to reconstruct all the sciences dealing with man, and to revise every current idea of right, justice, etc., on the bases which have served for the revision of all natural sciences. Whether or not Anarchism is right in its conclusions, will be shown by a scientific criticism of its bases and by the practical life of the future. But in one thing it is absolutely right: in that it has included the study of social institutions in the sphere of natural-scientific investigations; has forever parted company with metaphysics; and makes use of the method by which modern natural science .... were developed. Owing to this, the very mistakes which Anarchism may have made in its researches can be detected the more readily. But its conclusions can be verified only by the same natural-scientific, inductive-deductive method by which every science and every scientific concept of the universe is created."
This basic principle of Anarchism, per definition or seen as a methodological working hypothesis, is still valid and confirmed on all later anarchist congresses discussing this question in a scientifical, matter of fact, way. This libertarian, scientifical, way of thinking and research, praxeology i.e. human action research included, is the way to settle disputes, make action programs based on the anarchist principles in general, and develope anarchism further, - it is the basic methodological framework of anarchism and the Anarchist International. The other basic principles of anarchism are presented and discussed at (Click on) Economical-Political Map and via links of this web-site.
The most basic principles related directly to Kropotkin's definition of anarchy, anarchism and social sciences in general, as an updated research front, are the following:
( 1 ) Anarchies vs archies. Societal, political-economical systems, including organizations and political tendencies; economical, political or politological, sociological and anthropological systems, may be anarchies or the negation of anarchy = archies. Thus the total amount of societal systems S = anarchy + archy <=> S = anarchies + archies. Anarchy = anarchism, with respect to societal systems broadly defined.
( 2 ) Archies may be expressed as x-archy, where x is one of a set of systems characteristics of archs, say, ( mon, olig, poly, plut, ochl, matri, patri, hier, etc; but not an) or a logical union of several x-es reflecting different forms of archy/archies as opposed to anarchy/anarchies, i.e. the negation of x-archy = archies.
( 3 ) Possibility of anarchy. It is assumed that these terms reflect concepts that may be defined in a way that anarchy is not impossible in reality, i.e. the amount of anarchies in real terms is greater than the empty set, zero. Anarchy is matter of degree = tendency. Anarchy, i.e. an anarchist social system, may have 100% or a significant degree of anarchy, i.e. less than 100%, but above a given significant level.
( 4 ) Significant anarchist tendency = anarchy. As anarchy is the negation of x-archy it may not have any amount, i.e. significant tendency towards or of x-archy. Thus anarchy may have zero or insignificant tendency towards or of archies. The significant level is defined on aggregated dimensions.
( 5 ) Dimensions: a) There are an economic dimension and a non-economical dimension in societal, political-economical, system context: One aggregated economical, and one aggregated non-economical dimension, i.e. political/administrative rank broadly defined. Empirically this reflect economic remuneration and political/administrative rank of organizational social systems' maps broadly defined. b) The economical dimension measures socialism vs capitalism, where the degree of capitalism is the tendency towards or of economical archies (x-archy) and the non-economical dimension is autonomy vs statism, where the degree of statism is the tendency towards or of political/administrative archies. c) Along these two dimensions different forms of anarchy and archies (x-archy), are measured and mapped. The degree of socialism = 100% - degree of capitalism. The degree of autonomy = 100% - degree of statism. Socialism and autonomy are defined as insignificant degree of capitalism and statism respectively, and capitalism and statism is defined as significant degree of statism and capitalism respectively. Thus, socialism and autonomy are defined as significant degree of socialism and autonomy, and capitalism and statism are defined as insignificant degree of socialism and autonomy respectively .
( 6 ) Anarchism and other -isms. Anarchy is the negation of archies related to the economical and political/administrative dimensions, i.e. socialism and autonomy. Capitalism is economical plutarchy, including hierarchy and may be other x-archies broadly defined in an economical context. Statism is political/administrative monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule), the archies of rivaling states within the state, i.e. chaos; and the tyranny of structurelessness i.e. disorganization, and/or political plutarchy, and it may also include other archies, say, being matriarchy, if the main rulers are women. Furthermore
1. Statism without (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);
2. statism plus (economical) plutarchy/capitalism = fascism (populism included);
3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;
4. (economical) plutarchy/capitalism without statism = liberalism.
Libertarian (in the meaning of 'libertaire' (french) or 'libertær' (nordic)), and real democracy (realdemocracy) are synonyms for anarchist, anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy and anarchism are sometimes called the third alternative, social form, or way. (This must not be mixed up with Tony Blair's non-anarchist "third way = neue mitte" of Gerard Schröder, or Adolf Hitler's "dritte reich".)
Archies (x-archy) are defined equal to authority and State/government in societal context. Thus authority and State/government in societal context are liberalism, fascism and marxism broadly defined. And thus anarchy and anarchism are systems without any authority and State/government, in societal context, i.e. economical and political/administrative, also called political broadly defined. These societal, political concepts of state/government and authority, must not be mixed up with statism and the authoritarian degree, as defined related to economical-political mapping. Furthermore insignificant tendency towards or of State/government is not State/government, and insignificant tendency towards or of authority is not authority, but anarchy and anarchism.
( 7 ) Significant level at 50%. Anarchy has less than 50% tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy, aggregated on the two relevant dimensions, on a scale from 0 => 100%. Thus more than 50 % tendencies towards or of archies, x-archy of relevant x-es, aggregated on the economic and/or the non-economic dimension, are not anarchist, not anarchy. Thus anarchy has 100-50% degree of socialism and 100-50% degree of autonomy, and archies have less of one or both, i.e. more than 50% degree of capitalism and/or statism.
( 8 ) Anarchy defined: Anarchy and anarchism mean system, coordination and management without ruling and rulers (not without rules). i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery, and archies mean system, management and coordination with ruling and rulers, i.e. the negation of anarchy and anarchism. From greek 'an', as in anaerobe vs aerobe, i.e. keeping what is essential of the object, (in this case system, management, coordination) but without the special characteristic mentioned in the suffix, i.e. 'arch', ruling and ruler(s), from archos (ruler) and archein (ruling, being first).
( 9 ) Not totalitarian: The question of anarchism and anarchy vs archies is limited to the societal political-economical systems' management and coordination. What is interesting in anarchist perspective is whether or not the economical-political system has authority, i.e. ruling and rulers - or not, with respect to the societal managent and coordination. Other uses of the words anarchy vs x-archy and anarchies vs archies are principally irrelevant to anarchism, and should in general be avoided.
(10) Not valid concepts. Concepts as anarcho-archy = anarchy-x-archy in any form, meaning system, coordination and management "both with and without ruling and rulers" at the same time and place, are not allowed for, because such concepts are contradictive, and thus are nonsens and not logical and scientifical, because this is in reality not possible, and anarchism and anarchy is about realities. Thus anarcho-marxism, anarcho-capitalism = anarchy-plutarchy, anarcho-ochlarchy, anarcho-chaos, anarchy = chaos, anarchism = anarchy = minimal state or libertarian state, state in general, anarcho-statism, anarcho-authority, etc, are nonsens and not valid concepts, but confused Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" that is not anarchist, but authoritarian, i.e. chaotic, and should be avoided.
In addition to these axioms and most basic principles of social sciences, anarchy and anarchism and other -isms, other principles of policy defining authority more precise and concrete in a societal context, structural and functional, performance included, must be introduced, and the significant level of anarchy vs archies must be calibrated for applied and practical research and analysis. This is a.o.t. discussed on the file (click on:) Economical-Political Map , search for 'calibration' and 'principles'.
1. The economical dimension - the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections, also direct democracy. Markets however mean "one dollar (or other means of payment) - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic, i.e. not plutarchical, as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistical, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)
2. The political/adminstrative dimension - the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy , monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.
3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.
4. The IFA-principles, the Economic-Political map, the Oslo-convention, efficiency and fairness, anarchist human rights, etc.,
The basic principles of anarchism are: The negation of authority and all of its power, hierarchies and juridical laws. Freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, free contract, free initiative, atheism, antimilitarism, internationalism, decentralism, autonomy and federalism, self management and libertarian communalism - from each according to ability - to each according to needs. The aim is more anarchist systems, i.e. a movement towards more human rights and the best of the ideals of the French revolution, fairness and efficiency, less rank and income differences. These concepts and principles should be considered all in all, not partially, and reflect anarchist constitution .
II.They reflect different aspects of autonomy broadly defined, and socialism, as negations of statism and capitalism respectively. The basic social dimensions, (1) statism vs autonomy and (2) capitalism vs socialism, have many aspects. Different perspectives, the feminist, environmental, intergenerational, subordinate positions due to lack of structure or organization, people on their knees or flat on their face because of drugs, etc.; are included in the concepts of rank an income broadly defined.
Thus: Freedom, i.e. free people, freedom without damaging the freedom of other people, i.e not to be a slave, and not to make others slave for you, but live by own work. Federalism without autonomy is not anarchist. Social justice means a) anarchist law and court systems, compatible with the negation of hierarchy, etc., i.e. alternatives to authoritarian juridical laws; and b) antimilitarist corps broadly defined, sufficiently strong to keep order and keep up the balances of strength, as well as stop militarism, intra- and internationally. Generally speaking, antimilitarism is not pacifism...
Religious and guru organizations are principally considered as special forms of (political)/administrative rank and economic hierarchies, i.e. mainly based on psychological power & ruling techniques, and non atheist ideology. Anarchism is not, and should not, be expanded towards a totalitarian system. Other kinds of hierarchies, say, in sports, games, etc., are, as long as it is fair play, mainly not relevant from anarchist perspective. Scientific validity is not a political/administrative rank question, and authority must not be mixed up with competence. This should not be forgotten in education & research, and economics & politics, broadly defined.
Practically speaking anarchy, anarchism, etc. are systems and human relations with relatively small economic and rank differences, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized. However, the anarchist ideal at the top of the economic political map, i.e. with no such hierarchies at all, should not be forgotten as a leading star and standard for economic and political/administrative navigation. Say, two people stranded on an island, may co-operate without coercion to survive, i.e. anarchy, or act as superior vs subordinate, i.e. hierarchy and more or less chaos... To be anarch, or to be an arch, that is the question... "An arch" in this context may be interpreted as both a ruler or to be ruled, bow, i.e. an arch in the Latin meaning. Elsewhere we stick to the Greek version.
III. The geometry of economic political mapping, i.e. the EP-map, is illustrated on fig.1 (click on EP-map). Assuming two basic orthogonal dimensions, the political, i.e. statism vs autonomism, and the economical, i.e. socialism vs capitalism, we identify four main economic-political forms. Thus, there are two basic dimensions for a system's coordinates:
(1) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%]autonomous, wholly statist, or somewhere between;
(2) A system may be wholly [1 = 100%] socialist, wholly capitalist, or somewhere between.
The four corners: A wholly autonomous and socialist systemis wholly anarchist, and located at the top of the map. A wholly statist and capitalist system is wholly authoritarian [fascist], i.e. located at the bottom of the map, where the authoritarian degree, the relative distance from the top of the map, is 100%.
A wholly autonomous & capitalist system is located at the right corner [liberalism]. A wholly statist & socialist system is located at the left corner [marxism]. The four edges: Wholly autonomous systems are located at the upper right edge, i.e. the autonomous edge. Wholly statist systems are located at the bottom left edge, i.e. the statist edge. Wholly socialist systems are located at the upper left edge, i.e. the socialist edge. Wholly capitalist systems are located at the bottom right edge, i.e. the capitalist edge. A wholly statist system is zero autonomous, and vice versa. A wholly capitalist system is zero socialist, and vice versa.
IV. The two borderlines and four quadrants: Half [1/2 = 50%] autonomous systems are located at the autonomous borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the autonomous edge and the statist edge. All systems between the autonomous borderline and the autonomous edge are autonomous, i.e. significant. Other systems are statist. Half [1/2 = 50%] socialist systems are located at the socialist borderline, i.e. the parallel in the middle between the socialist edge and the capitalist. Systems between the socialist borderline and the socialist edge are socialist, i.e. significant. Other systems are capitalist.
The two borderlines divide the map in four quadrants: (Top) Anarchism, i.e. socialism and autonomy; (Left) Marxism, i.e. socialism and statism; (Right) Liberalism, i.e. capitalism and autonomy; (Bottom) Fascism, i.e. capitalism and statism.
The four quadrants are divided in four sectors each, i.e. each of the main economic-political forms, 1. anarchism, 2. marxism, 3. fascism and 4. liberalism, illustrated by the four quadrants on the map, are divided into four subsections, called sectors, along the same dimensions.
V. The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimension, taking into account the 16 subsections of the four main quadrants:
1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social individualist anarchism close to the middle of the map.
2. Marxist semi-libertarian collectivism close to the anarchist left; social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist, authoritarian and chaotic left-socialism and leninism (State communism) on the left and down.
3. Liberalism, i.e. social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and semilibertarian individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. Conservatism, i.e. not social or liberal, and the extreme right are authoritarian and more or less chaotic.
4. Left, right and ultra fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with populism close to the middle. The populist sector (as the others) may be divided in a left , general, and right tendency.
VI. Another important dimension is the libertarian vs authoritarian, the 'altitude' of the map stated by the authoritarian degree, AUT%. Furthermore 100% - AUT% gives the libertarian or anarchist degree. Assuming that the degree of statism and capitalism contributes symmetrically to the authoritarian degree, the contour intervals are indicated by the distance from the anarchist ideal, the top of the map. The semi-libertarian and libertarian area of the map, are above the circle segment of 50% authoritarian degree. The area below 50% authoritarian degree is significantly authoritarian.
Anarchy is the highest form of social order, thus the erroneous statement "chaotic anarchy" is similar to "chaotic order" = "chaotic non-chaotic", i.e. a contradiction and meaningless. A system or society cannot at the same time be both anarchist and non-anarchist, i.e. chaotic. If a system is chaotic, it is not found in the anarchist quadrant on the EP map, but left, down or right. Anarchist policy is typically consistent, flexible, but not opportunistic, related to principles; while authoritarian policy typically is chaotic, opportunistic, conglomerate aggregates. Economic-political power corrupts, and total power corrupts absolutly. Conflicts among "states within the state", and olig- and other archical corruption, repression, coercion and other chaotic behavior, i.e. mutually included, are well known. Chaos is typically found at more than 67% authoritarian degree below zero, i.e. basically totalitarian systems. Don't forget the Oslo convention about anarchy vs chaos.
The degree of anarchy is 100% minus the authoritarian degree, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Systems with authoritarian degree less than 50% outside the anarchist quadrant are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian, but not anarchist. Thus, mixed concepts as anarcho- capitalism, liberalism, marxism, populism, statism, chaos, authoritarian, totalitarian, etc. are all contradictions, inconsistent and meaningless. A system's coordinates cannot practically be located in two or more quadrants of the map at the same time. A system's coordinates reflect the system seen all in all, i.e. what is significant.
An example of a chaotic, and thus not valid proposed "definition" of anarchy, is the following: "Anarchy means without ruler or any form of centralized, coercive government." In real terms this definition excludes monarchy, but does not rule out decentralized forms of plutarchy (capitalism), oligarchy (majority or minority dictatorship), hierarchy (significant rank or economic differences, or government by guru/priests), polyarchy (government by many persons, of whatever order or class; opposed to monarchy) and ochlarchy (mob rule) from the concept of anarchy, and thus is contradictive. A definition of anarchy which does not exclude plutarchy, hierarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy in a proper way, is of course not valid, and thus wrong similar to Orwellian "1984-newspeak" or a definition of 2+2 = 3 or 4 or 5, which does contradict reality for all known things as we know them, because no thing doubles itself or disappears by itself arbitrary at the same moment, in reality. And thus 2+2=4, and nothing else. 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 is wrong. Magic and contradictions are fraud or virtual reality, not reality, as far as we know it today. By the way, so called chaos-theory is wrongly called so, because it is not really chaotic and contradictive, but express a form of natural order and is quite simple to explain mathematically... although somewhat more complicated than the formula of anarchy.
VII. The left-right dimension of the economic-political map goes from 100% statism and socialism on the left wing, to 100% capitalism and autonomism on the right. The extreme left and right sectors (subsystems) are usually associated with a typical ideal state-socialist planning system (brown&red statism) and a typical perfect competitive market system (autonomous plutarchy, blue&brown capitalism) respectively. The progressive-reactionary dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension. This axis goes from 100% socialism and autonomism as the most progressive, to 100% capitalism and statism as the most reactionary.
Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience, and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences. There are an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration), and a non economic dimension, constituting rank. Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. Economic political systems may be based on:
1. Small income differences [= socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and
2. Small rank differences [=autonomy] vs large [= statism].
Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 16 subsystems.
Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of map), and anarchism is economic-political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences. The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy.
The state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. However, the political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism, see EP map. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism. Furthermore, this anarchist concept of state, the "ranks above the grassroots", i.e. the system with superior and subordinate positions, must not be mixed up with the nonscientific "1984-newspeak" concept, interpreted as both: 1. the country as a whole, which usually is a much too wide concept, and 2. the often too narrow view of the state as the federal or central public administration. By the way, any land needs coordination on country level, in some cases, say, by referendum.
VIII. The media discuss political mapping, but sometimes a bit confused, because of lack of logical, scientific structure. This may reflect a lack of structure in political science, due to an empirical, and sometimes party political, approach. Anarchist analysis and research are based on a nomothetical approach as conceptual framework, and thus a more logical structure, illustrated by the economic political map.
To understand the nature of economic political systems, theoretical and empirical, the following is an important theorem:
(1) If a system moves rightwards from the upper, i.e. advanced, part of the socialdemocrat sector, the system reaches the anarchist sector of social individualism. (2) And if it moves sufficient further right, it reaches the social liberal sector.
(3) Thus, such an anarchist system is found in the middle between an advanced social democrat system and an advanced social liberal.
Anarchism is typically found in the middle, and not, say far left or right. The above mentioned type of anarchy is not the ideal form with a degree of anarchy = 100%, at the top of the map. But still it is significant. To put it simple, anarchism is freedom without harming other peoples freedom, not freedom at others expense, economic and political broadly defined.
This resolution should also be seen in the context of earlier AIT & ANORG-IFA material. A further movement upwards on the EP map, i.e. 1) even more socialism & autonomy, coordinate & self managed people, efficiency & fairness; and 2) less income & rank differences, subordinate & superior positions; is requested and strongly recommended.
IX. The idea of socialism vs capitalism as "common vs private property right to the means of production" must not be superficially interpreted. Private property right to the means of production means exclusive rights to dominate others economically, a system with large income differences, based on privileges or so called free, capitalist markets, i.e. plutarchy, and thus not anarchy or anarchist. Common or collective property right to the means of production is the negation of this, i.e. a system with small income differences.
Thus, common property right to the means of production must not be mixed up with public sector, since it may include cooperatives, markets, private possession, self employed and private sector enterprise in general, i.e. if regulated compatible with small income differences. On the other hand, public sector may sometimes have a rich bureaucracy with exclusive rights as mentioned above, and thus be capitalist. A similar notion is valid for the degree of statism vs autonomy. The most important is the over all economic political balances of strength, not the private vs public sector & plan vs market mix.
X. Anarchy means without government, which is anything that is not anarchy related to the economic political map, i.e. marxism, liberalism or fascism: Different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people. Anarchist systems and human relations are found in the main quadrant of anarchism on the map, and different forms of government systems are located in the main quadrants of marxism, fascism or liberalism.
Anarchist systems may be more or less close to the anarchist ideal at the top of the map, i.e. without government at 100% or somewhat less degree of anarchy, i.e. within the anarchist quadrant. Furthermore, it reflects being without hierarchy in the meaning of large rank and/or income differences, practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively.
The economic and the political/administrative coordinate should ideally be estimated in the best way, reflecting all relevant facts, aggregated in the most relevant way: 1. An estimate of economic democracy vs capitalism (economical plutarchy), and 2. political/administrative democracy vs statism.
XI. Practical examples of anarchist societies:
As examples of relatively anarchist societies on a larger scale, the situation in a part of Spain during the civil war 1936-39 (anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism), and in Norway after 1994 (social individualist anarchism, the third alternative and social form), may be mentioned. Here we will concentrate on the modern times in stead of worshipping the past.
Origins
Some claim anarchist themes can be found in the works of Taoist sages Laozi[21] and Zhuangzi. The latter has been translated, "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]," and "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State."[22] Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics, and their contemporary Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, also introduced similar topics.[21][23]
Modern anarchism, however, sprang from the secular or religious thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[24] Although by the turn of the 19th century the term "anarchist" had an entirely positive connotation,[25] it first entered the English language in 1642 during the English Civil War as a term of abuse used by Royalists to damn those who were fomenting disorder.[25] By the time of the French Revolution some, such as the Enragés, began to use the term positively,[26][unreliable source?] in opposition to Jacobin centralisation of power, seeing "revolutionary government" as oxymoronic.[25] From this climate William Godwin developed what many consider the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[27] Godwin was, according to Peter Kropotkin, "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his work."[21]"/>[28]
The first to describe himself as an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,[25] which led some to call him the founder of modern anarchist theory.[29] Proudhon proposed spontaneous order, whereby organization emerges without central authority, a "positive anarchy" where order arises when everybody does “what he wishes and only what he wishes"[30] and where "business transactions alone produce the social order."[31] Like Godwin, Proudhon opposed violent revolutionary action. He saw anarchy as "a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."[32] By "commune", Proudhon meant local self-government or according to literal translation, "municipality", rather than a communist arrangement.[33]
Schools of thought
Individualist anarchism
Individualist anarchism comprises several traditions[34] which hold that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority."[35] Individualist anarchism is supportive of property being held privately, unlike the social/socialist/collectivist/communitarian wing which advocates common ownership.[36] Individualist anarchism has been espoused by individuals such as Max Stirner, William Godwin,[37] Henry David Thoreau,[38] Josiah Warren and Murray Rothbard.[39][40][41]
William Godwin
In 1793, Godwin who has often[42] been cited as the first anarchist, wrote Political Justice, which some consider to be the first expression of anarchism.[43][27] Godwin, a philosophical anarchist, opposed revolutionary action and saw a minimal state as a present "necessary evil" that would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.[44][27] Godwin advocated extreme individualism, proposing that all cooperation in labor be eliminated on the premise that this would be most conducive with the general good.[45][46] Godwin was a utilitarian who believed that all individuals are not of equal value, with some of us "of more worth and importance' than others depending on our utility in bringing about social good. Therefore he does not believe in equal rights, but the person's life that should be favored that is most conducive to the general good.[47] Godwin opposed government because he saw it as infringing on the individual's right to "private judgement" to determine which actions most maximize utility, but also makes a critique of all authority over the individual's judgement. This aspect of Godwin's philosophy, stripped of utilitarian motivations, was developed into a more extreme form later by Stirner.[48]
Egoism
The most extreme[49] form of individualist anarchism, called "egoism,"[50] was expounded by one of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism, Max Stirner,[51] Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, published in 1844, is a founding text of the philosophy.[51] According to Stirner's conception, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire,[52] without regard for God, state, or moral rules.[53] To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind, and he held that society does not exist but "the individuals are its reality"– he supported a concept of property held by force of might rather than moral right.[54] By "property" he is not referring only to things but to other people as well.[55] Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw "associations of egoists" where respect for ruthlessness drew people together.[37] Even murder is permissible "if it is right for me."[56] Stirner saw the state as illegitimate but did not see individuals as having a duty to eliminate it nor does he recommend that they try to eliminate it; rather, he advocates that they disregard the state when it conflicts with their autonomous choices and go along with it when doing so is conducive to their interests.[57] However, while he thought there was no duty to eliminate state, he does think it will eventually collapse as a result of the spread of egoism.[58]
In Russia, individualist anarchism inspired by Stirner combined with an appreciation for Friedrich Nietzsche attracted a small following of bohemian artists and intellectuals such as Lev Chernyi, as well as a few lone wolves who found self-expression in crime and violence.[59] They rejected organizing, believing that only unorganized individuals were safe from coercion and domination, believing this kept them true to the ideals of anarchism.[60] This type of individualist anarchism inspired anarcho-feminist Emma Goldman.[59] Though Stirner's egoism is individualist, it has also influenced some anarcho-communists.[61] Forms of libertarian communism such that developed by the Situationist International are strongly egoist in nature.[62]
The American tradition
Another form of individualist anarchism was advocated by the "Boston anarchists,"[59] American individualists who supported private property exchangeable in a free market.[63] They advocated the protection of liberty and property by private contractors,[64] and endorsed exchange of labor for wages.[65] They did not have a problem that "one man employ another" or that "he direct him," in his labor but demanded that "all natural opportunities requisite to the production of wealth be accessible to all on equal terms and that monopolies arising from special privileges created by law be abolished."[66] They believed state monopoly capitalism (defined as a state-sponsored monopoly)[67] prevented labor from being fully rewarded. Even among the nineteenth century American individualists, there was not a monolithic doctrine, as they disagreed amongst each other on various issues including intellectual property rights and possession versus property in land.[68][69][70] A major cleft occurred later in the 19th century when Tucker and some others abandoned natural rights and converted to an "egoism" modeled upon Stirner's philosophy.[69] Some "Boston anarchists", like Tucker, identified themselves as "socialist" – a term which at the time denoted a broad concept – by which he meant a commitment to solving "the labor problem" by radical economic reform.[71] By the turn of the 20th century, the heyday of individualist anarchism had passed,[72] although it was later revived with modifications by Murray Rothbard and the anarcho-capitalists in the mid-twentieth century, as a current of the broader libertarian movement,[59][73] and the anti-capitalist strain by intellectuals such as Kevin Carson.
Proudhon's Mutualism
Mutualism began in 18th century English and French labor movements before taking an anarchist form associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France and others in the United States.[74] Proudhon's ideas were introduced by Charles A. Dana,[75] to individualist anarchists in the United States including Benjamin Tucker and William Batchelder Greene.[76]
Mutualist anarchism is concerned with reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract, federation, and credit and currency reform. According to Greene, in the mutualist system each worker would receive "just and exact pay for his work; services equivalent in cost being exchangeable for services equivalent in cost, without profit or discount."[77] Mutualism has been retrospectively characterized as being ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism.[78] Proudhon first characterized his goal as a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property."[79]
Social anarchism
Social anarchism is one of two different broad categories of anarchism, the other category being individualist anarchism. The term social anarchism is often used to identify communitarian forms of anarchism that emphasize cooperation and mutual aid. Social anarchism includes anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, social ecology and sometimes mutualism.
Collectivist anarchism
Collectivist anarchism, also referred to as revolutionary socialism or a form of such[80][81], is a revolutionary form of anarchism, commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin and Johann Most.[82] [83] It is a specific tendency, not to be confused with the broad category sometimes called collectivist or communitarian anarchism.[84] Unlike mutualists, collectivist anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivized. This was to be achieved through violent revolution, first starting with a small cohesive group through acts of violence, or "propaganda by the deed," which would inspire the workers as a whole to revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production.[82] However, collectivization was not to be extended to the distribution of income, as workers would be paid according to time worked, rather than receiving goods being distributed "according to need" as in anarcho-communism. This position was criticised by later anarcho-communists as effectively "uphold[ing] the wages system".[85] Anarchist communist and collectivist ideas were not mutually exclusive; although the collectivist anarchists advocated compensation for labor, some held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need.[86] Collectivist anarchism arose contemporaneously with Marxism but opposed the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat, despite the stated Marxist goal of a collectivist stateless society.[87]
Anarchist communism
Anarchist communists propose that the freest form of social organisation would be a society composed of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production, organized by direct democracy, and related to other communes through federation.[88]
However, some anarchist communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and favor consensus democracy.[89] In anarchist communism, as money would be abolished, individuals would not receive direct compensation for labour (through sharing of profits or payment) but would have free access to the resources and surplus of the commune.[90] According to anarchist communist Peter Kropotkin and later Murray Bookchin, the members of such a society would spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid.[91][page needed] Kropotkin believed that private property was one of the causes of oppression and exploitation and called for its abolition,[92][93] advocating instead common ownership.[92] Kropotkin said that "houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished."[94] In response to those criticizing Kropotkin for supporting expropriation of homes and means of production from those who did not wish to take part in anarcho-communism, he replied that if someone did not want to join the commune they would be left alone as long as they are a "peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate," or "a family inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space... considered necessary for that number of people" or an artisan "working with their own tools or handloom."[95] arguing that "[t]he landlord owes his riches to the poverty of the peasants, and the wealth of the capitalist comes from the same source."[95]
The status of anarchist communism within anarchism is disputed, because most individualist anarchists consider communitarianism incompatible with political freedom.[96] However Anarcho communism does not always have a communitarian philosophy, Some forms of anarchist communism are strongly Egoist,[97] and are strongly influenced by radical individualist philosophy, believing that anarcho-communism does not require a communitarian nature at all. Anarchist communist Emma Goldman blended the philosophies of both Max Stirner and Kropotkin in her own.[98]
Platformism is an anarchist communist tendency in the tradition of Nestor Makhno, who argued for the "vital need of an organization which, having attracted most of the participants in the anarchist movement, would establish a common tactical and political line for anarchism and thereby serve as a guide for the whole movement."[99]
Anarchism without adjectives
"Anarchism without adjectives", in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "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."[100] "Anarchism without adjectives" emphasizes harmony among various anarchist factions and attempts to unite them around their shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. The position was first adopted in 1889 by Fernando Tarrida del Mármol as a call for toleration, after being troubled by the "bitter debates" among the different anarchist movements.[101] Voltairine de Cleyre,[102] Errico Malatesta,[103] and Fred Woodworth are noteworthy exponents of the view.[104]
Anarcho-syndicalism
In the early 20th century, anarcho-syndicalism arose as a distinct school of thought within anarchism.[105] With greater focus on the labour movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by the workers.
Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Important principles include workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management. This is compatible with other branches of anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalists often subscribe to anarchist communist or collectivist anarchist economic systems.[106] Its advocates propose labour organization as a means to create the foundations of a non-hierarchical anarchist society within the current system and bring about social revolution.
An early leading anarcho-syndicalist thinker was Rudolf Rocker, whose 1938 pamphlet Anarchosyndicalism outlined a view of the movement's origin, aims and importance to the future of labour.[106][107]
Although more often associated with labor struggles of the early 20th century (particularly in France and Spain), many syndicalist organizations are active today, united across national borders by membership in the International Workers Association, including the Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden (SAC) in Sweden, the Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI) in Italy, the CNT in Spain, and the Industrial Workers of the World in the United States.
Post-classical schools of thought
Anarchism continues to generate many eclectic and syncretic philosophies and movements; since the revival of anarchism in the U.S. in the 1960s,[108] a number of new movements and schools have emerged. Anarcho-capitalism developed from radical anti-state libertarianism as a rejuvenated form of individualist anarchism, while the burgeoning feminist and environmentalist movements also produced anarchist offshoots.
Post-left anarchy is a tendency which seeks to distance itself from the traditional "Left" 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, single issue causes and calls for a synthesis of anarchist thought, and a specifically anti-authoritarian revolutionary movement outside the leftist milieu. Post-anarchism is a theoretical move towards a synthesis of classical anarchist theory and poststructuralist thought developed by Saul Newman and associated with thinkers such as Todd May, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. It draws from a wide range of ideas including autonomism, post-left anarchy, situationism, postcolonialism and Zapatismo.
Another recent form of anarchism critical of formal anarchist movements is insurrectionary anarchism, which advocates informal organization and active resistance to the state; its proponents include Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo M. Bonanno.
Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism (or "free market anarchism")[110] is "based on a belief in the freedom to own private property, a rejection of any form of governmental authority or intervention, and the upholding of the competitive free market as the main mechanism for social interaction."[111] Because of the historically anti-capitalist nature of much of anarchist thought, the status of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism is disputed particularly by communist anarchists.[112] Anarcho-capitalists distinguish between free market capitalism – peaceful voluntary exchange[113] – from "state capitalism" which Murray Rothbard defined as a collusive partnership between big business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[114] Whether in its natural rights-based, contractarian, or utilitarian formulations, anarcho-capitalism has a theory of legitimacy that supports private property as long as it was obtained by labor, trade, or gift.[115] In an anarcho-capitalist society, its proponents hold, voluntary market processes would result in the provision of social institutions such as law enforcement, defence and infrastructure by competing for-profit firms, charities or voluntary associations rather than the state.[116] In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, law (the non-aggression principle) is enforced by the market but not created by it, while according to David D. Friedman's utilitarian version, the law itself is produced by the market.
While the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Rothbard and its origin is attributed to 1960s United States, some historians, including Rothbard himself, trace the school as far back as the mid-19th century to market theorists such as Gustave de Molinari.[117][118] Anarcho-capitalism has drawn influence from pro-market theorists such as Molinari, Frédéric Bastiat, and Robert Nozick, as well as American individualist thinkers such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner.[119][120] Considered a form of individualist anarchism,[121] it differs from the individualism of the "Boston anarchists" of the 19th century in its rejection of the labor theory of value (and its normative implications) in favor of the neoclassical or Austrian School marginalist view. Anarcho-capitalist ideas have in turn contributed to the development of agorism,[122] autarchism, and crypto-anarchism.[123]
Anarcha-feminism
Anarcha-feminism is a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism that views patriarchy (male domination over women) as a fundamental manifestation of involuntary hierarchy – to which anarchists are opposed. Anarcha-feminism was inspired in the late 19th century by the writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists, criticize and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles.
Many anarcha-feminists are especially critical of marriage. For instance, Emma Goldman has argued that marriage is a purely economic arrangement and that "…[woman] pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life."[124] Anarcha-feminists view patriarchy as a fundamental problem in society and believe that the feminist struggle against sexism and patriarchy is an essential component of the anarchist struggle against the state and capitalism. Susan Brown expressed the sentiment that "as anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes all relationships of power, it is inherently feminist."[125] There have been several male anarcha-feminists, such as the Anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque who opposed Proudhon's anti-feminist views."[126]
Green anarchism
Green anarchism is an anarchist school of thought which places an emphasis on environmental issues. Sometimes, green anarchism is said to be techno-positive or techno-negative to differentiate between those who advocate use of advanced green technology to create and maintain an anarchist society and those who mainly see civilization and modern technology as something negative.
Anarcho-primitivism is a form of green anarchism that believes agriculture and division of labour inevitably lead to inequality and are incompatible with anarchism and in effect must be abolished. Anarcho-primitivists often criticize traditional anarchism for supporting civilization and modern technology which they believe are inherently based on domination and exploitation. They instead advocate the process of rewilding or reconnecting with the natural environment.
Non-primitivist green anarchists, such as anthropologist Brian Morris, often draw influence from the social ecology of Murray Bookchin.
As a social movement
Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. Its classical period, which scholars demarcate as from 1860 to 1939, is associated with the working-class movements of the nineteenth century and the Spanish Civil War-era struggles against fascism.[127]
The First International
In Europe, harsh reaction followed the revolutions of 1848, wherein ten countries experienced brief or long-term social upheaval as groups carried out nationalist revolutions. After most of these attempts at systematic change ended in failure, conservative elements took advantage of the divided groups of socialists, anarchists, liberals, and nationalists, to prevent further revolt.[128] In 1864 the International Workingmen's Association (sometimes called the "First International") united diverse revolutionary currents including French followers of Proudhon,[129] Blanquists, Philadelphes, English trade unionists, socialists and social democrats. Due to its links to active workers' movements, the International became a significant organization. Karl Marx became a leading figure in the International and a member of its General Council. Proudhon's followers, the mutualists, opposed Marx's state socialism, advocating political abstentionism and small property holdings.[130][131]
In 1868, following their unsuccessful participation in the League of Peace and Freedom (LPF), Mikhail Bakunin and his associates joined the First International – which had decided not to get involved with the LPF. They allied themselves with the anti-authoritarian socialist sections of the International, who advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the state and the collectivization of property. At first, the collectivists worked with the Marxists to push the First International in a more revolutionary socialist direction. Subsequently, the International became polarized into two camps, with Marx and Bakunin as their respective figureheads.[132] Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as authoritarian and predicted that, if a Marxist party came to power, its leaders would simply take the place of the ruling class they had fought against.[133][134] In 1872, the conflict climaxed with a final split between the two groups at the Hague Congress, where Bakunin and James Guillaume were expelled from the International and its headquarters were transferred to New York. In response, the anti-authoritarian sections formed their own International at the St. Imier Congress, adopting a revolutionary anarchist program.[135]
Organized labor
The anti-authoritarian sections of the First International were the precursors of the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to "replace the privilege and authority of the State" with the "free and spontaneous organization of labor."[136] In 1886, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU) of the United States and Canada unanimously set 1 May 1886, as the date by which the eight-hour work day would become standard.[137] In response, unions across America prepared a general strike in support of the event.[138] Upon 3 May, in Chicago, a fight broke out when replacement workers attempted to cross the picket line. Police intervention led to the deaths of four men, enraging the workers of the city. The next day, 4 May, anarchists staged a rally at Chicago's Haymarket Square.[139] A bomb was thrown by an unknown party near the conclusion of the rally, killing an officer.[140] In the ensuing panic, police opened fire on the crowd and each other.[141] Seven police officers and at least four workers were killed.[142] Eight anarchists directly and indirectly related to the organizers of the rally were arrested and charged with the murder of the deceased officer. The men became international political celebrities among the labor movement. Four of the men were executed and a fifth committed suicide prior to his own execution. The incident became known as the Haymarket affair, and was a setback for the labor movement and the struggle for the eight hour day. In 1890 a second attempt, this time international in scope, to organize for the eight hour day was made. The event also had the secondary purpose of memorializing workers killed as a result of the Haymarket affair.[143] The celebration of International Workers' Day on May Day became an annual event the following year.
In 1907, the International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam gathered delegates from 14 different countries, among which important figures of the anarchist movement, including Errico Malatesta, Pierre Monatte, Luigi Fabbri, Benoît Broutchoux, Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker, Christiaan Cornelissen, etc. Various themes were treated during the Congress, in particular concerning the organisation of the anarchist movement, popular education issues, the general strike or antimilitarism. A central debate concerned the relation between anarchism and syndicalism (or trade unionism). Malatesta and Monatte in particular opposed themselves on this issue, as the latter thought that syndicalism was revolutionary and would create the conditions of a social revolution, while Malatesta did not consider syndicalism by itself sufficient.[144] Malatesta thought that trade-unions were reformist, and could even be, at times, conservative. Along with Cornelissen, he cited as example US trade-unions, where trade-unions composed of qualified workers sometimes opposed themselves to non-qualified workers in order to defend their relatively privileged position.
The Spanish Workers Federation in 1881 was the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement; anarchist trade union federations were of special importance in Spain. The most successful was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour: CNT), founded in 1910. Before the 1940s, the CNT was the major force in Spanish working class politics and played a major role in the Spanish Civil War. The CNT was affiliated with the International Workers Association, a federation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions founded in 1922, with delegates representing two million workers from 15 countries in Europe and Latin America. The largest organised anarchist movement today is in Spain, in the form of the Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) and the CNT. CGT membership was estimated to be around 100,000 for the year 2003.[145] Other active syndicalist movements include the US Workers Solidarity Alliance and the UK Solidarity Federation. The revolutionary industrial unionist Industrial Workers of the World, claiming 2,000 paying members, and the International Workers Association, an anarcho-syndicalist successor to the First International, also remain active.
Russian Revolution
Anarchists participated alongside the Bolsheviks in both February and October revolutions, many anarchists initially supporting the Bolshevik coup. However, the Bolsheviks soon turned against the anarchists and other left-wing opposition, a conflict that culminated in the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion. Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks. In the Ukraine, anarchists fought in the civil war against Whites and then the Bolsheviks as part of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno, who attempted to establish an anarchist society in the region for a number of months.
Expelled American anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were amongst those agitating in response to Bolshevik policy and the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising, before they left Russia. Both wrote accounts of their experiences in Russia, criticizing the amount of control the Bolsheviks exercised. For them, Bakunin's predictions about the consequences of Marxist rule that the rulers of the new "socialist” Marxist state would become a new elite[133] had proved all too true.
The victory of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution and the resulting Russian Civil War did serious damage to anarchist movements internationally. Many workers and activists saw Bolshevik success as setting an example; Communist parties grew at the expense of anarchism and other socialist movements. In France and the US, for example, certain members of the major syndicalist movements of the CGT and IWW left the organizations and joined the Communist International.
In Paris, the Dielo Truda group of Russian anarchist exiles, which included Nestor Makhno, concluded that anarchists needed to develop new forms of organisation in response to the structures of Bolshevism. Their 1926 manifesto, called the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft),[146] was supported. Platformist groups active today include the Workers Solidarity Movement in Ireland and the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists of North America.
Fight against fascism
In the 1920s and 1930s, the rise of fascism in Europe transformed anarchism's conflict with the state. Italy saw the first struggles between anarchists and fascists. Italian anarchists played a key role in the anti-fascist organisation Arditi del Popolo, which was strongest in areas with anarchist traditions and marked up numerous successful victories, including repelling Blackshirts in the anarchist stronghold of Parma in August 1922.[147] In France, where the far right leagues came close to insurrection in the February 1934 riots, anarchists divided over a united front policy.[148]
In Spain, the CNT initially refused to join a popular front electoral alliance, and abstention by CNT supporters led to a right wing election victory. But in 1936, the CNT changed its policy and anarchist votes helped bring the popular front back to power. Months later, the ruling class responded with an attempted coup causing the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). In response to the army rebellion, an anarchist-inspired movement of peasants and workers, supported by armed militias, took control of Barcelona and of large areas of rural Spain where they collectivized the land. But even before the fascist victory in 1939, the anarchists were losing ground in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists, who controlled the distribution of military aid to the Republican cause from the Soviet Union. According to George Orwell and other foreign observers, Stalinist-led troops suppressed the collectives and persecuted both dissident Marxists and anarchists.
Internal issues and debates
Anarchism is a philosophy which embodies many diverse attitudes, tendencies and schools of thought; as such, disagreement over questions of values, ideology and tactics is common. The compatibility of capitalism (which anarchists usually reject, according to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy),[3] nationalism and religion with anarchism is widely disputed. Similarly, anarchism enjoys a complex relationship with ideologies such as Marxism, communism and capitalism. Anarchists may be motivated by humanism, divine authority, enlightened self-interest or any number of alternative ethical doctrines.
Phenomena such as civilization, technology (e.g. within anarcho-primitivism and insurrectionary anarchism), and the democratic process may be sharply criticized within some anarchist tendencies and simultaneously lauded in others. Anarchist attitudes towards race, gender and the environment have changed significantly since the modern origin of the philosophy in the 18th century.
On a tactical level, while propaganda of the deed was a tactic used by anarchists in the 19th century (e.g. the Nihilist movement), contemporary anarchists espouse alternative methods such as nonviolence, counter-economics and anti-state cryptography to bring about an anarchist society. The diversity in anarchism has led to widely different use of identical terms among different anarchist traditions, which has led to many definitional concerns in anarchist theory.
Footnotes
- ^ *Errico Malatesta, "Towards Anarchism", MAN!. Los Angeles: International Group of San Francisco. OCLC 3930443.
- Agrell, Siri (2007-05-14). "Working for The Man". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
- "Anarchism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006
- "Anarchism." The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable."
- ^ a b Slevin, Carl. "Anarchism." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003.
- ^ a b "Anarchism." The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 31
- ^ Kropotkin, Peter (2002). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. Courier Dover Publications. p. 5.
- ^ R.B. Fowler (1972). "The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought". Western Political Quarterly. 25 (4): 738–752. doi:10.2307/446800.
- ^ Sylvan, Richard (1995). "Anarchism". A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Philip. Blackwell Publishing. p. 231.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (help) - ^ Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. xi.
Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today
- ^ Stringham, Edward (2007). Anarchy and the Law. The Political Economy of Choice. Transaction Publishers. p. 720.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|title=
|editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (help) - ^ Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. xi
- ^ Colin Moynihan (2007). "Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway". New York Times (16 April).
- ^ Dennis Roddy (2003). "Anarchists: Can they get it together?". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (02 February).
- ^ Joseph Kahn (2000). "Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement". The New York Times (5 August).
- ^ Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press, 2002, page 191
- ^ Fowler, R.B. "The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought." The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4. (Dec., 1972), pp. 743–744
- ^ Anarchy. Merriam-Webster online.
- ^ Liddell, Henry George, & Scott, Robert, "A Greek-English Lexicon"[1]
- ^ Liddell. A Greek-English Lexicon.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|First=
ignored (|first=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press 2004 p. 62
- Goodway, David. Anarchists Seed Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. 2006, p. 4
- MacDonald, Dwight & Wreszin, Michael. Interviews with Dwight Macdonald. University Press of Mississippi, 2003. p. 82
- Bufe, Charles. The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations. See Sharp Press, 1992. p. iv
- Gay, Kathlyn. Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. ABC-CLIO / University of Michigan, 2006, p. 126
- Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004. (Uses the terms interchangeably, such as on page 10)
- Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183.
- Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press, 2001, page 9.
- Note: the term "libertarianism" has other meanings as well.
- ^ Perlin, Terry M. (1979). Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Publishers. p. 40.
- ^ Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739
- ^ a b c Peter Kropotkin, "Anarchism", Encyclopædia Britannica 1910
- ^ Murray Rothbard. "Concepts of the role of intellectuals in social change toward laissez faire" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-12-28.
- ^ Julie Piering. "Cynics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ "Anarchism", Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2006 (UK version)
- ^ a b c d e "Anarchism", BBC Radio 4 program, In Our Time, Thursday 7 December 2006. Hosted by Melvyn Bragg of the BBC, with John Keane, Professor of Politics at University of Westminster, Ruth Kinna, Senior Lecturer in Politics at Loughborough University, and Peter Marshall, philosopher and historian.
- ^ Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2004. pg. 85
- ^ a b c Mark Philip (2006-05-20). "William Godwin". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Godwin himself attributed the first anarchist writing to Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society. "Most of the above arguments may be found much more at large in Burke's Vindication of Natural Society; a treatise in which the evils of the existing political institutions are displayed with incomparable force of reasoning and lustre of eloquence…" – footnote, Ch. 2 Political Justice by William Godwin.
- ^ Daniel Guerin, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970).
- ^ Proudhon, Solution to the Social Problem, ed. H. Cohen (New York: Vanguard Press, 1927), p.45.
- ^ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1979). The Principle of Federation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802054587.
The notion of anarchy in politics is just as rational and positive as any other. It means that once industrial functions have taken over from political functions, then business transactions alone produce the social order.
- ^ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1969). Selected Writings. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books. OCLC 221546850.
- ^ Bernstein, Samuel. 1985. French Political and Intellectual. History. Transaction Publishers. p. 174
- ^ Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 2
- ^ Heywood, Andrew, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave, ISBN 0–312–23381–7, 2000, p. 46
- ^ Freeden, Michael. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019829414X. pp. 314
- ^ a b Woodcock, George. 2004. Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements. Broadview Press. p. 20
- ^ Johnson, Ellwood. The Goodly Word: The Puritan Influence in America Literature, Clements Publishing, 2005, p. 138.
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, Alvin Saunders Johnson, 1937, p. 12. - ^ Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. xi
- ^ Gerard Radnitzky, Hardy Bouillon. Libertarians and Liberalism. Avebury, 1996. p. 49
- ^ Edward Craig. Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis, 1998. p. 248.
- ^ Everhart, Robert B. The Public School Monopoly: A Critical Analysis of Education and the State in American Society. Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, 1982. p. 115
- ^ Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 116
- ^ Godwin, William (1796) [1793]. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals and Manners. G.G. and J. Robinson. OCLC 2340417.
- ^ Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved 7 December 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online
- ^ Paul McLaughlin. Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007. p. 119
- ^ Paul McLaughlin. Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007. p. 119
- ^ Paul McLaughlin. Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007. p. 123
- ^ Goodway, David. Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool University Press, 2006, page 99
- ^ Goodway, David. Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool University Press, 2006, page 99
- ^ a b David Leopold (2006-08-04). "Max Stirner". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge. Encyclopedia Corporation. p. 176
- ^ Miller, David. "Anarchism." 1987. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p 11
- ^ "What my might reaches is my property; and let me claim as property everything I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as fas as I entitle, that is, empower myself to take…" In Ossar, Michael. 1980. Anarchism in the Dramas of Ernst Toller. SUNY Press. p. 27
- ^ Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 194
- ^ Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 191
- ^ Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 190
- ^ "Max Stirner". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ a b c d Levy, Carl. "Anarchism." Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007.
- ^ Avrich, Paul. "The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution." Russian Review, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Oct., 1967). p. 343
- ^ "For Ourselves Council for Generalized Self-Management" discusses Stirner and speaks of a "communist egoism," which is said to be a "synthesis of individualism and collectivism," and says that "greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."For Ourselves, [2] The Right to Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything, 1974.
- ^ Christopher Gray, Leaving the Twentieth Century, p. 88.
- ^ "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." "Anarchism and Property", by Benjamin Tucker in The New Freewoman, 15 November 1913
- ^ Tucker, Benjamin (1893). Instead of a Book.
Defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices"
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|authrolink=
ignored (help) Tucker, Benjamin (October 19, 1891). "[unknown]". Liberty.Anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite uses generic title (help) - ^ Tucker, Benjamin. "Labor and Its Pay", from Individual Liberty: Selections from the Writings of Benjamin T. Tucker
- ^ Madison, Charles A. "Anarchism in the United States." Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, January 1945, p. 53.
- ^ Schwartzman, Jack. "Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists." American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325
- ^ Spooner, Lysander. The Law of Intellectual Property
- ^ a b Watner, Carl (1977). Template:PDFlink. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 308
- ^ Watner, Carl. "Template:PDFlink in The Libertarian Forum. March 1975. Volume VII, No 3. ISSN 0047–4517. pp. 5–6.
- ^ Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. 75.
- ^ Avrich, Paul. 2006. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. AK Press. p. 6
- ^ Miller, David. "Anarchism." The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought 1987. p. 11
- ^ "A member of a community," The Mutualist; this 1826 series criticized Robert Owen's proposals, and has been attributed to a dissident Owenite, possibly from the Friendly Association for Mutual Interests of Valley Forge; Wilbur, Shawn, 2006, "More from the 1826 "Mutualist"?"
- ^ Dana, Charles A. Proudhon and his "Bank of the People" (1848).
- ^ Tucker, Benjamin R., "On Picket Duty", Liberty (Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order) (1881–1908); 5 January 1889; 6, 10; APS Online pg. 1
- ^ "Communism versus Mutualism", Socialistic, Communistic, Mutualistic and Financial Fragments. (Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1875) William Batchelder Greene: "Under the mutual system, each individual will receive the just and exact pay for his work; services equivalent in cost being exchangeable for services equivalent in cost, without profit or discount; and so much as the individual laborer will then get over and above what he has earned will come to him as his share in the general prosperity of the community of which he is an individual member."
- ^ Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Princeton University Press 1996 ISBN 0–691–04494–5, p.6
Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, Blackwell Publishing 1991 ISBN 0–631–17944–5, p.11 - ^ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. What Is Property? Princeton, MA: Benjamin R. Tucker, 1876. p. 281.
- ^ Morris, Brian. Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom. Black Rose Books Ltd., 1993. p. 76
- ^ Rae, John. Contemporary Socialism. C. Scribner's sons, 1901, Original from Harvard University. p. 261
- ^ a b Patsouras, Louis. 2005. Marx in Context. iUniverse. p. 54
- ^ Avrich, Paul. 2006. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. AK Press. p. 5
- ^ Morris, Christopher W. 1998. An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. p 50. The collectivist category is also sometimes known as social, socialist, or communitarian anarchism category.
- ^ Kropotkin, Peter (2007). "13". The Conquest of Bread. Edinburgh: AK Press. ISBN 9781904859109.
- ^ Guillaume, James (1876). "Ideas on Social Organization".
- ^ Bakunin, Mikhail (1990). Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521361826.
They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship– their dictatorship, of course– can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.
- ^ Puente, Isaac."Libertarian Communism". The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review. Issue 6 Orkney 1982
- ^ Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century
- ^ Miller. Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, Blackwell Publishing (1991) ISBN 0–631–17944–5, p. 12
- ^
- Kropotkin, Peter Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, 1998 paperback, London: Freedom Press. ISBN 0–900384–36–0, also at Project Gutenberg
- Kropotkin, Peter The Conquest of Bread, first published 1892, also at Anarchy Archives
- Kropotkin, Peter Fields, Factories and Workshops, available at Anarchy Archives
- Bookchin, Murray Post Scarcity Anarchism (1971 and 2004) ISBN 1–904859–06–2.
- ^ a b Kropotkin, Peter (1907). The Conquest of Bread. New York: Putnam. p. 202. ISBN 7195197.
{{cite book}}
: Check|isbn=
value: length (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Kropotkin, Peter. Words of a Rebel, p99.
- ^ Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread
- ^ a b Kropotkin Act for yourselves. N.Walter and H. Becker, eds. (London: Freedom Press 1985) [p. 104-5]
- ^ Yarros, Victor S. "A Princely Paradox", Liberty, Vol 4. No. 19, Saturday, 9 April 1887, Whole Number 97; Tucker, Benjamin. "Labor and Its Pay"; Appleton, Henry. "Anarchism, True and False", Liberty 2.24, no. 50, 6 September 1884, p. 4; Swartz, Clarence Lee. What is Mutualism?
- ^ Christopher Gray, Leaving the Twentieth Century, p. 88.
- ^ Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 50.
- ^ Dielo Trouda (2006) [1926]. Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft). Italy: FdCA. Retrieved 2006-10-24.
- ^ Esenwein, George Richard "Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868–1898" [p. 135]
- ^ Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 6
- ^ Voltairine De Cleyre, "Why I Am an Anarchist"
- ^ Nettlau, Max. A Short History of Anarchism [p. 198–9]
- ^ Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Paul Avrich (2006). p. 475
- ^ Berry, David, A History of the French Anarchist Movement, 1917–1945 p.134
- ^ Anarchosyndicalism by Rudolf Rocker, retrieved 7 September 2006
- ^ Williams, Leonard (2007). "Anarchism Revived". New Political Science. 29 (3): 297–312. doi:10.1080/07393140701510160.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ "Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard" The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal. 25 February 1972.
- ^ "This volume honors the foremost contemporary exponent of market anarchism. One contributor describes Murray Rothbard as 'the most ideologically committed zero-State academic economist on earth'." Review by Lawrence H. White of "Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in honor of Murray N. Rothbard", published in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XXVIII, June 1990, page 664
- ^ "Anarcho-capitalism." Oxford English Dictionary. 2004. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Jainendra, Jha. 2002. "Anarchism." Encyclopedia of Teaching of Civics and Political Science. p. 52. Anmol Publications.
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. "A Future of Peace and Capitalism." Modern Political Economy. James H. Weaver (ed.). pp 419. Allyn and Bacon.
- ^ Murray Rothbard, A Future of Peace and Capitalism; Murray Rothbard, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty.
- ^ Rothbard, Murray (1969) Template:PDFlink The Libertarian Forum Vol. I, No. VI (15 June 1969) Retrieved 5 August 2006
- ^ Hess, Karl. "The Death of Politics." Playboy Magazine, March 1969
- ^ Raico, Ralph (2004) Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS
- ^ Rothbard, Murray. Preface. The Production of Security. By Gustave Molinari. 1849, 1977. [3]
- ^ DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. 127
- ^ Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 0–631–17944–5, p. 290: "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. (Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement.)"
- ^ Adams, Ian. 2002. Political Ideology Today. p. 135. Manchester University Press; Ostergaard, Geoffrey. 2003. "Anarchism." The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. W. Outwaite ed. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.
- ^ Konkin, Samuel Edward (2006). New Libertarian Manifesto (PDF). KoPubCo. ISBN 9780977764921. Retrieved 2008-12-28.
- ^ Vernor Vinge, James Frankel. True Names: And the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier (2001), Tor Books, p.44
- ^ Goldman, "Marriage and Love", Red Emma Speaks, p. 205
- ^ Brown, Susan. "Beyond Feminism: Anarchism and Human Freedom" Anarchist Papers 3 Black Rose Books (1990) p. 208
- ^ Anarchist-Communism by Alain Pengam
- ^ Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen, "Introduction: Why Anarchism Still Matters", in Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen (eds), Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), p.3.
- ^ Breunig, Charles (1977). The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789 - 1850. New York, N.Y: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-09143-0.
- ^ Blin, Arnaud (2007). The History of Terrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 116. ISBN 0520247094.
- ^ Dodson, Edward (2002). The Discovery of First Principles: Volume 2. Authorhouse. p. 312. ISBN 0595249124.
- ^ Thomas, Paul (1985). Karl Marx and the Anarchists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 187. ISBN 0710206852.
- ^ Engel, Barbara (2000). Mothers and Daughters. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. p. 140. ISBN 0810117401.
- ^ a b "On the International Workingmen's Association and Karl Marx" in Bakunin on Anarchy, translated and edited by Sam Dolgoff, 1971
- ^ Bakunin, Mikhail (1991) [1873]. Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0–521–36973–8.
- ^ Graham, Robert ''Anarchism (Montreal: Black Rose Books 2005) ISBN 1–55164–251–4
- ^ Resolutions from the St. Imier Congress, in Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, Vol. 1, p.100 [4]
- ^ "How May Day Became a Workers' Holiday". The Guide to Life, The Universe and Everything. bbc.co.uk. 4 October 2001. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
(It is) Resolved ... that eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after 1 May 1886, and that we recommend to labor organizations throughout this district that they so direct their laws so as to conform to this resolution by the time named.
- ^ "How May Day Became a Workers' Holiday". The Guide to Life, The Universe and Everything. bbc.co.uk. 4 October 2001. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
- ^ Avrich. The Haymarket Tragedy. p. 193.
- ^ "Patrolman Mathias J. Degan". The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
- ^ Chicago Tribune, 27 June 1886, quoted in Avrich. The Haymarket Tragedy. p. 209.
- ^ "Act II: Let Your Tragedy Be Enacted Here". The Dramas of Haymarket. Chicago Historical Society. 2000. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
- ^ Foner. May Day. p. 42.
- ^ Extract of Malatesta's declaration Template:Fr icon
- ^ Carley, Mark "Trade union membership 1993–2003" (International:SPIRE Associates 2004)
- ^ Dielo Trouda group (2006) [1926]. Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft). Italy: FdCA. Retrieved 2006-10-24.
- ^ Holbrow, Marnie, "Daring but Divided" (Socialist Review November 2002)
- ^ Berry, David. "Fascism or Revolution." Le Libertaire. August 1936)
See also
Further reading
- Anarchism. A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas. Robert Graham, editor.
- Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939) Black Rose Books, Montréal and London 2005. ISBN 1551642506.
- Volume Two: The Anarchist Current (1939–2006) Black Rose Books, Montréal 2007. ISBN 9781551643113.
- Anarchism, George Woodcock (Penguin Books, 1962). OCLC 221147531.
- Anarchy: A Graphic Guide, Clifford Harper (Camden Press, 1987): An overview, updating Woodcock's classic, and illustrated throughout by Harper's woodcut-style artwork.
- The Anarchist Reader, George Woodcock (ed.) (Fontana/Collins 1977; ISBN 0006340113): An anthology of writings from anarchist thinkers and activists including Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Malatesta, Bookchin, Goldman, and many others.
- Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Edward Stringham (Transaction Publishers, 2007; ISBN 1412805791): An overview of the major arguments and historical studies about private property anarchism.
External links
General resources
- "An Anarchist FAQ Webpage"–An Anarchist FAQ
- Anarchist Theory FAQ–by Bryan Caplan
- Anarchism Page–faqs, library, resources
- Infoshop.org–Infoshop.org; anarchist news, information, and online library.
- Anarchism.net–a pluralist resource on anarchism
Biographical and bibliographical
- Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia–,700+ entries, with short bios, links & dedicated pages.
- Anarchy Archives–Anarchy Archives; information relating to famous anarchists including their writings.
- They Lie We Die–anarchist virtual library containing 768 books, booklets and texts about socialist anarchism.
- About Market Anarchism–Molinari Institute; online booklets and texts about market anarchism.