Hubbry Logo
AnarchismAnarchismMain
Open search
Anarchism
Community hub
Anarchism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Anarchism
Anarchism
from Wikipedia

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism.[1] Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

Although traces of anarchist ideas are found all throughout history, modern anarchism emerged from the Enlightenment. During the latter half of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century, the anarchist movement flourished in most parts of the world and had a significant role in workers' struggles for emancipation. Various anarchist schools of thought formed during this period. Anarchists have taken part in several revolutions, most notably in the Paris Commune, the Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, whose conclusion marked the end of the classical era of anarchism. In the last decades of the 20th and into the 21st century, the anarchist movement has been resurgent once more, growing in popularity and influence within anti-capitalist, anti-war and anti-globalisation movements.

Anarchists employ diverse approaches, which may be generally divided into revolutionary and evolutionary strategies; there is significant overlap between the two. Evolutionary methods try to simulate what an anarchist society might be like, but revolutionary tactics, which have historically taken a violent turn, aim to overthrow authority and the state. Many facets of human civilization have been influenced by anarchist theory, critique, and praxis.

Etymology, terminology, and definition

[edit]
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon – the first political philosopher to call himself an anarchist[2][3][4]

The etymological origin of anarchism is from the Ancient Greek anarkhia (ἀναρχία), meaning "without a ruler", composed of the prefix an- ("without") and the word arkhos ("leader" or "ruler"). The suffix -ism denotes the ideological current that favours anarchy.[5] Anarchism appears in English from 1642 as anarchisme and anarchy from 1539; early English usages emphasised a sense of disorder.[6] Various factions within the French Revolution labelled their opponents as anarchists, although few such accused shared many views with later anarchists. Many revolutionaries of the 19th century such as William Godwin (1756–1836) and Wilhelm Weitling (1808–1871) would contribute to the anarchist doctrines of the next generation but did not use anarchist or anarchism in describing themselves or their beliefs.[7][8]

The first political philosopher to call himself an anarchist (French: anarchiste) was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865),[2][3][4] marking the formal birth of anarchism in the mid-19th century. Since the 1890s and beginning in France,[9] libertarianism has often been used as a synonym for anarchism;[10] its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States.[11] Some usages of libertarianism refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, and free-market anarchism in particular is termed libertarian anarchism.[12]

While the term libertarian has been largely synonymous with anarchism,[13] its meaning has more recently been diluted by wider adoption from ideologically disparate groups,[14] including both the New Left and libertarian Marxists, who do not associate themselves with authoritarian socialists or a vanguard party, and extreme cultural liberals, who are primarily concerned with civil liberties.[14] Additionally, some anarchists use libertarian socialist[15] to avoid anarchism's negative connotations and emphasise its connections with socialism.[14] Anarchism is broadly used to describe the anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement.[16][nb 1] Anarchism is contrasted to socialist forms which are state-oriented or from above.[20] Scholars of anarchism generally highlight anarchism's socialist credentials[21] and criticise attempts at creating dichotomies between the two.[22] Some scholars describe anarchism as having many influences from liberalism,[14] and being both liberal and socialist but more so.[23] Many scholars reject anarcho-capitalism as a misunderstanding of anarchist principles.[24][nb 2]

While opposition to the state is central to anarchist thought, defining anarchism is not an easy task for scholars, as there is a lot of discussion among scholars and anarchists on the matter, and various currents perceive anarchism slightly differently.[26][nb 3] Major definitional elements include the will for a non-coercive society, the rejection of the state apparatus, the belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society, and a suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.[29]

History

[edit]

Pre-modern era

[edit]
Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – c. 262 BC), whose Republic inspired Peter Kropotkin[30]

The most notable precursors to anarchism in the ancient world were in China and Greece. In China, philosophical anarchism (the discussion on the legitimacy of the state) was delineated by Taoist philosophers Zhuang Zhou and Laozi.[31] Alongside Stoicism, Taoism has been said to have had "significant anticipations" of anarchism.[32]

Anarchic attitudes were also articulated by tragedians and philosophers in Greece. Aeschylus and Sophocles used the myth of Antigone to illustrate the conflict between laws imposed by the state and personal autonomy. Socrates questioned Athenian authorities constantly and insisted on the right of individual freedom of conscience. Cynics dismissed human law (nomos) and associated authorities while trying to live according to nature (physis). Stoics were supportive of a society based on unofficial and friendly relations among its citizens without the presence of a state.[33]

In medieval Europe, there was no anarchistic activity except some ascetic religious movements. These, and other Muslim movements, later gave birth to religious anarchism. In the Sasanian Empire, Mazdak called for an egalitarian society and the abolition of monarchy, only to be soon executed by Emperor Kavad I.[34] In Basra, religious sects preached against the state.[35] In Europe, various religious sects developed anti-state and libertarian tendencies.[36]

Renewed interest in antiquity during the Renaissance and in private judgment during the Reformation restored elements of anti-authoritarian secularism in Europe, particularly in France.[37] Enlightenment challenges to intellectual authority (secular and religious) and the revolutions of the 1790s and 1848 all spurred the ideological development of what became the era of classical anarchism.[38]

Modern era

[edit]
The Paris Commune one of the earliest experiments of anarchism

During the French Revolution, partisan groups such as the Enragés and the sans-culottes saw a turning point in the fermentation of anti-state and federalist sentiments.[39] The first anarchist currents developed throughout the 19th century as William Godwin espoused philosophical anarchism in England, morally delegitimising the state, Max Stirner's thinking paved the way to individualism and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's theory of mutualism found fertile soil in France.[40] By the late 1870s, various anarchist schools of thought had become well-defined and a wave of then-unprecedented globalisation occurred from 1880 to 1914.[41] This era of classical anarchism lasted until the end of the Spanish Civil War and is considered the golden age of anarchism.[40]

Mikhail Bakunin opposed the Marxist aim of dictatorship of the proletariat and allied himself with the federalists in the First International before his expulsion by the Marxists.

Drawing from mutualism, Mikhail Bakunin founded collectivist anarchism and entered the International Workingmen's Association, a class worker union later known as the First International that formed in 1864 to unite diverse revolutionary currents. The International became a significant political force, with Karl Marx being a leading figure and a member of its General Council. Bakunin's faction (the Jura Federation) and Proudhon's followers (the mutualists) opposed state socialism, advocating political abstentionism and small property holdings.[42] After bitter disputes, the Bakuninists were expelled from the International by the Marxists at the 1872 Hague Congress.[43] Anarchists were treated similarly in the Second International, being ultimately expelled in 1896.[44] Bakunin predicted that if revolutionaries gained power by Marx's terms, they would end up the new tyrants of workers. In response to their expulsion from the First International, anarchists formed the St. Imier International. Under the influence of Peter Kropotkin, a Russian philosopher and scientist, anarcho-communism overlapped with collectivism.[45] Anarcho-communists, who drew inspiration from the 1871 Paris Commune, advocated for free federation and for the distribution of goods according to one's needs.[46]

During this time, a minority of anarchists adopted tactics of revolutionary political violence, known as propaganda of the deed.[47] The dismemberment of the French socialist movement into many groups and the execution and exile of many Communards to penal colonies following the suppression of the Paris Commune favoured individualist political expression and acts.[48] Even though many anarchists distanced themselves from these terrorist acts, infamy came upon the movement and attempts were made to prevent anarchists immigrating to the US, including the Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act.[49] Illegalism was another strategy which some anarchists adopted during this period.[50]

By the turn of the 20th century, the terrorist movement had died down, giving way to anarchist communism and syndicalism, while anarchism had spread all over the world.[51][52] In China, small groups of students imported the humanistic pro-science version of anarcho-communism.[53] Tokyo was a hotspot for rebellious youth from East Asian countries, who moved to the Japanese capital to study.[54] In Latin America, Argentina was a stronghold for anarcho-syndicalism, where it became the most prominent left-wing ideology.[55] Anarchists were involved in the Strandzha Commune and Krusevo Republic established in Macedonia in Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising of 1903, and in the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The revolutionary wave of 1917–23 saw varying degrees of active participation by anarchists.[56]

Nestor Makhno seen with members of the anarchist Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine

Despite concerns, anarchists enthusiastically participated in the Russian Revolution in opposition to the White movement, especially in the Makhnovshchina. Seeing the victories of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution and the resulting Russian Civil War, many workers and activists turned to Communist parties, which grew at the expense of anarchism and other socialist movements. In France and the United States, members of major syndicalist movements such as the General Confederation of Labour and the Industrial Workers of the World left their organisations and joined the Communist International.[57] However, anarchists met harsh suppression after the Bolshevik government had stabilised, including during the Kronstadt rebellion.[58] Several anarchists from Petrograd and Moscow fled to Ukraine, before the Bolsheviks crushed the anarchist movement there too.[58] With the anarchists being repressed in Russia, two new antithetical currents emerged, namely platformism and synthesis anarchism. The former sought to create a coherent group that would push for revolution while the latter were against anything that would resemble a political party.

In the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39, anarchists and syndicalists (CNT and FAI) once again allied themselves with various currents of leftists. A long tradition of Spanish anarchism led to anarchists playing a pivotal role in the war, and particularly in the Spanish Revolution of 1936. 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 collectivised the land.[59] The Soviet Union provided some limited assistance at the beginning of the war, but the result was a bitter fight between communists and other leftists in a series of events known as the May Days, as Joseph Stalin asserted Soviet control of the Republican government, ending in another defeat of anarchists at the hands of the communists.[60]

Post-WWII

[edit]
Rojava's support efforts for workers to form cooperatives is exemplified in this sewing cooperative.

By the end of World War II, the anarchist movement had been severely weakened.[61] The 1960s witnessed a revival of anarchism, likely caused by a perceived failure of Marxism–Leninism and tensions built by the Cold War.[62] During this time, anarchism found a presence in other movements critical towards both capitalism and the state such as the anti-nuclear, environmental, and peace movements, the counterculture of the 1960s, and the New Left.[63] It also saw a transition from its previous revolutionary nature to provocative anti-capitalist reformism.[64] Anarchism became associated with punk subculture as exemplified by bands such as Crass and the Sex Pistols.[65] The established feminist tendencies of anarcha-feminism returned with vigour during the second wave of feminism.[66] Black anarchism began to take form at this time and influenced anarchism's move from a Eurocentric demographic.[67] This coincided with its failure to gain traction in Northern Europe and its unprecedented height in Latin America.[68]

Black bloc organizing during the Battle of Seattle

Around the turn of the 21st century, anarchism grew in popularity and influence within anti-capitalist, anti-war and anti-globalisation movements.[69] Interest in the anarchist movement developed alongside momentum in the anti-globalisation movement,[70] whose leading activist networks were anarchist in orientation.[71] Anarchists became known for their involvement in protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Group of Eight and the World Economic Forum. During the protests, ad hoc leaderless anonymous cadres known as black blocs engaged in rioting, property destruction and violent confrontations with the police. Other organisational tactics pioneered at this time include affinity groups, security culture and the use of decentralised technologies such as the Internet. A significant event of this period was the confrontations at the 1999 Seattle WTO conference.[69] As the movement shaped 21st century radicalism, wider embrace of anarchist principles signaled a revival of interest.[71] Contemporary news coverage of black bloc demonstrations emphasizes violence committed by anarchists.[72][73][74]

While having revolutionary aspirations, many contemporary forms of anarchism are not confrontational. Instead, they are trying to build an alternative way of social organization (following the theories of dual power), based on mutual interdependence and voluntary cooperation, for instance in groups such as Food Not Bombs and in self-managed social centers.[75]

Anarchism's publicity has also led more scholars in fields such as anthropology and history to engage with the anarchist movement, although contemporary anarchism favours actions over academic theory.[76] Anarchist ideas have been influential in the development of the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, more commonly known as Rojava, a de facto autonomous region in northern Syria.[77]

Schools of thought

[edit]

Anarchist schools of thought have been generally grouped into two main historical traditions, social anarchism and individualist anarchism, owing to their different origins, values and evolution.[78] The individualist current emphasises negative liberty in opposing restraints upon the free individual, while the social current emphasises positive liberty in aiming to achieve the free potential of society through equality and social ownership.[79] In a chronological sense, anarchism can be segmented by the classical currents of the late 19th century and the post-classical currents (anarcha-feminism, green anarchism, and post-anarchism) developed thereafter.[80]

Black bloc protesters parading anarcho-communism imagery such as the motto "No War but the Class War"

Anarchism's emphasis on anti-capitalism, egalitarianism, and for the extension of community and individuality sets it apart from anarcho-capitalism and other types of economic libertarianism.[24] Anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum, though many reject state authority from conservative principles, such as anarcho-capitalists.[81] Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, libertarian, and radical interpretations of left-wing and socialist politics[17] such as collectivism, communism, individualism, mutualism, and syndicalism, among other libertarian socialist economic theories.[82]

As anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview,[83] many anarchist types and traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely.[84] One reaction against sectarianism within the anarchist milieu was anarchism without adjectives, a call for toleration and unity among anarchists first adopted by Fernando Tarrida del Mármol in 1889 in response to the bitter debates of anarchist theory at the time.[85] Despite separation, the various anarchist schools of thought are not seen as distinct entities but rather as tendencies that intermingle and are connected through a set of shared principles such as autonomy, mutual aid, anti-authoritarianism and decentralisation.[86]

Beyond the specific factions of anarchist political movements which constitute political anarchism lies philosophical anarchism, which holds that the state lacks moral legitimacy, without necessarily accepting the imperative of revolution to eliminate it.[87] A component especially of individualist anarchism,[88] philosophical anarchism may tolerate the existence of a minimal state but claims that citizens have no moral obligation to obey government when it conflicts with individual autonomy.[89] Philosophical currents as diverse as Objectivism and Kantianism have provided arguments drawn on in favor of philosophical anarchism, including Wolff's defense of anarchism against formal methods for legitimating it.[90] Anarchism pays significant attention to moral arguments since ethics have a central role in anarchist philosophy.[91] Belief in political nihilism has been espoused by anarchists.[92]

Classical

[edit]
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the primary proponent of mutualism and influenced many future individualist anarchist and social anarchist thinkers.[93]

Inceptive currents among classical anarchist currents were mutualism and individualism. They were followed by the major currents of social anarchism (collectivist, communist and syndicalist). They differ on organisational and economic aspects of their ideal society.[94]

Mutualism is an 18th-century economic theory that was developed into anarchist theory by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Its aims include "abolishing the state",[95] reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract, federation and monetary reform of both credit and currency that would be regulated by a bank of the people.[96] Mutualism has been retrospectively characterised as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism.[97] In What Is Property? (1840), Proudhon first characterised his goal as a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property."[98] Collectivist anarchism is a revolutionary socialist form of anarchism[99] commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin.[100] Collectivist anarchists advocate collective ownership of the means of production which is theorised to be achieved through violent revolution[101] and that workers be paid according to time worked, rather than goods being distributed according to need as in communism. Collectivist anarchism arose alongside Marxism but rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat despite the stated Marxist goal of a collectivist stateless society.[102]

Anarcho-communism is a theory of anarchism that advocates a communist society with common ownership of the means of production,[103] held by a federal network of voluntary associations,[104] with production and consumption based on the guiding principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."[105] Anarcho-communism developed from radical socialist currents after the French Revolution[106] but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International.[107] It was later expanded upon in the theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin,[108] whose specific style would go onto become the dominating view of anarchists by the late 19th century.[109] Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism that views labour syndicates as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are direct action, workers' solidarity and workers' self-management.[110]

Individualist anarchism is a set of several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasise the individual and their will over any kinds of external determinants.[111] Early influences on individualist forms of anarchism include William Godwin, Max Stirner, and Henry David Thoreau. Through many countries, individualist anarchism attracted a small yet diverse following of Bohemian artists and intellectuals[112] as well as young anarchist outlaws in what became known as illegalism and individual reclamation.[113]

Post-classical and contemporary

[edit]
Lawrence Jarach (left) and John Zerzan (right) are two prominent contemporary anarchist authors, with Zerzan being a prominent voice within anarcho-primitivism and Jarach a notable advocate of post-left anarchy.

Anarchism has continued to generate many philosophies and movements, at times eclectic, drawing upon various sources and combining disparate concepts to create new philosophical approaches.[114]The anti-capitalist tradition of classical anarchism has remained prominent in contemporary currents.[115]

Various anarchist groups, tendencies, and schools of thought exist today, making it difficult to describe the contemporary anarchist movement.[116] While theorists and activists have established "relatively stable constellations of anarchist principles", there is no consensus on which principles are core and commentators describe multiple anarchisms, rather than a singular anarchism, in which common principles are shared between schools of anarchism while each group prioritizes those principles differently. Gender equality can be a common principle, although it ranks as a higher priority to anarcha-feminists than anarcho-communists.[117]

Anarchists are generally committed against coercive authority in all forms, namely "all centralized and hierarchical forms of government (e.g., monarchy, representative democracy, state socialism, etc.), economic class systems (e.g., capitalism, Bolshevism, feudalism, slavery, etc.), autocratic religions (e.g., fundamentalist Islam, Roman Catholicism, etc.), patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, and imperialism."[118] Anarchist schools disagree on the methods by which these forms should be opposed.[119]

Tactics

[edit]

Anarchists' tactics take various forms but in general serve two major goals, namely, to first oppose the Establishment and secondly to promote anarchist ethics and reflect an anarchist vision of society, illustrating the unity of means and ends.[120] A broad categorisation can be made between aims to destroy oppressive states and institutions by revolutionary means on one hand and aims to change society through evolutionary means on the other.[121] Evolutionary tactics embrace nonviolence and take a gradual approach to anarchist aims, although there is significant overlap between the two.[122]

Anarchist tactics have shifted during the course of the last century. Anarchists during the early 20th century focused more on strikes and militancy while contemporary anarchists use a broader array of approaches.[123]

Classical era

[edit]
The relationship between anarchism and violence is a controversial subject among anarchists as shown by anarchist Leon Czolgosz assassinating William McKinley.

During the classical era, anarchists had a militant tendency. Not only did they confront state armed forces, as in Spain and Ukraine, but some of them also employed terrorism as propaganda of the deed. Assassination attempts were carried out against heads of state, some of which were successful. Anarchists also took part in revolutions.[124] Many anarchists, especially the Galleanists, believed that these attempts would be the impetus for a revolution against capitalism and the state.[125] Many of these attacks were done by individual assailants and the majority took place in the late 1870s, the early 1880s and the 1890s, with some still occurring in the early 1900s.[126] Their decrease in prevalence was the result of further judicial power and of targeting and cataloging by state institutions.[127]

Anarchist perspectives towards violence have always been controversial.[128] Anarcho-pacifists advocate for non-violence means to achieve their stateless, nonviolent ends.[129] Other anarchist groups advocate direct action, a tactic which can include acts of sabotage or terrorism. This attitude was quite prominent a century ago when seeing the state as a tyrant and some anarchists believing that they had every right to oppose its oppression by any means possible.[130] Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta, who were proponents of limited use of violence, stated that violence is merely a reaction to state violence as a necessary evil.[131]

Anarchists took an active role in strike actions, although they tended to be antipathetic to formal syndicalism, seeing it as reformist. They saw it as a part of the movement which sought to overthrow the state and capitalism.[132] Anarchists also reinforced their propaganda within the arts, some of whom practiced naturism and nudism. Those anarchists also built communities which were based on friendship and were involved in the news media.[133]

Karl Marx, considered to be one of the principal founders of Marxism, criticised anarchism as the movement of the "petty bourgeois", i.e. of formerly self-employed craftsmen and artisans who had been ruined by capitalistic industrialization or even war and then driven to factories; even so, they refused to subject themselves to factory discipline, party leadership, and State control, were prone to violence when frustrated, and advocated seizing factories only to break down mass production and return to craftsmanship.[134] Friedrich Engels, who is considered Marxism's other principal founder, criticised anarchism's anti-authoritarianism as inherently counter-revolutionary because in his view a revolution is by itself authoritarian.[135] A Socialist Workers Party pamphlet by John Molyneux, Anarchism: A Marxist Criticism argues that "anarchism cannot win", believing that it lacks the ability to properly implement its ideas.[136] Another Marxist criticism of anarchism is that it has a utopian character because all individuals should have anarchist views and values. According to this Marxist view, that a social idea would follow directly from this human ideal and out of the free will of every individual formed its essence. Marxists state that this contradiction was responsible for their inability to act. In the anarchist vision, the conflict between liberty and equality was resolved through coexistence and intertwining.[137]

Revolutionary and insurrectionary

[edit]
Internationals in the IRPGF battalion with text on revolution
EZLN soldiers next to a captured bulldozer

In the current era, Italian anarchist Alfredo Bonanno, a proponent of insurrectionary anarchism, has reinstated the debate on violence by rejecting the nonviolence tactic adopted since the late 19th century by Kropotkin and other prominent anarchists afterwards. Both Bonanno and the French group The Invisible Committee advocate for small, informal affiliation groups, where each member is responsible for their own actions but works together to bring down oppression using sabotage and other violent means against state, capitalism, and other enemies. Members of The Invisible Committee were arrested in 2008 on various charges, terrorism included.[138]

Overall, contemporary anarchists are much less violent and militant than their ideological ancestors. They mostly engage in confronting the police during demonstrations and riots, especially in countries such as Canada, Greece, and Mexico. Militant black bloc protest groups are known for clashing with the police;[139] however, anarchists not only clash with state operators, they also engage in the struggle against fascists, racists, and other bigots, taking anti-fascist action and mobilizing to prevent hate rallies from happening.[140]

Evolutionary

[edit]
Food not Bombs poster with a circle A with thext reading "Free Soup for the Revolution"

Anarchists commonly employ direct action. This can take the form of disrupting and protesting against unjust hierarchy, or the form of self-managing their lives through the creation of counter-institutions such as communes and non-hierarchical collectives.[121] Decision-making is often handled in an anti-authoritarian way, with everyone having equal say in each decision, an approach known as horizontalism.[141] Contemporary-era anarchists have been engaging with various grassroots movements that are more or less based on horizontalism, although not explicitly anarchist, respecting personal autonomy and participating in mass activism such as strikes and demonstrations. In contrast with the "big-A Anarchism" of the classical era, the newly coined term "small-a anarchism" signals their tendency not to base their thoughts and actions on classical-era anarchism or to refer to classical anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to justify their opinions. Those anarchists would rather base their thought and praxis on their own experience, which they will later theorize.[142]

The concept of prefigurative politics is enacted by many contemporary anarchist groups, striving to embody the principles, organization and tactics of the changed social structure they hope to bring about. As part of this the decision-making process of small anarchist affinity groups plays a significant tactical role.[143] Anarchists have employed various methods to build a rough consensus among members of their group without the need of a leader or a leading group. One way is for an individual from the group to play the role of facilitator to help achieve a consensus without taking part in the discussion themselves or promoting a specific point. Minorities usually accept rough consensus, except when they feel the proposal contradicts anarchist ethics, goals and values. Anarchists usually form small groups (5–20 individuals) to enhance autonomy and friendships among their members. These kinds of groups more often than not interconnect with each other, forming larger networks. Anarchists still support and participate in strikes, especially wildcat strikes as these are leaderless strikes not organised centrally by a syndicate.[144]

As in the past, newspapers and journals are used, and anarchists have gone online to spread their message. Anarchists have found it easier to create websites because of distributional and other difficulties, hosting electronic libraries and other portals.[145] Anarchists were also involved in developing various software that are available for free. The way these hacktivists work to develop and distribute resembles the anarchist ideals, especially when it comes to preserving users' privacy from state surveillance.[146]

Anarchists organize themselves to squat and reclaim public spaces. During important events such as protests and when spaces are being occupied, they are often called Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ), spaces where art, poetry, and surrealism are blended to display the anarchist ideal.[147] As seen by anarchists, squatting is a way to regain urban space from the capitalist market, serving pragmatical needs and also being an exemplary direct action.[148] Acquiring space enables anarchists to experiment with their ideas and build social bonds.[149] Adding up these tactics while having in mind that not all anarchists share the same attitudes towards them, along with various forms of protesting at highly symbolic events, make up a carnivalesque atmosphere that is part of contemporary anarchist vividity.[150]

Key issues

[edit]

As anarchism is a philosophy that embodies many diverse attitudes, tendencies, and schools of thought, disagreement over questions of values, ideology, and tactics is common. Its diversity has led to widely different uses of identical terms among different anarchist traditions which has created a number of definitional concerns in anarchist theory. The compatibility of capitalism,[151] nationalism, and religion with anarchism is widely disputed, and anarchism enjoys complex relationships with ideologies such as communism, collectivism, Marxism, and trade unionism. Anarchists may be motivated by humanism, divine authority, enlightened self-interest, veganism, or any number of alternative ethical doctrines. Phenomena such as civilisation, technology (e.g. within anarcho-primitivism), and the democratic process may be sharply criticised within some anarchist tendencies and simultaneously lauded in others.[152]

The state

[edit]
Anarchist protesters in Boston opposing state-waged war

Objection to the state and its institutions is a sine qua non of anarchism.[153] Anarchists consider the state as a tool of domination and believe it to be illegitimate regardless of its political tendencies. Instead of people being able to control the aspects of their life, major decisions are taken by a small elite. Authority ultimately rests solely on power, regardless of whether that power is open or transparent, as it still has the ability to coerce people. Another anarchist argument against states is that the people constituting a government, even the most altruistic among officials, will unavoidably seek to gain more power, leading to corruption. Anarchists consider the idea that the state is the collective will of the people to be an unachievable fiction due to the fact that the ruling class is distinct from the rest of society.[154]

One of the earliest criticisms is that anarchism defies and fails to understand the biological inclination to authority.[155][non-primary source needed] Joseph Raz states that the acceptance of authority implies the belief that following their instructions will afford more success.[156] Raz believes that this argument is true in following both authorities' successful and mistaken instruction.[157] Anarchists reject this criticism because challenging or disobeying authority does not entail the disappearance of its advantages by acknowledging authority such as doctors or lawyers as reliable, nor does it involve a complete surrender of independent judgment.[158] Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively.[159] Classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will lead to human cooperation prospering.[160]

Specific anarchist attitudes towards the state vary. Robert Paul Wolff believed that the tension between authority and autonomy would mean the state could never be legitimate. Bakunin saw the state as meaning "coercion, domination by means of coercion, camouflaged if possible but unceremonious and overt if need be." A. John Simmons and Leslie Green, who leaned toward philosophical anarchism, believed that the state could be legitimate if it is governed by consensus, although they saw this as highly unlikely.[161] Beliefs on how to abolish the state also differ.[162]

A counterpoint of anarchism is the assertion that humans cannot self-govern and so a state is necessary for human survival; this critique was supported by Philosopher Bertrand Russell, stating that "[p]eace and war, tariffs, regulations of sanitary conditions and the sale of noxious drugs, the preservation of a just system of distribution: these, among others, are functions which could hardly be performed in a community in which there was no central government."[163] Another common criticism of anarchism is that it fits a world of isolation in which only the small enough entities can be self-governing; a response would be that major anarchist thinkers advocated anarchist federalism.[164]

Philosopher Robert Nozick argued that a "night-watchman state", or minarchy, would emerge from anarchy through the process of an invisible hand, in which people would exercise their liberty and buy protection from protection agencies, evolving into a minimal state. Anarchists reject these criticisms by arguing that humans in a state of nature would not just be in a state of war. Anarcho-primitivists in particular argue that humans were better off in a state of nature in small tribes living close to the land, while anarchists in general argue that the negatives of state organization, such as hierarchies, monopolies and inequality, outweigh the benefits.[165] Philosophy lecturer Andrew G. Fiala composed a list of common arguments against anarchism which includes critiques such as that anarchism is innately related to violence and destruction, not only in the pragmatic world, such as at protests, but in the world of ethics as well. Secondly, anarchism is evaluated as unfeasible or utopian since the state cannot be defeated practically. He says that this line of arguments most often calls for political action within the system to reform it. The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory as a ruling theory that has no ruling theory. Anarchism also calls for collective action while endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken. Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong.[166]

Gender, sexuality, and free love

[edit]

As gender and sexuality carry along them dynamics of hierarchy, many anarchists address, analyse, and oppose the suppression of one's autonomy imposed by gender roles.[167]

Collection of anarcha-feminist protests, symbols, and flags

Sexuality was not often discussed by classical anarchists but the few that did felt that an anarchist society would lead to sexuality naturally developing.[160] Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, who opposed age-of-consent laws, believing they would benefit predatory men.[168] A historical current that arose and flourished during 1890 and 1920 within anarchism was free love. In contemporary anarchism, this current survives as a tendency to support polyamory, relationship anarchy, and queer anarchism.[169] Free love advocates were against marriage, which they saw as a way of men imposing authority over women, largely because marriage law greatly favoured the power of men. The notion of free love was much broader and included a critique of the established order that limited women's sexual freedom and pleasure.[170] Those free love movements contributed to the establishment of communal houses, where large groups of travelers, anarchists and other activists slept in beds together.[171] Free love had roots both in Europe and the United States; however, some anarchists struggled with the jealousy that arose from free love.[172] Anarchist feminists were advocates of free love, against marriage, and pro-choice (using a contemporary term), and had a similar agenda. Anarchist and non-anarchist feminists differed on suffrage but were supportive of one another.[173]

During the second half of the 20th century, anarchism intermingled with the second wave of feminism, radicalising some currents of the feminist movement and being influenced as well. By the latest decades of the 20th century, anarchists and feminists were advocating for the rights and autonomy of women, LGBT people, and other marginalised groups, with some feminist thinkers suggesting a fusion of the two currents.[174] With the third wave of feminism, sexual identity and compulsory heterosexuality became a subject of study for anarchists, yielding a post-structuralist critique of sexual normality.[175] Some anarchists distanced themselves from this line of thinking, suggesting that it leaned towards an individualism that was dropping the cause of social liberation.[176]

Education

[edit]
Anarchist vs. statist perspectives on education
Ruth Kinna (2019)[177]
Anarchist education State education
Concept Education as self-mastery Education as service
Management Community based State run
Methods Practice-based learning Vocational training
Aims Being a critical member of society Being a productive member of society

The interest of anarchists in education stretches back to the first emergence of classical anarchism. Anarchists consider proper education, one which sets the foundations of the future autonomy of the individual and the society, to be an act of mutual aid.[178] Anarchist writers such as William Godwin (Political Justice) and Max Stirner ("The False Principle of Our Education") attacked both state education and private education as another means by which the ruling class replicate their privileges.[179]

In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free thinker Francisco Ferrer established the Escuela Moderna in Barcelona as an opposition to the established education system which was dictated largely by the Catholic Church.[180] Ferrer's approach was secular, rejecting both state and church involvement in the educational process while giving pupils large amounts of autonomy in planning their work and attendance. Ferrer aimed to educate the working class and explicitly sought to foster class consciousness among students. The school closed after constant harassment by the state and Ferrer was later arrested. Nonetheless, his ideas formed the inspiration for a series of modern schools around the world.[181] Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy, who published the essay Education and Culture, also established a similar school with its founding principle being that "for education to be effective it had to be free."[182] In a similar token, A. S. Neill founded what became the Summerhill School in 1921, also declaring being free from coercion.[183]

Anarchist education is based largely on the idea that a child's right to develop freely and without manipulation ought to be respected and that rationality would lead children to morally good conclusions; however, there has been little consensus among anarchist figures as to what constitutes manipulation. Ferrer believed that moral indoctrination was necessary and explicitly taught pupils that equality, liberty and social justice were not possible under capitalism, along with other critiques of government and nationalism.[184]

Late 20th century and contemporary anarchist writers (Paul Goodman, Herbert Read, and Colin Ward) intensified and expanded the anarchist critique of state education, largely focusing on the need for a system that focuses on children's creativity rather than on their ability to attain a career or participate in consumerism as part of a consumer society.[185] Contemporary anarchists such as Ward claim that state education serves to perpetuate socioeconomic inequality.[186]

While few anarchist education institutions have survived to the modern-day, major tenets of anarchist schools, among them respect for child autonomy and relying on reasoning rather than indoctrination as a teaching method, have spread among mainstream educational institutions. Judith Suissa names three schools as explicitly anarchists' schools, namely the Free Skool Santa Cruz in the United States which is part of a wider American-Canadian network of schools, the Self-Managed Learning College in Brighton, England, and the Paideia School in Spain.[187]

The arts

[edit]
Les chataigniers a Osny (1888) by anarchist painter Camille Pissarro is a notable example of blending anarchism and the arts.[188]

The connection between anarchism and art was quite profound during the classical era of anarchism, especially among artistic currents that were developing during that era such as futurists, surrealists and others.[189] In literature, anarchism was mostly associated with the New Apocalyptics and the neo-romanticism movement.[190] In music, anarchism has been associated with music scenes such as punk.[191] Anarchists such as Leo Tolstoy and Herbert Read stated that the border between the artist and the non-artist, what separates art from a daily act, is a construct produced by the alienation caused by capitalism and it prevents humans from living a joyful life.[192]

Other anarchists advocated for or used art as a means to achieve anarchist ends.[193] In his book Breaking the Spell: A History of Anarchist Filmmakers, Videotape Guerrillas, and Digital Ninjas, Chris Robé claims that "anarchist-inflected practices have increasingly structured movement-based video activism."[194] Throughout the 20th century, many prominent anarchists (Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Gustav Landauer and Camillo Berneri) and publications such as Anarchy wrote about matters pertaining to the arts.[195]

Three overlapping properties made art useful to anarchists. It could depict a critique of existing society and hierarchies, serve as a prefigurative tool to reflect the anarchist ideal society and even turn into a means of direct action such as in protests. As it appeals to both emotion and reason, art could appeal to the whole human and have a powerful effect.[196] The 19th-century neo-impressionist movement had an ecological aesthetic and offered an example of an anarchist perception of the road towards socialism.[197] In Les chataigniers a Osny by anarchist painter Camille Pissarro, the blending of aesthetic and social harmony is prefiguring an ideal anarchistic agrarian community.[188]

See also

[edit]

Anarchist communities

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Anarchism is a political philosophy and social movement that rejects the legitimacy of coercive authority, particularly the state and involuntary hierarchies, advocating instead for societies organized through voluntary associations, mutual aid, and decentralized self-management. Rooted in ethical opposition to unchosen domination and empirical critiques of institutional harms, it posits that human cooperation and spontaneous order can sustain social coordination without centralized power or compulsion.

Definition and Terminology

Etymology and Conceptual Evolution

The term anarchism originates from the anarkhos, combining the prefix an- (meaning "without" or "absence of") and arkhos (meaning "," "leader," or "chief"), thus denoting a state without or coercive . This etymological root entered European languages through anarchia and French anarchie, initially referring to the absence of government or ordered rule, often with a neutral or descriptive rather than inherent disorder. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon first employed the term "anarchist" in a positive, self-applied sense in his 1840 work What is Property?, where he defined as "the absence of a master, of a " and advocated for a society organized without hierarchical domination or state compulsion. This reclaimed the term from earlier uses, presenting anarchism as a political theory of mutual agreements and voluntary associations. During the 19th century, the term shifted from a focus on anti-statism—opposition to centralized governmental authority—to a critique of economic, social, and institutional power structures. Opponents, including Karl Marx and his followers, often portrayed anarchism as synonymous with disorder or impractical utopianism, dismissing its vision of self-organization as naive or disruptive to proletarian discipline. Unlike the common association of "anarchy" with lawless confusion, anarchism views the absence of rulers as enabling ordered cooperation through non-coercive norms, without eliminating rules or social coordination. Anarchism fundamentally rejects the initiation of coercive force by any centralized authority, positing that all should emerge from voluntary associations grounded in individual consent. This opposition extends to the state's claimed monopoly on legitimate . Anarchists argue that this monopoly is susceptible to abuse. They also contend it is unnecessary for maintaining security or resolving disputes. Alternative non-coercive mechanisms, such as and mutual defense networks, are proposed as alternatives. Central to this framework is skepticism toward involuntary hierarchies, whether political, economic, or social, favoring instead decentralized cooperation where participation remains optional and revocable at any time. Anarchists emphasize empirical instances of spontaneous self-organization, such as mutual aid networks that arise during disasters when formal institutions falter. These are often cited as examples of human coordination without top-down mandates. For example, during the initial COVID-19 outbreak, community-led mutual aid groups rapidly distributed resources and support across global locales, sometimes operating parallel to or supplementing official responses by leveraging local knowledge and voluntary reciprocity. These patterns align with observations from other crises, where self-help initiatives emerge organically to address immediate needs. Anarchism diverges from minarchist , which tolerates a minimal state apparatus for functions like defense and , by maintaining that even a "night-watchman" is argued to expand its coercive scope due to its monopolistic position. Minarchists argue this limited entity can be constrained to protect rights without overreach. Anarchists maintain that no state, however small, avoids the principal-agent problems inherent in delegating to unaccountable rulers, preferring and private enforcement instead. Broader encompasses both strains but often accommodates state minimalism, whereas anarchism demands complete abolition to prevent any institutionalized from undermining voluntary order. Relative to , anarchism prioritizes individual consent as the sole basis for , rejecting compulsory uniform economic or social arrangements lacking explicit voluntary agreement. While some socialist variants share anti-capitalist aims, they often involve state-mediated redistribution or planning, which anarchists view as coercive to ; anarchism instead envisions voluntary federations of communes, cooperatives, or market networks where stems from mutual benefit, not enforced . This distinction highlights anarchism's commitment to non-aggression as a core tenet, critiquing socialist collectivism for prioritizing collective goals over individual , even absent a state.

Philosophical Foundations

First-Principles Reasoning on Authority and Coercion

Anarchists contend that legitimate must derive from rational justification rather than presumption, building on the axiom of as elaborated in the Key Concepts subsection. This foundation implies that —defined as the initiation of physical force or threats thereof—cannot be justified merely by appeals to tradition, divine right, or collective utility, as such arguments do not address why individuals should yield to a third party. Instead, any claim to demands demonstration that it enhances without net infringement, a burden unmet by states that monopolize and enforce compliance through taxation and , which anarchists view as lacking voluntary . Anarchists argue that causal realism critiques authority by examining incentives: centralized states, as institutions with territorial monopoly on force, create incentives that may distort through , where rulers and bureaucrats impose costs on others without bearing equivalent risks, leading to overexpansion, , and resource misallocation. Public choice theorists argue that self-interested actors in pursue —lobbying for privileges that extract value without productive exchange—resulting in rent-seeking dynamics that prioritize over societal welfare, often discussed in relation to historical patterns of fiscal burdens exceeding voluntary markets. Anarchist analysis posits that these distortions are argued to arise from coercive hierarchies, which suppress spontaneous and by overriding decentralized signals of . In contrast, voluntary associations align incentives via direct and exit options. Empirical observations from non-state orders reinforce this reasoning; for example, see the discussion of the Icelandic Commonwealth in the Historical Development section.

Key Concepts: Voluntaryism, Self-Ownership, and Spontaneous Order

Self-ownership constitutes a foundational in anarchist , asserting that each individual holds absolute dominion over their own body and labor, with no legitimate external claims upon them. This principle, systematically defended by in The Ethics of Liberty (1982), derives from the logical incompatibility of denying : alternatives either imply fractional ownership of persons by others or collective non-ownership, both of which lead to contradictions in agency and responsibility. From follows the right to homestead unowned resources through labor, as unowned natural resources become via transformative effort, prohibiting unconsented appropriation by others. This directly implies the (NAP), wherein aggression—defined as the initiation of force, threat of force, or fraud against another's person or justly acquired —violates and is thus illegitimate, as it treats the victim as a means rather than an end. Voluntaryism extends to all social and economic interactions, insisting that associations, exchanges, and defense services arise solely from explicit, -based consent, rejecting any form of or doctrines such as theory. Auberon Herbert formalized in The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life (1897), arguing that true requires individuals to opt into any system of protection or governance, with non-participants free from its impositions, thereby undermining state monopolies on force. In anarchist applications, precludes taxation or regulation without unanimous agreement, positing instead that markets for security and would emerge competitively, as individuals with private agencies aligned with their preferences. This framework aligns with by ensuring no initiation of force in forming or enforcing voluntary pacts, fostering cooperation through mutual benefit rather than compulsion. Spontaneous order describes the emergent, self-regulating patterns of cooperation and norm adherence that arise from decentralized, individual actions without central design, a concept influential in anarchist thought via Friedrich Hayek's analysis in Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973–1979). Hayek contended that legal and social rules evolve through trial-and-error adaptation, compared by Hayek to evolutionary processes, argued to yield more resilient orders than top-down imposition. Works proposing applications to anarchist contexts, such as David Friedman's in The Machinery of Freedom (1973), discuss this concept in relation to , where competing private courts and insurers develop overlapping jurisdictions, resolving disputes via reputation, , and market incentives rather than monopoly enforcement. Data from private , reported in studies of commercial arbitrations, show a 73% court enforcement success rate across major jurisdictions, with median disposition times under a year, cited as evidence of efficient without state intermediation. Such systems are argued to incentivize norms of reciprocity and restitution, as agencies face reputational consequences for unpopular rulings, proposed to support forms of order from polycentric interactions discussed within frameworks emphasizing and voluntary exchange.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Precursors

In ancient , Laozi's (c. BCE) articulated principles of —effortless action or non-interference—as a model for governance. It posited that the ideal ruler governs so minimally that subjects are unaware of , allowing natural harmony to prevail without coercive intervention. Laozi critiqued excessive state control, favoring small communities and simplicity over hierarchical rule. Laozi described excessive laws and punishments as corrupting society. In the Hellenistic era, (c. 334–262 BCE), founder of , outlined in his an idealized community aligned with , devoid of conventional state institutions such as temples, law courts, prisons, , or theaters, where citizens lived communally without or , relying on reason and virtue for order. Zeno's vision emphasized cosmopolitan unity under nature's law rather than political , described without formal enforcement institutions. Medieval Iceland's (930–1262 CE) operated as a decentralized without a or central executive, where chieftains (goðar) held non-hereditary authority based on voluntary client-patron ties, and disputes were resolved through assemblies like the , enforcing a common legal code via and communal rather than state monopoly. This system functioned for over three centuries through distributed power and customary law, before being absorbed by after rising external pressures. Empirical studies of some pre-modern societies, such as certain African Pygmy groups and Australian Aboriginal bands, reveal structures with minimal , where was fluid and consensus-based, enforced by social norms like ridicule or against individuals seeking elevated status to maintain and resource sharing without formalized authority. These bands demonstrated cooperative survival through reciprocal exchange and mobility, absent permanent chiefs or coercive institutions, as documented in ethnographic accounts spanning millennia.

19th-Century Origins and Key Figures

The origins of modern anarchism trace to early 19th-century Europe amid industrial unrest and critiques of emerging capitalist structures. The silk weavers' (canuts) revolts in Lyon, France, in November 1831 and April 1834 are often cited as early instances of anarchist-influenced resistance. Workers organized mutual aid societies and barricades against merchant practices viewed as exploitative and state repression, demanding fixed minimum wages and decrying arbitrary authority. These uprisings, which resulted in hundreds of deaths from military intervention, have been interpreted as examples of spontaneous worker solidarity without reliance on political representation, influencing later anarchist emphasis on direct action over electoralism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon formalized anarchist thought in 1840 with What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government, declaring "property is theft" and positioning himself as the first self-proclaimed anarchist by critiquing private ownership and state authority in favor of mutualist exchanges among producers. Proudhon's federalism advocated decentralized credit and labor exchanges to abolish exploitation without state intervention, distinguishing his views from utopian socialism and laying groundwork for anarchist economics. In 1844, published , advancing by critiquing Hegelian abstractions like state, society, and morality as "spooks" that alienate the unique individual, urging egoistic union only where self-interest aligns, which later informed individualist strands of anarchism. Stirner's approach emphasized individual autonomy over collective ideologies, challenging even revolutionary hierarchies. Mikhail Bakunin became a pivotal collectivist anarchist, promoting the abolition of the state through federated worker and peasant communes. Joining the (First International) in 1869, Bakunin's secret societies disagreed with Karl Marx on organizational centralization, leading to expulsion at the 1872 Hague Congress and the founding of the anti-authoritarian St. Imier International, solidifying anarchism's split from . This rupture emphasized anarchists' rejection of vanguard parties, favoring revolution via propaganda by deed and insurrections.

Early 20th-Century Movements and Revolutions

Anarchist syndicalism expanded in Latin America, particularly through Argentina's Federación Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA), formed in 1901. FORA adopted as its guiding by its fifth in 1905. FORA organized major strikes, such as the 1909 involving over 100,000 workers in , emphasizing and worker control over production rather than political reform. This model influenced similar organizations in , , and , spreading anarcho-syndicalist tactics amid rapid industrialization and immigration from , though internal debates over anti-political stances limited electoral engagement. In during the , led the Revolutionary Insurgent Army, known as the Black Army, from 1918 to 1921, establishing libertarian communes and in regions like while combating both White forces and the Bolshevik ; for a fuller account, see "Historical Experiments: (1871) and Ukrainian Free Territory (1918-1921)". In the United States, the Sacco and Vanzetti case exemplified state repression against anarchists during the First Red Scare. Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, avowed anarchists, were arrested on April 15, 1920, for a shoe factory robbery and murders in South Braintree, Massachusetts, convicted in 1921 amid widely voiced concerns about judicial bias and anti-radical sentiment. Their July 23, 1927, executions sparked global protests, often cited in discussions of fears surrounding immigrant radicals following Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer's raids, which from November 1919 to January 1920 arrested over 10,000 suspected anarchists and communists, deporting 556 individuals. Post-World War I crackdowns accelerated anarchist decline, with governments targeting associations as threats to order; in the U.S., (IWW) membership, heavily anarchist-influenced, fell from 150,000 in 1917 to under 10,000 by 1920 due to raids and sedition trials. European states similarly suppressed groups, as in Italy's 1920 factory occupations quelled by force, contributing to a broader fragmentation where anarchist numbers dwindled amid rising fascist and communist rivals. Conflicts with , viewing anarchists as counter-revolutionary for opposing one-party rule, further isolated movements, evident in Ukraine's suppression where Makhnovist forces were labeled "bandits" and liquidated.

Post-World War II Adaptations and Declines

The defeat in the (1936–1939), involving the large anarchist-led (CNT) syndicalist movement, combined with the global consolidation of state power during and after , severely marginalized organized anarchism. Fascist victory in exiled or executed key figures and dismantled collectives, while wartime alliances prioritized statist structures over libertarian experiments, leaving surviving groups fragmented and under-resourced. By the war's end in 1945, anarchism's mass base had eroded, with movements in and the reduced to small, clandestine networks amid rising bipolar geopolitical tensions. The Cold War intensified this decline through systematic suppression, as Western anti-communist purges like the U.S. (1919–1920, revived 1947–1957) targeted radicals including anarchists via deportations, surveillance, and legal harassment, equating with subversion. In the , Stalinist regimes liquidated remaining anarchist cells, as seen in post-1945 raids and show trials that echoed earlier Bolshevik purges. Numerical estimates reflect this pivot to fringe status: from peaks of over one million active affiliates in Spain alone, global anarchist adherence contracted to scattered thousands by the 1970s, lacking institutional footholds or broad appeal amid welfare-state expansions and Marxist-Leninist dominance on the left. Ideological adaptations emerged in response, with anarchist thought influencing the 1960s through critiques of and , though often diluted via co-optation into countercultural lifestyles emphasizing personal liberation over collective seizure of production. , articulating anarcho-syndicalist principles from the mid-1960s, synthesized them with analyses of and imperial power, gaining visibility through essays like "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" (1969) while critiquing both capitalist and Soviet hierarchies. Paralleling this, pacifist variants adapted to nuclear deterrence, rejecting violence in favor of and , as proponents argued that atomic weaponry rendered insurrectionary strategies obsolete and necessitated prefigurative non-coercive alternatives. This shift, evident in groups like the British Committee (1957–1961), prioritized anti-militarism over class-war paradigms, reflecting pragmatic concessions to total war's shadow.

21st-Century Resurgences and Fragmentations

Digital innovations facilitated crypto-anarchist variants, including digital currencies associated with crypto-anarchism. These technologies supported parallel economies bypassing central banks, echoing earlier calls for to undermine coercive authority. In the early 2010s, anarchism resurfaced in mass mobilizations organized using horizontal methods and direct action, notably through the Occupy Wall Street protests that began on September 17, 2011, in New York City's Zuccotti Park. These encampments used practices such as consensus-based decision-making and leaderlessness, drawing from principles of mutual aid and prefigurative politics to critique corporate power and economic inequality. Parallel to this, militant anti-fascist networks, often aligned with anarchist tactics, expanded via decentralized direct actions against gatherings identified by participants as far-right, with some participants employing tactics like black bloc formations during events such as the 2017 presidential inauguration protests in Washington, D.C. The 2020 George Floyd protests saw attempted autonomous zones, including Seattle's Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP); see "Post-1945 Attempts and Short-Lived Zones" for details. Such experiments highlighted tensions in scaling anarchist amid urban unrest. By , academic interest in anarchism grew amid widespread disillusionment with hierarchical institutions, reflected in an uptick in publications rethinking anarchy's relevance to contemporary crises like inequality and . This paralleled fragmentation into post-left strains rejecting leftist organizational dogma for individualized critiques of work and , alongside anarchism focused on personal over mass movements, as critiqued for prioritizing immediacy over . Niche persistence was marked by targeted funding, such as the Institute for Anarchist Studies awarding Anarchist Horizons grants on August 18, 2025, to projects including translations and media initiatives. Similarly, Anarchists United distributed 2025 grants to filmmakers and writers advancing anarchist narratives, totaling support for multiple recipients in film incubators and fellowships. These developments underscore anarchism's adaptation into specialized, digitally mediated forms rather than unified mass resurgence.

Varieties of Anarchism

Individualist Anarchism and Egoism

Individualist anarchism prioritizes the absolute sovereignty of the individual, viewing all forms of external authority, including the state and collective abstractions, as illegitimate impositions on personal will. This variant emerged prominently in 19th-century Europe and America, blending egoistic philosophy with advocacy for voluntary exchange unhindered by privileges. Unlike collectivist strains, it centers on self-ownership and self-interested action, where individuals pursue their interests without deference to societal norms or moral absolutes. Max Stirner laid the philosophical groundwork for in Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (1844), translated as , critiquing "spooks"—fixed ideas like , state, and humanity—that subordinate the unique individual to illusory collectives. Stirner contended that no objective exists apart from the ego's perceptions and desires, urging rejection of all sacred principles in favor of conscious . His work influenced subsequent individualists by framing as the dissolution of all external bonds, leaving only voluntary unions of egoists. In the United States, advanced from the 1870s onward, publishing the journal (1881–1908) to promote alongside unregulated markets stripped of state-enforced monopolies on land, banking, tariffs, and patents. Tucker, drawing from Stirner and , argued that such privileges enable exploitation. He held that true free markets would reward labor directly through competition and subjective valuation. Tucker emphasized non-servile labor, where individuals avoid wage dependency via or arrangements like mutual credit. He aligned value not with inherent labor input but with personal assessment and —a shift adopted from Austrian economists like in the 1890s. This tradition overlaps with right-libertarianism in defending private property derived from personal use and homesteading, voluntary contracts, and market incentives as mechanisms for coordination without coercion. Proponents like Tucker viewed absentee ownership as illegitimate absent state backing, yet endorsed absolute defense of possessory rights, echoing modern libertarian emphases on non-aggression and self-ownership. Small-scale mutual banks drew inspiration from William B. Greene's Mutual Banking (1850), which proposed issuing low-interest loans against personal collateral such as tools or inventory as alternatives to conventional finance. Tucker promoted these concepts. Tucker and associates discussed or attempted small trials, such as local credit pools within certain New England anarchist circles during the 1880s, cited as illustrating potential feasibility for worker self-funding. These efforts did not expand widely, with participants attributing limits to legal barriers. The small experiments were presented as examples of egoistic mutual aid, described by advocates as supporting individual autonomy rather than collective ownership. These individualist-oriented initiatives transitioned into explorations of mutualist and market anarchism.

Mutualist and Market Anarchism

Mutualism, as originally formulated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (see "19th-Century Origins and Key Figures"), distinguishes between exploitative absentee ownership and possession considered legitimate when tied to personal use and labor. It proposes occupancy-and-use standards for land and resources, where title lapses upon non-use, intended to limit and . Mutual credit banks issuing labor notes or interest-free loans based on participants' productive output facilitate exchange at cost-of-production prices without profits associated with capitalist structures or state monopolies on currency. This framework rejects both and capitalism, emphasizing voluntary associations and federations of producers to coordinate economic activity through markets freed from privilege. Market anarchism encompasses mutualist principles alongside other exchange-oriented variants, positing that voluntary market interactions, including competition among private defense agencies, are presented as capable of providing order without coercive government. Proponents argue that state interventions, such as subsidies, tariffs, and enforcement, are argued to influence market structures, and their abolition is argued would enable decentralized, worker-owned enterprises to thrive. Observations from black markets in socialist regimes, like the Soviet Union's informal networks for consumer goods during the 1920s and post-1960s shortages, are often cited as examples of spontaneous price coordination and entrepreneurial adaptation emerging despite legal prohibitions, underscoring markets' resilience absent central planning. In the late , agorism developed as a strategic extension of , formulated by in his 1980 New Libertarian Manifesto. Konkin promoted —engagement in untaxed, unregulated black and gray markets—as a proposed strategy to reduce state influence by expanding the agora, or sphere, through withdrawal of economic consent rather than political activism or violence. This approach contrasts with electoral , prioritizing immediate, parallel institution-building to achieve a . Debates persist within over property norms and compatibility with , which advocates homesteading-based property titles allowing absentee ownership and contractual hierarchies. Mutualists argue that these norms could recreate conditions associated with exploitation akin to . They advocate use-based limits and anti-rent norms proposed as enforceable through custom or to align incentives with labor and . Some contemporary market anarchists integrate Rothbardian influences, arguing that defense would restrain monopolistic tendencies. Others continue to emphasize Proudhon's focus on egalitarian exchange, intended to reduce the likelihood of power imbalances.

Collectivist, Syndicalist, and Communist Anarchism

, pioneered by in the 1870s during the split of the First International, advocates for the of the by federated workers' associations, with distribution of goods based on the amount of labor contributed, often through labor vouchers rather than money. emphasized overthrowing the state and through revolutionary workers' organizations, rejecting both and while viewing collectivism as a transitional phase toward fuller equality. This approach differed from emerging communist variants by retaining remuneration proportional to work performed, critiquing immediate abolition of all exchange mechanisms as impractical without prior productive reorganization. Anarcho-syndicalism, evolving from collectivist roots in the late , posits revolutionary trade unions (syndicates) as the primary vehicle for , aiming to replace the state and with a federation of self-managed industrial and agricultural syndicates coordinating production democratically. Key organizations included the Spanish (CNT), founded in 1910, which grew to approximately 1.3 million members by 1931 and exceeded 2 million by 1936, representing the largest anarcho-syndicalist union historically. Syndicalists prioritized by workers' councils to expropriate and manage workplaces, influencing movements in , , and pre-World War II, though often blending collectivist wage systems with aspirations for communist distribution. Anarcho-communism, systematized by from the 1880s onward, seeks immediate abolition of wage labor and money in favor of distribution "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs," grounded in communal production and free access to goods via federated communes. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902) argued that mutual cooperation, observed in animal and human societies, underpins social more than , providing a naturalistic basis for communist organization without state . This variant critiqued collectivism's labor-based remuneration as perpetuating inequality, advocating instead for voluntary associations ensuring abundance through decentralized planning. These collectivist, syndicalist, and communist strains constituted the predominant forms of what is termed "social" or "left" anarchism before . They attracted mass followings through union-based mobilization in industrial regions. Syndicalist confederations like the CNT achieved peak memberships rivaling socialist parties in membership scale and strike participation. Empirical data from European labor movements indicate that by the 1930s, anarcho-syndicalist unions claimed over 3 million members across and , underscoring their numerical dominance over individualist tendencies in practical organizing. Despite theoretical debates on —collectivists favoring labor proportionality as an incentive mechanism, communists prioritizing need—these variants shared a commitment to anti-statist collectivism, influencing revolutionary experiments like the Spanish collectives of 1936-1939.

Contemporary and Hybrid Variants

Green anarchism emerged in the late as a fusion of ecological critique and anarchist principles, with Murray Bookchin's social ecology serving as a foundational framework from the 1970s onward. Bookchin, active in leftist politics since the 1940s, developed social ecology to address environmental degradation through decentralized, non-hierarchical communes that prioritize ecological rationality over industrial and state authority. His 1982 book argues that social hierarchies, rather than natural ones, contribute to ecological crises. Bookchin advocated libertarian municipalism as a proposed approach to participatory governance. This variant was associated with some 1980s green movements by integrating anti-authoritarian ecology with critiques of both and , though Bookchin later distanced himself from for what he described as its anti-humanist tendencies. Post-left anarchism, gaining traction in the and , rejects traditional leftist structures and ideologies, including much of historical anarchism, in favor of individualist critiques of civilization. John Zerzan's exemplifies this. He argued that agriculture, technology, and symbolic culture contributed to human alienation and domestication around 10,000 BCE. This led, in his view, to division of labor and hierarchy. Zerzan, through essays like those in Future Primitive (1994), advocates a radical rethinking of to restore autonomous, small-scale lifeways. He views time, language, and abstraction as tools of control rather than progress. This strand emphasizes critiques of civilization and industrial society over organized revolution. It influences green anarchy by linking technology's origins to ongoing oppression. However, it faces criticism for romanticizing , with questions raised about . Insurrectionary anarchism, articulated by Alfredo Bonanno in the 1970s, advocates spontaneous, affinity-based actions by small groups to provoke immediate ruptures in state and capitalist power, eschewing formal organizations or waiting for mass conditions. Bonanno's 1977 text Armed Joy—later suppressed by Italian authorities—frames joy and play as subversive forces against work and authority, promoting informal networks for and evasion over syndicalist unions. This approach, rooted in post-1968 European , hybridizes with other variants by focusing on present-tense disruption, associated with tactics like autonomous zones and cells, while critiquing as inherently coercive. Post-2008 , agorist-inspired uses of cryptocurrencies applied counter-economic ideas to technologies, enabling trustless, decentralized exchange. Cryptocurrencies like , launched on January 3, 2009, by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto to provide privacy-focused, state-evading transactions rooted in cypherpunk cryptography, align with agorism by facilitating voluntary transactions outside fiat systems and surveillance, as proponents argue they challenge monetary monopolies through non-violent market aggression. This fusion appeals to individualist anarchists wary of state bailouts, with crypto-anarchists extending 1990s ideals of privacy via code, though studies note significant adoption through centralized exchanges vulnerable to regulation. In the 2020s, anarchist thought has increasingly targeted AI's role in surveillance capitalism, critiquing for amplifying predictive control and behavioral modification framed as efficiency. Horizontal networks, leveraging encrypted protocols like Tor and mesh systems, counter state AI by enabling resilient, leaderless coordination against facial recognition and , as seen in adaptations post-2019 global uprisings. These critiques highlight arguments that AI systems may be vulnerable to —due to reliance on centralized —while fusing with primitivist warnings of techno-dependency, though some sources from activist circles sometimes present decentralization as more resistant to co-optation than evidence shows, without addressing demands or algorithmic biases empirically observed in systems like Palantir's.

Internal Theoretical Debates

Authority, Hierarchy, and Decision-Making

Anarchists reject coercive authority and involuntary hierarchies. They view them as mechanisms that enable domination and undermine individual autonomy. Authority, in this context, refers to hierarchical power where subordinates must obey superiors without consent. This is distinct from voluntary influence based on expertise or persuasion. This opposition stems from the belief that such structures are argued to foster exploitation and stifle free association. These ideas are discussed in classical anarchist texts emphasizing mutual aid over command. In decision-making, anarchists prioritize consensus processes over majority rule. This is intended to avoid majoritarian dominance and ensure decisions reflect collective agreement rather than imposed outcomes. Consensus seeks solutions acceptable to all participants. It often incorporates modifications to address objections, rather than relying on votes that could marginalize dissenters. This approach draws partial inspiration from Quaker business meetings. In those meetings, clerks facilitate discussion without voting, aiming for unity through discernment. This method has sustained small-scale religious communities since the 17th century. Anarchist adaptations extend this to secular, horizontal groups. Majority rule is critiqued as a diluted form of hierarchy that enables coercion via numerical majorities. Anarchists critique and representation as pathways to . They argue that even revocable delegates tend to accumulate power. This follows patterns observed in Michels' "," where formal organization is argued to concentrate influence among elites. To mitigate this, anarchists advocate non-binding delegates who merely convey group sentiments without decision-making authority. This was proposed by in 1920. It emphasizes rotation and recall to prevent entrenchment. Accounts from historical anarchist federations, such as those during the Spanish Revolution, describe informal emerging despite anti-hierarchical intent. This often occurs due to expertise in coordination. Formal was minimized through federative structures. Scaling consensus beyond small groups—typically under 50 participants—presents causal challenges, as larger assemblies face prolonged deliberations, power abuse by blockers, and coordination inefficiencies, leading to factionalism or fallback to modified systems in practice. Quaker meetings demonstrate viability in modest sizes, with records from the showing resolutions via sense-of-the-meeting without votes, but anarchist experiments, like Occupy assemblies in 2011, revealed breakdowns where consensus stalled action, prompting hybrid tools like modified consensus allowing stand-asides. These outcomes highlight first-principles tensions: while consensus aligns with non-coercion, human behavioral incentives for efficiency often necessitate pragmatic adjustments. Internal debates persist on temporary versus permanent roles, with strict anti-hierarchists rejecting any fixed positions as seeds of , while others permit transient, voluntary hierarchies—such as expertise-based coordination in crises—if revocable and non-binding. Errico Malatesta, writing in 1926, argued for fluid without permanent leaders, cautioning that even temporary risks solidification absent vigilant . Proponents of hierarchies, like some contemporary platformists, contend that outright opposition to all hierarchies ignores functional necessities in complex tasks, advocating "tempered" macro-structures through accountability mechanisms, though this view remains contested as diluting core anarchist skepticism.

Property Rights, Economics, and Incentives

Within anarchist theory, property rights represent a core fault line, with mutualist and individualist variants permitting possession—described by some theorists as control tied to personal use and occupancy—while condemning absentee ownership as enabling what critics view as unearned income (see "19th-Century Origins and Key Figures" for Proudhon's foundational ideas). This view presents possession as supporting decentralized control to direct users, avoiding hierarchies of landlords over tenants. Anarcho-communists, however, reject both and use-based possession, advocating abolition of ownership norms in favor of communal access and needs-based allocation, where resources are distributed "from each according to ability, to each according to need." elaborated this in (1892), arguing that scarcity under property regimes is intensified by monopolistic structures rather than inherent limits, and that voluntary cooperation would suffice for production once is eliminated. Critics from market anarchist perspectives argue that such systems could weaken incentives, as individuals may lack motivation to invest effort in scarce goods without exclusive claims, potentially leading to underproduction and reliance on over enforceable rights. Market anarchists defend as indispensable for economic coordination, asserting that exclusive titles facilitate signals, voluntary , and specialization, thereby harnessing self-interest to allocate resources efficiently amid scarcity. , an individualist anarchist, argued in the late that unregulated markets with full would undermine capitalist privileges derived from state intervention, fostering widespread prosperity through competition. Empirical reasoning from first principles supports this: in communal setups without clear exclusion rights, the arises, where rational actors overexploit shared resources—such as fisheries or pastures—because no one bears the full cost of depletion, as formalized by Garrett Hardin's 1968 analysis. Anarchist responses often attribute such tragedies to enclosure by prior privatization rather than communal incentives themselves, but decentralized aligns individual stewardship with collective outcomes by internalizing externalities through tradable titles. Property emerges causally from scarcity, as unowned resources become claimed via homesteading—initial labor mixing with nature to create value and exclude rivals, preventing conflict over finite goods like land or tools. This process, rooted in Lockean labor theory but adapted to stateless contexts, reflects human adaptation to abundance's limits: without claims, repeated disputes erode cooperation, whereas titles enable peaceful transfer and investment. In anarchist discourse, while communists envision post-scarcity obviating such norms through technology and mutual aid, persistent empirical scarcity—evident in resource rivalries across pre-state societies—suggests property as an evolved institution for incentivizing production over predation.

Revolution, Violence, and Human Behavior

Anarchists have historically debated the role of in achieving societal transformation, with many distinguishing between defensive violence—described by some as justifiable as a response to state-initiated —and initiatory violence, which some reject as perpetuating cycles of . argued that while anarchists oppose violence as a means of , defensive may be necessary to counter during revolutionary defense, emphasizing that liberation requires opposing the state's monopolized violence with proportionate resistance. This view is consistent with views held by many anarchists opposing embedded in hierarchical institutions, though criticized as potentially overlapping with offensive actions if not strictly limited to immediate threats. Insurrectionary anarchists, exemplified by , argued that revolutionary violence could be necessary to dismantle the state rapidly, contending that removing coercive apparatuses was a prerequisite for voluntary cooperation, without awaiting moral evolution. In contrast, pacifist strands within anarchism, influenced by , reject all forms of violence, including defensive or , in favor of ethical and withdrawal from coercive systems as paths to change. Tolstoy advanced a form of Christian that critiqued even limited violence as described by him as morally compromising and incompatible with true freedom, influencing later figures who prioritized non-resistance over confrontation. These pacifist approaches have been evaluated as less effective in sparking widespread transformation in some historical cases, with some studies suggesting lower efficacy of nonviolent campaigns against entrenched powers without complementary force. Critiques of anarchist reliance on violence or pacifism highlight a frequent underestimation of human behavioral realism, informed by evolutionary psychology's evidence of innate self-interest, status-seeking, and aggression shaped by ancestral environments of scarcity and small-group competition. Such tendencies suggest that utopian assumptions of post-revolutionary harmony ignore causal dynamics where power vacuums—created by abrupt state collapse—enable opportunistic warlordism, as empirical analyses of civil wars demonstrate recurring patterns of local strongmen filling governance voids through coercion rather than consensus. Anarchist optimism about malleable human nature, often dismissing fixed traits as socially constructed, contrasts with data showing persistent hierarchical preferences in stateless or low-regulation settings, contributing to the historical near-total failure of insurrectionary efforts to sustain non-coercive orders beyond temporary disruptions. No enduring anarchist society has emerged from violent revolutions, underscoring how unaddressed incentives for domination undermine theoretical commitments to voluntarism.

Practical Implementations and Empirical Outcomes

Historical Experiments: (1871) and Ukrainian Free Territory (1918-1921)

The emerged on March 18, 1871, following the French defeat in the , when members of the Paris seized cannons from government forces and proclaimed a revolutionary municipal government, establishing worker-led self-rule that lasted until May 28, 1871, a period of 72 days. Influenced by mutualist ideas from , though dominated by Blanquists and , the Commune implemented egalitarian measures including the remission of rents and debts, bans on night work for bakers to improve labor conditions, and encouragement of worker cooperatives in abandoned factories. Internal divisions among ideological factions—such as Proudhonists favoring versus centralists advocating stronger executive authority—contributed to hesitancy, including delays in offensive actions against the national government at Versailles. The Commune was ultimately crushed during the Bloody Week of –28, 1871, when ' Versailles army stormed Paris, resulting in approximately 20,000 Communards killed and widespread executions. The Ukrainian Free Territory, known as Makhnovshchina, operated from 1918 to 1921 under the leadership of Nestor Makhno, comprising a loose confederation of peasant guerrilla units in southern Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, initially fighting Austro-German occupiers and White forces before allying temporarily with the Bolsheviks. Makhno's Black Army, peaking at around 50,000 fighters by 1919, emphasized voluntary agrarian reforms such as the abolition of private land ownership and establishment of self-managed peasant communes, rejecting both Bolshevik centralization and White restorationism. These efforts yielded short-term local productivity increases in some collectives through communal farming and mutual aid, but chronic coordination failures—stemming from decentralized decision-making and lack of unified command structures—hindered sustained military and economic organization amid ongoing warfare. The territory dissolved in August 1921 after the Red Army, following a period of uneasy cooperation, launched a betrayal offensive, defeating Makhno's forces and incorporating the region into Soviet control, with Makhno fleeing into exile.

Spanish Revolution (1936-1939) and Its Collapse

The Spanish Revolution erupted on July 19, 1936, in response to a nationalist military coup against the Second Spanish Republic, enabling the (CNT) and (FAI) to initiate widespread collectivization in Republican-held territories, particularly and , where anarchists held significant influence with the CNT claiming over 1.5 million members. In these regions, workers seized approximately 75% of Catalonia's industry and established around 900 agricultural collectives in Aragon alone, abolishing private ownership, implementing worker-managed councils, and distributing output based on needs or labor with equal wages often set at family subsistence levels. Initial economic performance in collectives showed gains attributed to worker motivation and removal of capitalist intermediaries; for instance, agricultural yields in Aragon's collectives rose by up to 50% in areas like Lerida for grain production in 1936-1937, while some Catalan factories, such as metallurgical plants, reported output increases of 20-30% through streamlined operations and reduced . However, these upticks proved short-lived, with overall production declining by 1938 due to wartime disruptions, including shortages, disrupted transportation (e.g., rail traffic dropping to 20% of pre-war levels), exceeding 1,000% annually, and coordination failures across decentralized collectives lacking centralized planning or price mechanisms. Causal factors in the revolution's collapse included internal compromises by CNT leaders, who entered Republican government coalitions in September 1936, prioritizing anti-fascist unity over dismantling state structures and thereby enabling reconstitution of centralized authority, which diluted anarchist principles and fostered emerging hierarchies within the CNT itself. Externally, fascist forces under Francisco Franco, bolstered by German and Italian military aid totaling over 100,000 troops and advanced weaponry, outmatched Republican disunity, while Soviet-supplied arms came conditional on Stalinist demands for militarization and suppression of "uncontrollables," culminating in events like the May 1937 Barcelona Days where communist-led assaults killed hundreds of anarchists and POUM members. The Moscow Trials' influence from 1936 onward reinforced Bolshevik orthodoxy, portraying anarchists as Trotskyist deviations and justifying their marginalization, as Soviet advisors prioritized a conventional war economy incompatible with decentralized collectives. By early 1939, Franco's forces captured remaining Republican territories, including in January-February, leading to the dissolution of collectives, execution or imprisonment of tens of thousands of CNT-FAI militants, and the exile of over 500,000 Republicans; the experiment's failure highlighted scalability limits of voluntary federation amid , where incentives for coordination eroded without enforceable hierarchies, compounded by anarchists' strategic hesitation to fully seize state power despite controlling key economic levers.

Post-1945 Attempts and Short-Lived Zones

In Chiapas, Mexico, the (EZLN) initiated an armed uprising on January 1, 1994, against the implementation of the , which they viewed as exacerbating indigenous marginalization. By December 1994, the EZLN declared 38 Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ), governed through local assemblies and five regional Boards of Good Government (JBGs) that coordinated , healthcare, and agrarian reforms via consensus-based and rejection of hierarchical state authority. These structures emphasized rotational leadership and community self-reliance, though they operated within Mexican territory without seceding, leading to ongoing interactions with federal programs for basic services like and roads. Facing violence and political infiltration, the EZLN announced on November 6, 2023, the dissolution of the MAREZ and JBGs in , reorganizing into 17 "autonomous territories organized for resistance" to counter external co-optation by and enhance defensive mobilization. This restructuring reflects persistent challenges in maintaining isolation from state influence, as Zapatista communities have accepted selective amid economic isolation and population stagnation around 300,000 adherents. In northern Syria, the autonomous administration of North and East Syria (commonly Rojava) emerged in 2012 amid the , following the retreat of regime forces, implementing through a network of neighborhood communes, multi-ethnic councils, and cooperatives that prioritize , ecological sustainability, and via mandatory co-presidency in all bodies and women-led security forces. This system, drawing from Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism and adapted by imprisoned PKK leader , covers approximately 25% of Syria's territory and serves over 4 million people, with economic policies favoring worker-owned enterprises and resource sharing. Survival of Rojava's structures has hinged on military dependencies, including U.S.-led coalition airstrikes and support for the (SDF) against from 2014 to , which enabled territorial gains but exposed vulnerabilities after U.S. troop drawdowns in prompted Turkish invasions and forced alliances with and the Assad regime for de facto protection. Ongoing Turkish drone strikes and economic blockades have constrained self-sufficiency, with oil revenues and reliant on cross-border amid non-recognition by major powers. The Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), initially called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), occupied a six-block area in Seattle, Washington, from June 8 to July 1, 2020, as an experiment in police-free communal governance inspired by abolitionist demands during Black Lives Matter protests. Organizers established barricades, volunteer patrols, gardens, and mutual aid stations, rejecting state policing in favor of restorative justice circles. Within three weeks, CHOP experienced four shootings, including fatalities of a 16-year-old boy on June 20 and a 19-year-old man on June 29, alongside non-fatal injuries and a 132.9% surge in overall crime compared to equivalent pre-2020 periods in the zone. Authorities cleared the area on , citing unmanaged violence, sanitation failures, and resident complaints, marking the zone's collapse without achieving sustained .

Synthesis: Empirical assessments of viability and scalability of historical implementations

Anarchist experiments, including the (1871), Ukrainian Free Territory (1918–1921), and Spanish Revolution (1936–1939), uniformly collapsed without establishing permanent stateless societies beyond localized and temporary zones. These outcomes reflect not merely contingent historical pressures but recurring causal patterns, such as vulnerability to external and endogenous coordination failures. No empirical record exists of a self-sustaining anarchist exceeding several million participants for more than a few years, contrasting with enduring state-based systems.

External suppression

A primary factor in these failures was external military suppression by organized state or rival forces, which exploited the absence of centralized defense capabilities. The , controlling Paris from March 18 to May 28, 1871, was overwhelmed by 130,000 French regular troops, resulting in 20,000–30,000 communard deaths during the . Similarly, the in , peaking at around 100,000 combatants, succumbed to coordinated Bolshevik offensives by late 1921 after initial successes against and nationalists. In , anarchist-controlled territories encompassing 8 million people by 1937 faced invasion by Franco's Nationalists, bolstered by German and Italian aid totaling over 100,000 troops and 700 aircraft, culminating in total defeat by March 1939. These cases illustrate how stateless formations, lacking unified command structures, proved defenseless against hierarchical adversaries with superior logistics and firepower.

Internal hierarchy and incentives

Internally, the emergence of hierarchies undermined anarchist principles, as power vacuums invited dominance by charismatic leaders or informal elites. Anthropological examinations of pre-state societies reveal that even ostensibly egalitarian groups developed mechanisms like or to manage disputes, often escalating into stratified authority when scale increased. In the Spanish collectives, CNT-FAI militias initially decentralized but centralized under figures like , while coordination councils evolved into quasi-governmental bodies by 1937, diluting voluntary federation. Ukrainian anarchist forces under similarly concentrated authority in military staffs, fostering resentment and defections amid resource scarcity. Such patterns align with analyses positing that, absent enforceable rules, self-interested actors in default to polycentric orders prone to capture by dominant coalitions. Economic incentive misalignments exacerbated these issues, promoting free-riding and inefficiencies in collective production. Public goods theory demonstrates that without exclusion mechanisms, individuals shirk contributions while benefiting from others' efforts, a dynamic intensified in large anarchist communes lacking market signals or private property. Mancur Olson's 1965 analysis in The Logic of Collective Action argues that in groups exceeding a certain size, rational individuals withhold contributions to public goods, necessitating coercive institutions to overcome free-riding, while simulations of iterated prisoner's dilemmas confirm defection dominates in expansive networks without centralized punishment. Spanish agricultural collectives reported initial output surges from enthusiasm—e.g., Catalonia's production rose 20% in 1936—but subsequent declines due to absenteeism and requisitioning by republican authorities, with grain yields falling 10–15% by 1938 amid hoarding and black markets. Ukrainian free communes faced analogous breakdowns, where egalitarian distribution failed to motivate labor during famines, leading to reliance on foraging over organized farming. These failures stem from the assurance problem: participants withhold effort absent guarantees of reciprocity, scaling poorly beyond kin-based or ideologically homogeneous groups.

Tactics and Strategies

Propaganda of the Deed and Insurrectionary Methods

The concept of "" emerged among European anarchists in the 1870s, evolving from Mikhail Bakunin's ideas of exemplary action to incite popular insurrection, but gained prominence through Italian anarchist theorist Errico Malatesta's arguments supporting direct, violent demonstrations against authority in the to spark revolutionary consciousness. This tactic focused on attacks against state figures and symbols over mass organization, arguing that acts could spread anarchist ideals. In the 1890s, manifested in a series of attacks across and the , including bombings and assassinations. French anarchist François Ravachol bombed the homes and offices of magistrates in March and April 1892, targeting those who had sentenced striking miners, with the explicit goal of avenging repression. His execution by in July 1892 was followed by additional attacks, such as Émile Henry's bombing of the Café Terminus in on December 12, 1894, which killed one bystander and injured twenty; Henry justified the act in his trial statement as vengeance against the . Similar acts included the assassination of Spanish Prime Minister in August 1897 and U.S. President by on September 6, 1901, both framed by perpetrators as strikes against power to awaken the masses. These actions empirically failed to ignite the anticipated mass uprisings, instead eliciting widespread public revulsion and bolstering state crackdowns that marginalized anarchist movements. In , the attentats prompted the enactment of the lois scélérates between 1893 and 1894, which criminalized anarchist advocacy, curtailed press freedoms, and enabled expulsion of foreign agitators, severely hampering organizational efforts. Across , the tactic alienated potential proletarian allies who viewed the indiscriminate violence as counterproductive, contributing to a decline in such methods by the early 1900s as anarchists shifted toward and labor organizing. Historical analyses indicate that while the deeds generated short-term notoriety, they reinforced narratives of anarchist irrationality, failing to erode state legitimacy or foster sustainable revolt due to the populace's prioritization of stability over abstract ideals. Modern , drawing from these traditions, prioritizes decentralized, informal affinity groups for low-intensity and attacks to erode incrementally without awaiting generalized conditions for . These groups, often comprising 3-10 trusted individuals bonded by shared affinity rather than formal structure, conduct actions like against corporate , infrastructure disruption, or targeted to symbolize resistance and encourage autonomous replication. Empirically, insurrectionary methods have produced sporadic disruptions but seldom escalated to broader insurrections, often resulting in heightened , legal prosecutions, and public backlash that isolates participants. Affinity-based , such as attacks on communication lines or financial institutions, disrupts operations temporarily—e.g., arsons against telecom masts in during the 2008-2010 unrest—but lacks the scale to compel systemic change, frequently alienating non-radicalized populations through perceived . Analyses of post-1960s actions highlight a of state adaptation via expanded counter-terrorism apparatuses, rendering sustained campaigns untenable without mass complicity, which empirical history shows remains elusive.

Evolutionary, Direct Action, and Counter-Economic Approaches

in anarchism refers to tactics employed by individuals or groups to achieve objectives without intermediaries such as governments or representatives, often through non-violent means like boycotts, strikes, occupations, and sit-ins. These methods aim to disrupt operations of perceived oppressive structures directly, such as workplace occupations to demand better conditions or consumer boycotts to pressure corporations. Proponents argue that such actions demonstrate and build participant skills for stateless , though empirical outcomes typically yield localized concessions rather than systemic change, as authorities often respond with legal or coercive countermeasures. Evolutionary approaches within anarchism emphasize gradual societal transformation by constructing parallel institutions that operate outside state control, such as worker cooperatives and mutual aid networks, intended to foster self-sufficiency and demonstrate viable alternatives to hierarchical systems. These structures, like cooperatives managing production collectively without bosses, seek to erode reliance on state-mediated economics over time by expanding informal economies and community governance models. However, such initiatives frequently encounter regulatory hurdles, market competition from state-backed entities, and internal coordination challenges, limiting their growth beyond niche scales; for instance, while cooperatives can achieve economic stability for members, they rarely displace dominant capitalist or statist frameworks. Counter-economic strategies involve engaging in unregulated, untaxed markets to undermine state authority.

External Criticisms and Challenges

Critiques from Libertarian and Capitalist Perspectives

Minarchists, who advocate a minimal state limited to of person and , contend that stateless anarchism may face challenges in effective defense against external . Without a centralized to coordinate military response, private defense agencies in a purely anarchist order risk fragmentation, which critics argue could allow statist invaders to exploit divisions. Critics argue this potential vulnerability arises because competing protection firms, operating under profit incentives, may prioritize individual contracts over , potentially leading to free-rider problems and challenges in deterring large-scale threats like totalitarian invasions. Minarchists argue that a addresses such concerns by monopolizing force in core functions, enabling unified action without expanding into broader governance. From an Austrian economic viewpoint, collectivist anarchisms, such as anarcho-communism, are criticized as facing significant coordination challenges due to the absence of and market prices, as outlined in Ludwig von Mises's 1920 critique of . Without genuine prices reflecting , economic calculation is argued to become difficult, hindering rational in complex production beyond simple or planning, which anarchists reject. Anarcho-communist proposals to abolish wages, , and are argued to intensify these concerns, as they may reduce incentives for specialization and , potentially leading to stagnation akin to historical socialist experiences but without even a state apparatus for rudimentary coordination. Capitalists argue that enable price signals, fostering and that collectivist variants are contended to lack. Proponents of market capitalism cite empirical examples of sustained prosperity, with real in the United States rising from about $5,000 in 1870 to over $70,000 by 2023 (in constant dollars), driven by innovations like and computing, while anarchist communes have generally operated at small scales and been economically marginal, often relying on external capitalist economies for viability. This disparity is used to argue that property-based incentives may scale more effectively than communal models in wealth creation.

Objections from Conservative, Traditionalist, and Realist Viewpoints

Conservative, traditionalist, and realist thinkers argue that anarchism overlooks fundamental aspects of , which inclines individuals toward , conflict, and the formation of hierarchies without coercive central authority. , a foundational realist, described the —absent any sovereign power—as a "war of every man against every man," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" due to unchecked competition and fear. He contended that rational demands submission to an absolute authority to enforce peace, viewing anarchic conditions as inherently unstable because humans lack the natural harmony anarchists presume. This perspective frames anarchism as naive optimism, ignoring empirical patterns of aggression and the necessity of enforced order to mitigate innate drives. Traditionalists extend this critique by emphasizing that anarchism erodes evolved social structures like , , and custom, which provide voluntary yet authoritative frameworks for cohesion. warned that radical assaults on established institutions, akin to anarchism's wholesale rejection of , precipitate chaos by severing ties to ancestral wisdom and moral order, as evidenced by the French Revolution's descent into terror after dismantling traditional authority. Without such anchors, societies risk atomization, where individuals prioritize transient desires over communal bonds, leading to cultural dissolution rather than liberation. Conservatives maintain that human flaws—selfishness and fallibility—necessitate authoritative traditions to cultivate and restraint, rejecting anarchism's in uncoerced as detached from historical lessons of disorder. Empirical cases of de facto statelessness reinforce these objections, correlating power vacuums with surges in violence and factional dominance. In Somalia, following the government's collapse in January 1991, clan-based militias and warlords filled the void, sparking civil war that killed an estimated 300,000 people from combat, famine, and disease by 1995, with 25,000 deaths alone in Mogadishu fighting during 1991-1992. This period saw no emergent stable voluntary order but rather entrenched predation, piracy, and humanitarian catastrophe, underscoring realists' point that absent centralized enforcement, local power asymmetries devolve into predatory equilibria rather than mutual aid. Such outcomes align with conservative assessments that statelessness amplifies human tendencies toward tribalism and coercion, rendering anarchism's vision empirically unviable for large-scale societies.

Marxist and Statiste Rebuttals on Organization and Power

Marx and Engels critiqued anarchism, particularly the variant advanced by , which they characterized as a manifestation of petty-bourgeois sentiments—viewing the anarchist emphasis on individual liberty as a bourgeois value prioritizing abstract freedoms over the collective economic realities faced by industrial proletarians—that recoiled from the disciplined organization they deemed required for proletarian victory, insisting instead on immediate abolition of the state without the intervening to dismantle capitalist structures. They argued that anarchists' aversion to centralized authority limited the capacity to wield coercive power against class enemies, viewing such opposition as an evasion of their interpretation of historical materialism's demand for state power in the hands of the to orchestrate economic and . They contended that anarchism was theoretically inadequate, incapable of transcending small-scale, voluntarist associations into a robust mechanism for societal coordination. Later socialist thinkers, such as Vladimir Lenin, expanded on these objections by arguing that a vanguard party was necessary to rectify the proletariat's uneven class consciousness and to centralize command structures for revolutionary warfare and administration. Lenin contended that anarchist reliance on federated, spontaneous bodies fostered disorganization and was criticized as vulnerable to infiltration and fragmentation, whereas the Bolshevik model of hierarchical party discipline ensured strategic unity and scalability across vast territories. He asserted that this vanguard approach was not mere authoritarianism but argued to be necessary for overcoming the bourgeois state's superior organizational apparatus, critiquing anarchism's anti-statism as utopian idealism—in Marxist terminology, denoting approaches not grounded in objective economic laws of history, in contrast to Marxism's self-conception as scientific socialism—that dissolved power into ineffective diffusion. Marxist observers have cited the Russian Civil War (1918–1921) in critiques of anarchism's organizational approach. Bolshevik consolidation of state power via the Red Army's centralized command—bolstered by party oversight—was cited by these observers as enabling victories over White forces and foreign interventions. In contrast, anarchist formations like Nestor Makhno's Black Army experienced initial tactical successes according to historical accounts, but were described as hampered by logistical limits and noted internal disputes in the absence of a unifying authority. By 1921, the Bolsheviks had marginalized anarchist influence through targeted suppression, including cutting off supplies and instances of military betrayal after temporary alliances, contributing to those logistical challenges alongside internal factors. Marxist accounts attribute this marginalization to anarchists' rejection of statist instruments for mass mobilization and resource allocation, which was argued to be decisive in sustaining power amid scarcity and counter-revolutionary pressures. From a statist perspective, such outcomes were critiqued as underscoring anarchism's organizational fragility in confronting entrenched hierarchies, with decentralized power argued to create strategic disadvantages.

Empirical and Game-Theoretic Critiques of Scalability

Game-theoretic models highlight scalability limitations in anarchist systems, where voluntary cooperation sustains in small, homogeneous groups through reputation and repeated interactions but erodes in larger, anonymous populations due to free-riding and defection. Experimental public goods games show contributions declining over rounds without punishment mechanisms, as rational actors prioritize personal gain over collective benefits. Mancur Olson's 1965 The Logic of Collective Action argues that in large groups, individuals withhold contributions to public goods since marginal benefits approach zero while costs are personal, requiring coercive institutions for enforcement. Simulations of iterated prisoner's dilemmas confirm defection dominates in expansive networks lacking centralized punishment, yielding suboptimal equilibria where mutual cooperation fails at scale. Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments demonstrate strong compliance to authority, suggesting challenges to anarchist assumptions of voluntary order without hierarchical structures. These dynamics imply that anarchist systems, absent scalable coercion, tend toward inefficiency or collapse beyond small-scale communal levels.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.