History UsefulNotes / Anarchism

Anarchism is the belief that ''rulership'' as a whole, not just the state, should not exist – as indicated in its Greek roots, an- [no] -arkhos [ruler] – and that people should instead organize their social relations and institutions though voluntary cooperation without hierarchies of power. So what characterises anarchism is not anti-statism so much as anti-authoritarianism. [[note]] Other terms for "archism" which anarchists use to describe what they oppose include: authority, hierarchy, power (as in power ''over others''), domination, oppression, governmentalism, and heteronomy (the inversion of autonomy). These are not used as synonyms however. Each of the above describe different types of rulership (archy/archism) which apply more or less depending on the context. [[/note]]

* and reforming cultural attitudes that are sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, speciesist, or anti-ecological.

* and reforming cultural attitudes that are sexist, racist, classist, queerphobic, speciesist, or anti-ecological.

-> ''"Anarchy is, and always has been, a romance. It is also clearly the only morally sensible way to run the world."''\\
-- Creator/AlanMoore

The anthropologist David Graeber has opined that most social movements in the present day - structured through horizontal networks of cooperation rather than top-down hierarchies - are basically anarchist in their principles, even if they don't necessary use the word to describe themselves.

For those new to anarchist ideas, there's been a massive project aimed at explaining everything about (social) anarchist theory, practice, and history called [[http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html An Anarchist FAQ]] available at this link, and a series of introductory videos on social anarchist/left-libertarian ideas is available [[http://m.youtube.com/user/TheLeftLibertarian here]] and [[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WIvn8qjyrzk here]]. Some good book-length intros can be found in ''Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism'' by Peter Marshall, ''Anarchy in Action'' by Colin Ward, ''Red Emma Speaks'' by Emma Goldman, ''Anarchism and Its Aspirarions'' by Cindy Milstein, and ''A Living Spirit of Revolt'' by Ziga Vodovnik.

Ugh. Let's just say [[ANaziByAnyOtherName the less said]] about this crowd the better.

Ugh. Let's just say the less said about this crowd the better.

'''Capitalism'''
O libertário que se diz ancap, ele deixa a filha dele dar a buceta, entendeu? Deixa ela trazer o namorado pra dentro de casa e trepar, e fumar maconha. A mulher do ancap bota fio dental, e mostra o rabo pros amigos na piscina, na praia e no caralho todo, mano. Entendeu? É isso que eles chamam de libertário ancap. O libertário já teve 3 ou 4 divórcios, a mulher ancap também. O libertário ancap também tem filho de outro, só adota e o caralho. Isso que se chama o libertário ancap. Ele admite o divórcio como se a mulher fosse um negócio descartável, é egocêntrico. Tá cagando e andando pra porra de folclore, de tradição e o caralho a quatro. Pode falar o tempo todo de família, e o caralho.. Família é o caralho, a filha é uma galinha do caralho, o filho é viadão e o cabra tá nem aí, pá. Isso que chamam de libertário ancap. Tem nada haver CONOSCO, nós que somos do anarquismo real, porra. Primitivista, comunista, coletivista, agorista, mutualista. Absolutamente nada haver, po. Vai pro caralho, são uns caras muito burro. Esses gado puta que pariu, entendeu? Puta que pariu

The school of "anarcho-capitalism" emerged in the 1950s-60s with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David Friedman (son of Milton, although going much farther in his advocacy of free-market economics) [[note]] It should be noted that although David Friedman is supposedly a capitalist, [[http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/07/david-friedman-on-agorism.html his stated preferences for a free-market "capitalist" economy look more like the preferences of a mutualist or an individualist anarchist]]. Instances of this are why some mutualists and individualist anarchists are beginning to make distinctions (represented by shifting the position and emphasis of sneer quotes) between "'anarcho'-capitalists", who, as the social anarchists charge, aren't real anarchists, and "anarcho-'capitalists'", who are anarchists, but aren't really capitalists, at least not by anarchist definition. David would be, to at least some degree, an example of the latter. The most explicitly clear example of the former is probably [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe Hans-Hermann Hoppe]]. [[/note]] and Rothbard's student Walter Block. Rothbard agreed with the classical anarchists that government is oppressive and illegitimate, but disagreed with them by concluding that private property and free markets were always good. Though admiring the individualist anarchists, he followed the Austrian School of Economics, which rejects the Labour Theory of Economic Value (in favour of the Subjective Theory of Economic Value) most strenuously and, as a consequence, rejects the view that wage-labour is exploitative (which the mutualist and individualist anarchists accepted). Along with this, Rothbard was far more devoted to classical liberalism and natural-rights theory than the individualist anarchists, who followed aspects of it (while Benjamin Tucker eventually gave it up for Egoism as well). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. Rothbard accepted voluntary collectivism and communism, even advocating that businesses funded by the state be expropriated or "homesteaded" as they used stolen capital, i.e. taxed income. However, he certainly accepted property more than for "occupancy and use" provided this had been homesteaded or received peacefully. He felt that government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, etc., could be provided much better under the auspices of common law by private institutions.

('''NOTE:''' It should be pointed out that most anarchists [[http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1 do not consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists at all]] due to their support for forms of "archy" (rulership) apart from the state: in particular power-hierarchies in workplaces and a society stratified on economic class lines. An-caps counter-argue with the point that the difference between a workplace hierarchy and a government hierarchy is that while one can choose to work or not work for a boss, they have no choice but to submit to a government hierarchy, lest they have violence rained down upon them. A boss that rules like a tyrant would lose workers to a boss that would be more benevolent.)

Agorism is to anarcho-capitalism essentially what anarcho-syndicalism is to social anarchism, namely a tactic advocating using the black markets and grey markets to live "off the grid" and bring down the system from within through "counter-economics" in competition with the system. Anarchist advocates of the Dual Power strategy (and Mutualism in particular) called for similar methods, though many of them supported creating a free commons system rather than a free market.

In terms of ethics, anarchists vary somewhat. While a minority adopt ethical egoism and the belief that the only good is the satisfaction of the individual will, most proponents of social anarchism gravitate towards what are called ''consequentialist'' [[http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html ethics]], and support anarchism out of the belief that it would ensure the greatest freedom and well-being for the greatest number of people.[[note]] Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta put it like this: “The end justifies the means. This maxim has been greatly slandered. As a matter of fact, it is the universal guide to conduct.

This means that most anarchists would not welcome a reduction in state power if it meant an increase of other kinds of authoritarianism as a result. For example, privatising a public health service may weaken the state, but increase the power of corporations, and so anarchists would probably oppose doing so, even though generally speaking, they don't support state or private management of things and instead push for voluntary, localised, and cooperative institutions organised from the bottom-up through decentralised networks and run via processes of [[http://roarmag.org/2013/08/real-direct-participatory-democracy/ participatory democracy]] and [[https://libcom.org/library/workers-self-management-faq workplace self-management]].

In fact, the word democracy originally meant ''direct'' democracy, like in Ancient Greece, and the word socialism originally referred to a number of economic systems in which economic institutions were run by those who actually worked in them. It's the earlier meanings of both words that anarchists use when talking about them. As well as the original political meaning of the word ''libertarian'', which, despite its modern Anglo-American use to mean laissez-faire capitalist, was actually first used by anarchist socialists to mean "anti-authoritarian". A frequently used synonym for social anarchism is ''libertarian socialism''.

Anarchists believe humans have two different tendencies running through them as a result of their natural evolution: one that encourages people to be selfish, egotistical {{jerkass}}es; and another that encourages them to be sociable and cooperative.

The school of "anarcho-capitalism" emerged in the 1950s-60s with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David Friedman (son of Milton, although going much farther in his advocacy of free-market economics) [[note]] It should be noted that although David Friedman is supposedly a capitalist, [[http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/07/david-friedman-on-agorism.html his stated preferences for a free-market "capitalist" economy look more like the preferences of a mutualist or an individualist anarchist]]. Things like this are why some mutualists and individualist anarchists are beginning to make distinctions (represented by shifting the position and emphasis of sneer quotes) between "'anarcho'-capitalists", who, as the social anarchists charge, aren't real anarchists, and "anarcho-'capitalists'", who are anarchists, but aren't really capitalists, at least not by anarchist definition. David would be, to at least some degree, an example of the latter. The most explicitly clear example of the former is probably [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe Hans-Hermann Hoppe]]. [[/note]] and Rothbard's student Walter Block. Rothbard agreed with the classical anarchists that government is oppressive and illegitimate, but disagreed with them by concluding that private property and free markets were always good. Though admiring the individualist anarchists, he followed the Austrian School of Economics, which rejects the Labour Theory of Economic Value (in favour of the Subjective Theory of Economic Value) most strenuously and, as a consequence, rejects the view that wage-labour is exploitative (which the mutualist and individualist anarchists accepted). Along with this, Rothbard was far more devoted to classical liberalism and natural-rights theory than the individualist anarchists, who followed aspects of it (while Benjamin Tucker eventually gave it up for Egoism as well). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. Rothbard accepted voluntary collectivism and communism, even advocating that businesses funded by the state be expropriated or "homesteaded" as they used stolen capital, i.e. taxed income. However, he certainly accepted property more than for "occupancy and use" provided this had been homesteaded or received peacefully. He felt that government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, etc., could be provided much better under the auspices of common law by private institutions.

The school of "anarcho-capitalism" emerged in the 1950s-60s with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David Friedman (son of Milton, although going much farther in his advocacy of free-market economics) [[note]] It should be noted that although David Friedman is supposedly a capitalist, [[http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/07/david-friedman-on-agorism.html his stated preferences for a free-market "capitalist" economy look more like the preferences of a mutualist or an individualist anarchist]]. Things like this are why some individualist anarchists are beginning to make distinctions (represented by shifting the position of the often-used sneer quotes) between "'anarcho'-capitalists", who, as the social anarchists charge, aren't real anarchists, and "anarcho-'capitalists'", who are anarchists, but aren't really capitalists, at least not by anarchist definition. [[/note]] and Rothbard's student Walter Block. Rothbard agreed with the classical anarchists that government is oppressive and illegitimate, but disagreed with them by concluding that private property and free markets were always good. Though admiring the individualist anarchists, he followed the Austrian School of Economics, which rejects the Labour Theory of Economic Value (in favour of the Subjective Theory of Economic Value) most strenuously and, as a consequence, rejects the view that wage-labour is exploitative (which the mutualist and individualist anarchists accepted). Along with this, Rothbard was far more devoted to classical liberalism and natural-rights theory than the individualist anarchists, who followed aspects of it (while Benjamin Tucker eventually gave it up for Egoism as well). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. Rothbard accepted voluntary collectivism and communism, even advocating that businesses funded by the state be expropriated or "homesteaded" as they used stolen capital, i.e. taxed income. However, he certainly accepted property more than for "occupancy and use" provided this had been homesteaded or received peacefully. He felt that government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, etc., could be provided much better under the auspices of common law by private institutions.

The school of "anarcho-capitalism" emerged in the 1950s-60s with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David Friedman (son of Milton, although going much farther in his advocacy of free-market economics) [[note]] It should be noted that although Friedman is supposedly a capitalist, [[http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/07/david-friedman-on-agorism.html his stated preferences for a free-market "capitalist" economy look more like the preferences of a mutualist or an individualist anarchist]]. Things like this are why some individualist anarchists are beginning to make distinctions (represented by shifting the position of the often-used sneer quotes) between "'anarcho'-capitalists", who, as the social anarchists charge, aren't real anarchists, and "anarcho-'capitalists'", who aren't really capitalists, at least not by anarchist definition. [[/note]] and Rothbard's student Walter Block. Rothbard agreed with the classical anarchists that government is oppressive and illegitimate, but disagreed with them by concluding that private property and free markets were always good. Though admiring the individualist anarchists, he followed the Austrian School of Economics, which rejects the Labour Theory of Economic Value (in favour of the Subjective Theory of Economic Value) most strenuously and, as a consequence, rejects the view that wage-labour is exploitative (which the mutualist and individualist anarchists accepted). Along with this, Rothbard was far more devoted to classical liberalism and natural-rights theory than the individualist anarchists, who followed aspects of it (while Benjamin Tucker eventually gave it up for Egoism as well). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. Rothbard accepted voluntary collectivism and communism, even advocating that businesses funded by the state be expropriated or "homesteaded" as they used stolen capital, i.e. taxed income. However, he certainly accepted property more than for "occupancy and use" provided this had been homesteaded or received peacefully. He felt that government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, etc., could be provided much better under the auspices of common law by private institutions.

Economically, anarchists oppose capitalism (with the exception of "anarcho-capitalists"), and instead advocate replacing private corporations and wage-labour as the primary forms of enterprise with self-employment, worker-run cooperatives, commons-based peer production, and other economic institutions organised on a horizontal, rather than hierarchical, basis. However, they are divided on what specific form a post-capitalist, post-statist economy should take, as well as the best means for achieving it - with some calling for the armed overthrow of the state and corporations, and others calling for a nonviolent "dual power" strategy in which federations of democratic cooperatives, popular assemblies, affinity groups, and other institutions work together to gradually replace hierarchical society by opting out of it.

The school of "anarcho-capitalism" emerged in the 1950s-60s with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David Friedman (son of Milton, although going much farther in his advocacy of free-market economics) and Rothbard's student Walter Block. Rothbard agreed with the classical anarchists that government is oppressive and illegitimate, but disagreed with them by concluding that private property and free markets were always good. Though admiring the individualist anarchists, he followed the Austrian School of Economics, which rejects the Labour Theory of Economic Value (in favour of the Subjective Theory of Economic Value) most strenuously and, as a consequence, rejects the view that wage-labour is exploitative (which the mutualist and individualist anarchists accepted). Along with this, Rothbard was far more devoted to classical liberalism and natural-rights theory than the individualist anarchists, who followed aspects of it (while Benjamin Tucker eventually gave it up for Egoism as well). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. Rothbard accepted voluntary collectivism and communism, even advocating that businesses funded by the state be expropriated or "homesteaded" as they used stolen capital, i.e. taxed income. However, he certainly accepted property more than for "occupancy and use" provided this had been homesteaded or received peacefully. He felt that government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, etc., could be provided much better under the auspices of common law by private institutions.

Writers, artists, and entertainers who openly declared an affinity with political anarchism are somewhat rare, although a few notable ones are: Creator/OscarWilde, Creator/JamesJoyce, Creator/GeorgeOrwell (in his early days), Creator/CharlieChaplin, Creator/UrsulaKLeGuin, Creator/MichaelMoorcock, Creator/RobertAntonWilson, Creator/AlanMoore, and (uh...) Creator/WoodyHarrelson.

Power structures on the other hand are a slightly different matter. In sociology and political science, "structures" are like the ingrained habits of entire societies, constellations of relationships which shift and alter themselves with changes in the distribution of power, increases of knowledge, and changes in shared beliefs. Most methods of studying a critiquing social structures could be classed as either "methodological individualist" (or atomist, like most liberals) or "methodological collectivist" (or holist, like most Marxists). The former see personal agency as determining the social structure, while the latter think the opposite is the case. Social anarchists take a kind of middle path, seeing agency and structure as co-creating each other. There isn't really a term to describe this approach, although in Critical Realist methodology it's called (somewhat clunkily) the "[[https://criticalrealism.wikispaces.com/Social+Ontology Transformational Model of Social Activity]]" (TMSA for short).

'''Exodus'''

Some even see exodus (dual power) as compatible with the strategy of social struggle (including anarcho-syndicalism), with trade unions and other popular organisations confronting capital directly (and defending workers from its effects) while the dual-power institutions try to route around it, offering people an escape from capitalism and from the state.

Having developed out of the same European socialist movement that Karl Marx was a part of, anarchism's relationship to Marxism has always been ambivalent. While many anarchists accepted Marx's critique of capitalism and (with nuance) the Marxian school of economics, they strenuously rejected Marx's politics, in particular the tactic of taking state power as a way to bring about socialism. For anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin (Marx's rival in the First International), the state was inherently an institution of class rule, and could never be used to bring about a classless society, as it would just corrupt whatever group laid their hands on it. (Bakunin's view is generally regarded as having been VindicatedByHistory in light of what happened in the UsefulNotes/SovietUnion and other nominally Communist countries).

A few others support what's called "destructivist" voting. This means taking part in municipal elections (though never national elections) so as to devolve the powers of local governments to directly-democratic neighbourhood assemblies, and to municipalise enterprises before turning them over to worker self-management. It was recommended by several anarchists in the First Internarional for a time (even, briefly, Bakunin and Kropotkin), and was later pushed by Murray Bookchin. Though this is a minority position, with most anarchists being against taking part in ''any'' form of electoral politics, believing it to be useless at best and counterproductive to movement-building at worst.

While early on, during the the mid-to-late 1800s, there was an even balance in focus between the commune and the workplace, over time the workplace started to hold a more and more important place in anarchist attention, especially with anarchist involvement in the workers' movement and the rise of anarcho-syndicalism (trade unionism). Though the commune retained its importance for anarchists organising in more agrarian parts of the world, where the people were united more by their community in the countryside than by their trade in the city.

There was a little bit of tension early in the 1870s and 1880s over whether a post-capitalist economy should be organised primarily through self-governing communes or self-managed syndicates, but these tensions between pro-commune and pro-syndicate factions became a lot more pronounced in the early 20th century.

Confusingly, the commune-oriented group – the "communalists" – tended to call themselves "anarcho-communists", even though many of them also supported syndicalism as a tactic.

While the labour-oriented group – the "labourists" – tended to call themselves "anarcho-syndicalists", even though they tended to support a free communist economy.

* '''Anarcho-Syndicalists''' (labourists) generally wanted a free communist economy – no state, no markets, no money – but wanted to achieve it via industrial proletarian class struggles through trade unions. [[note]] However, a few supported free collectivism instead of free communism as a post-capitalist economic model, especially in Spain. [[/note]] They also wanted the future society to be organised with the self-managed workplace at the centre of things, with the economy being composed of federations of worker-run enterprises.

As the twentieth century progressed, social anarchism grew more and more towards "labourism" (workers) rather than "communalism" (communities), possibly due to the world becoming more industrialised.

However, in the second half of the century, some anarchists, such as Murray Bookchin, argued for focusing more on the commune, claiming that in the era of the welfare state, the working class had been bought off by reforms and no longer had the potential to dismantle capitalism and the state; attacking anarcho-syndicalism as too class-centric and too accepting of the "work ethic" found in both capitalism and state socialism. Transformative change should therefore be waged by a convergence of oppressed social groups (women, people of colour, LGBT+ folks) and focus more on creating democratised communities rather than trying to organise workers into radical trade unions.

• Individal Autonomy

• Voluntary Association

• Mutual Aid

• Self-Organisation

• Free Federation

• Direct Action

At the same time, they oppose what they call the "unholy trinity" of authoritarianism: religion, capital, and the state, and believe that each thrives of the existence of the the other two. "Religion" here can also be understood to encompass authoritarian ideologies in general, including: nationalism, ethnic supremacy, caste systems (like in the Indian subcontinent), patriarchy, and heteronormativity, though this doesn't preclude the practice of non-authoritarian forms of spirituality (as long as they don't throw science and reason out the window).[[note]] Rudolf Rocker, in his "anarchist bible" ''Nationalism and Culture'', claimed every state and ruling elite require some kind of religion in order to maintain their grip on power. While supernatural beliefs are the most common ideology to justify "natural hierarchies" between rulers and ruled, in the twentieth century, he argued, nationalism and its offshoots had become the new religion used to control people. In the early twentieth century, many anarchists would say that neoliberalism - belief in rugged individualism, materialistic consumerism, and self-actualisation through the "free market" - has taken its place.[[/note]] That said, most anarchists in the modern era and historically have been atheists, sometimes also being highly ''anti''-theistic.

Nowadays there's a lot of anarchist support for micro-manufacturing, small-scale shop production, the [[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware open-source hardware]] movement, and of course enthusiastic support for the Internet and especially the [[http://www.infoshop.org/pdfs/AnarchySourceCode_Imhorst.pdf free software movement]]. There's also considerable crossover with the [[http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Foundation:About Peer-to-Peer]] (P2P) movement as well, in which the non-proprietary sections of the Internet are viewed as an actually-existing free commons, whose principles of decentralised cooperation, horizontal and networked association, and participatory organisation should be expanded to the so-called real world.

In music, there's a long tradition among anarchists of taking popular songs (including religious hymns and national anthems) and rewriting them with radical far-left lyrics, "Imagine a revolutionary, libertarian socialist version of WeirdAlYankovic and you'll get the idea". Japanese anarchists for example wrote a song called "Anarchist Melody" that was set to the tune of "Oh Christmas Tree" and several anarchist rewritings of the French national anthem and popular folk-diddys exist.

Primitivists emerged from the nascent green anarchist milieu in the Pacific Northwest in the late 20th century and are heavily inspired by both Deep Ecology and anti-civilisation ideology. They view all forms of complex technology as corruptive and wish to abandon it in favour of a hunter-gatherer way of life, significantly reducing the human population as a necessary stage in this goal. Some even reject language (written and spoken), counting, and acknowledging the passage of time as oppressive - which they consider remnants of "symbolic culture". Primitivists cite that tribal groups [[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways don't have domestication]] (i.e. farming) [[http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race tend to be more egalitarian than those with domestication.]] Some argue that while technology itself isn't inherently oppressive, the structures that require it and use it are. An example can be seen in weapons. In an primitivist society, theoretically, everyone would have access to stone or wood based weapons, putting them on a mostly even playing field. When advanced technology comes into play, those with access to the means to create more powerful weapons will have an advantage against those who do not. (i.e., a person with a wooden spear would either be killed by, or have to submit to a person armed with a firearm.) Whereas if everyone had access to the same type of weapons, this playing field would force people to at least attempt to work together in a more voluntary fashion.

As a basic rule of thumb, political anarchism (despite its internal differences) could be summed up in the following five principles:

And all five could in turn be condensed into the formula:

'''Individual Autonomy'''

'''Voluntary Association'''

'''Mutual Aid'''

'''Self-Organisation'''

'''Free Federation'''

* A libertarian socialist economy of the commons, based on worker self-management of enterprises, communal stewardship of resources, and directly-democratic planning of the economy by both communities and workplaces.