                             A.1 What is anarchism?

   Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the
   absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property ,
   p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to
   create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as
   equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control -
   be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the
   individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

   In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:

     "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent,
     anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced
     tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists
     oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society,
     and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of
     social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of
     Individualism, p. 106]

   However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most
   misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used
   to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists
   desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."

   This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel.
   For example, in countries which have considered government by one
   person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have
   been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion.
   Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will
   obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot
   work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to
   chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:

     "since it was thought that government was necessary and that without
     government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was
     natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government,
     should sound like absence of order." [Anarchy, p. 16]

   Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so
   people will see that government and other hierarchical social
   relationships are both harmful and unnecessary:

     "Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only
     unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just
     because it means absence of government, will come to mean for
     everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of
     all, complete freedom within complete solidarity." [Op. Cit., pp.
     16]

   This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas
   regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all. As
   well as combating the distortions produced by the "common-sense" idea
   of "anarchy", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism and
   anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political and
   social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are "the
   radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of all
   the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. Consequently
   we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, misunderstood and
   persecuted of all." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters
   of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

   Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola
   Sacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit and
   were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927.
   So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders and
   distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist
   media, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the
   distortions by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and
   Marxists). Hopefully once we are finished you will understand why those
   in power have spent so much time attacking anarchism -- it is the one
   idea which can effectively ensure liberty for all and end all systems
   based on a few having power over the many.

A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?

   The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not,"
   "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning
   "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or,
   as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning
   "contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284]

   While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean
   "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen,
   the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no
   government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally,
   "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have
   continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that
   anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the
   power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150]
   For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is
   generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead
   of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary:

     "Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political
     idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination,
     and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . .
     Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if]
     government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of
     anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]

   For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or
   anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why?
   Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies
   authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy,
   anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient
   definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to
   all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. In the
   words of Brian Morris:

     "The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
     ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or
     coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are
     therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called
     the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists
     are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to
     all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to
     establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy,
     that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a
     society organised through a federation of voluntary associations."
     ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of
     Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

   Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development
   -- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin
   did use the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which
   was used as short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from
   their writings that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against
   any inequality of power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin
   spoke of this when he attacked "official" authority but defended
   "natural influence," and also when he said:

     "Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his
     fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [The
     Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 271]

   As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the
   'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of
   anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root
   of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'"
   [Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement]

   We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not
   limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian
   economic and social relationships as well as political ones,
   particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour.
   This can be seen from Proudhon's argument that "Capital . . . in the
   political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of
   capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the
   theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in
   various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of
   them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the
   Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in
   practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for
   oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its
   will and its reason." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of
   Anarchism, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism as
   it meant "that man [or woman] must sell his [or her] labour" and,
   therefore, "that his [or her] inclination and judgement are
   subordinated to the will of a master." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50] Forty
   years earlier Bakunin made the same point when he argued that under the
   current system "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given
   time" to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit., p. 187]

   Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means
   opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In
   Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society .
   . . [lies in] the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and
   the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the
   tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [Op.
   Cit., p. 158] For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt
   against social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills"
   could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When the
   oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was
   that anarchism was born." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 19]

   Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a
   misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the
   anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one examines the
   writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of
   anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had
   this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always
   challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been
   equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the
   state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]

   And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do
   anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create
   a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In
   other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the
   top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a
   society without rulers.

   While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in [1]section I, Noam
   Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free
   society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal
   -- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in
   community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be,
   should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean
   workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities,
   interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to
   organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview] Society
   would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers,
   governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on
   free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom
   up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this
   society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as
   they can.

A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?

   To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of
   socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of
   exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of
   private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta,
   Towards Anarchism,", p. 75]

   Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a
   society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies.
   Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable
   form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual
   liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality
   as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:

     "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and
     injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and
     brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

   The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without
   equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty
   is impossible and a justification for slavery.

   While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist
   anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see [2]section A.3 for more
   details), there has always been two common positions at the core of all
   of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In
   the words of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism
   insists "on the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on
   no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by
   man." [cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 140] All
   anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as
   exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them
   just as much as they oppose government and the State.

   More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link"
   within anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and
   domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human
   individual." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 108] For anarchists, a
   person cannot be free if they are subject to state or capitalist
   authority. As Voltairine de Cleyre summarised:

     "Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a society in which the
     needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the
     opportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be the
     heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust
     organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must
     finally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which will
     insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a master
     to whom he [or she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her] product,
     which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources and means
     of production. . . Out of the blindly submissive, it makes the
     discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it makes the
     consciously dissatisfied . . . Anarchism seeks to arouse the
     consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a
     sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and
     the State." [Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth,
     pp. 23-4]

   So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of
   anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this,
   "[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private
   ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is
   condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must,
   and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in
   common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the
   ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things
   where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and]
   that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of
   government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to
   an-archy" [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46]

   Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques
   current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential
   new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the
   current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty,
   equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in [3]section A.2.

   Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin (in his
   pre-anarchist days) pointed out, "the urge to destroy is a creative
   urge." One cannot build a better society without understanding what is
   wrong with the present one.

   However, it must be stressed that anarchism is more than just a means
   of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in
   struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other
   words, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs
   of people, not power, and which places the planet before profit. To
   quote Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie:

     "Anarchism is a movement for human freedom. It is concrete,
     democratic and egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and remains -- a
     direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and
     exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power
     and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which,
     together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the
     few at the expense of the rest.

     "Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically,
     it aims for the maximum accord between the individual, society and
     nature. Practically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives
     in such a way as to make politicians, governments, states and their
     officials superfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful
     sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive
     relationships within naturally defined communities in which the
     means of production and distribution are held in common.

     "Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and
     theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a
     perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts
     forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to
     struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be .
     . .

     "Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards
     a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every
     form of injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all
     exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority.
     If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that,
     once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost,
     and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then
     ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their
     lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely
     and fairly.

     "Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they
     attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever
     they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels
     of both individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is
     possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary
     relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making
     processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of
     domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in
     all times and places."
     [My Granny made me an Anarchist, pp. 162-3]

   Anarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of
   our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or
   politicians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to
   become conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate
   interests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by doing
   this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in.

   It is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice
   everyday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take
   action to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation,
   fight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and
   bosses, the spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to
   strengthen these libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full
   fruition. As we discuss in [4]section J, anarchists apply their ideas
   in many ways within capitalism in order to change it for the better
   until such time as we get rid of it completely. [5]Section I discusses
   what we aim to replace it with, i.e. what anarchism aims for.

A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?

   Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of
   "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive
   and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are
   "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and
   "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism,
   libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As
   Vanzetti put it:

     "After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the
     socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The
     difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is
     that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe
     in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or
     Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of
     Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

   But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage
   Dictionary, we find:

     LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one
     who believes in free will.

     SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both
     political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

   Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

     LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of
     action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess
     both political power and the means of producing and distributing
     goods.

   (Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political
   sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these
   definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market"
   capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries,
   obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for
   socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to
   pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).

   However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many
   people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a
   contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists
   are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of
   "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in
   order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other
   words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful
   possessors.

   Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the
   term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the
   1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary
   anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement
   Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term
   "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French
   anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of
   Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by
   anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used
   in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid
   the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind
   (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire --
   The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then,
   particularly outside America, it has always been associated with
   anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the
   USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which
   had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The
   US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since
   the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the
   term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the
   expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that
   party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in
   [6]Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian"
   capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in
   terms.

   As we will also explain in [7]Section I, only a libertarian-socialist
   system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say,
   state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for
   anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in
   [8]Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no
   socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists,
   socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of
   culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free
   initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a
   dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought
   and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin
   Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

   Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists
   are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our
   ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term
   'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the
   specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a
   straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This
   movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist
   movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by
   those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people
   as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with
   entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should
   "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the
   free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we
   will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

   Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is
   because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see
   sections [9]B and [10]C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot
   work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of
   their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen
   will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things
   shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the
   terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism",
   Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

   (We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms
   which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism,
   Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --,
   slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is
   dominating the world just now).

   Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like
   Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so
   because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and
   Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide,
   generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of
   Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with
   the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in
   Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should
   be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of
   Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon.
   [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was
   originally defined to include "all those who believed in the
   individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta,
   "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal
   of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is
   shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist
   banner.

   For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits
   of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter
   Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for
   example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual
   employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the
   property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains
   . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of
   profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all
   workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus,
   in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital,
   true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own
   and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed,
   those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the
   producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist
   circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct
   workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by
   the commune (see [11]section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).

   Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as
   well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern
   themselves during the production process nor have control over the
   product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal
   freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by
   anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of
   Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that
   anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation
   stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the
   workman. . . will be simply the employee of the
   proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the
   first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
   condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his
   dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing
   organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not
   hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an
   ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain
   related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . .
   castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and
   democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]

   Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned the
   wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander Berkman,
   What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example -- the
   anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) --
   called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced capitalism as a
   system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and
   profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market
   society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour
   by capital would cease, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural
   wage, its entire product." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p.
   85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free
   exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For
   Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true
   free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure
   that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring
   the latter's exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see
   [12]section G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the
   arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its
   various "spooks," which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred
   or religious, such as private property, competition, division of
   labour, and so forth.

   So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a
   specific kind -- libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist
   Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

     "It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake.
     Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism,
     archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and
     free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to
     increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over
     the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they
     decrease they are anarchistic." [Anarchism: What It Is and What It
     Is Not]

   Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists,
   but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's
   comment that "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The
   anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the
   exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history of the
   anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings.
   [Anarchism, p. 12] Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used
   almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact --
   "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily
   an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement was "divided
   into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or
   middle-class anarchists." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket
   Martyrs, p. 81]

   So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues
   -- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market
   would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they agree that
   capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an
   anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not
   wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of
   external wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and
   such self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of
   real socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie argued
   that the trade union was "the exemplification of gaining freedom by
   association" and that "[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more
   the slave of his employer than he is with it." [Different Phases of the
   Labour Question]

   However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism"
   almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists
   have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All
   anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue:

     "If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would
     flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the
     greatest enemies of socialism." [Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative
     Futures, p. 779]

   Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism,
   social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail
   Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that
   would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's
   state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of
   Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of
   state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were
   among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik
   regime in Russia.

   Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with
   some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker
   accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his
   labour theory of value (see [13]section C). Marx himself was heavily
   influenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a
   brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as
   state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement
   holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the
   anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, Anton
   Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far
   from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the
   anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to
   Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian
   Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose
   ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the free association of
   equals.

   Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands
   in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e.
   state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which many
   people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate free
   association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and
   communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state
   capitalism in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver,
   and the State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist
   Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchists reject Marxism (what most people
   think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State as
   Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great
   Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter Kropotkin,
   The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist objection to
   the identification of Marxism, "central planning" and State
   Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed in [14]section H.

   It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce
   confusion, most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is
   taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the
   rise of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some
   pro-capitalists have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that
   is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. Historically, and
   logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is
   something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a
   fuller discuss of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist see
   [15]section F).

A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?

   Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote The
   Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by
   participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see
   [16]Section A.5.4). They point out that:

     "The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their
     aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of
     anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based
     on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a
     free non-statist society of workers under self-management.

     "So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an
     intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of
     workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the
     workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations
     which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the
     life and struggle of the working masses.

     "The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others,
     did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in
     the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and
     knowledge to specify and spread it."
     [pp. 15-16]

   Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass
   movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority,
   both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from
   1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has
   traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants."
   [Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]

   Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for
   freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, "Anarchism . . . originated in
   everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each time
   it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived
   its origin from the teachings of life itself." [Evolution and
   Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, "the proof" of his
   mutualist ideas lay in the "current practice, revolutionary practice"
   of "those labour associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . been
   formed in Paris and Lyon . . . [show that the] organisation of credit
   and organisation of labour amount to one and the same." [No Gods, No
   Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was
   "close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and
   the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that there was "a remarkable
   convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was
   able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the
   example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he
   championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such
   workers." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of
   French Republican Socialism, p. 164]

   Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead
   a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to
   play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory
   towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on
   their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of
   working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and
   exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:

     "There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it
     produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of its
     philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out
     in action rather than as the putting into practice of an
     intellectual idea. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and
     writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers
     and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as
     being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the
     bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working
     class relies on bourgeois leadership." [Anarchism: Arguments for and
     against, p. 18]

   In Kropotkin's eyes, "Anarchism had its origins in the same creative,
   constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past
   all the social institutions of mankind -- and in the revolts . . .
   against the representatives of force, external to these social
   institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used
   them for their own advantage." More recently, "Anarchy was brought
   forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth
   to Socialism in general." Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism,
   "lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also
   against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State."
   All anarchist writers did was to "work out a general expression of
   [anarchism's] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of
   its teachings" derived from the experiences of working class people in
   struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in
   general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

   However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have
   existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared
   himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory,
   was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism "emerged at the end of
   the eighteenth century . . .[and] took up the dual challenge of
   overthrowing both Capital and the State." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p.
   4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies.
   Kropotkin argued, for example, that "from all times there have been
   Anarchists and Statists." [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and
   elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous
   societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some
   degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised
   this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the
   creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:

     "From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have
     realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire
     personal authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive
     clan, the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in
     the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist
     the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those
     strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who
     endeavoured to establish their personal authority." [Anarchism, pp.
     158-9]

   Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which
   modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular
   organisation. He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an
   outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few
   -- the capitalists in this case" as were the clan, the village
   community and so on, as were "the strikingly independent, freely
   federated activity of the 'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and
   many small 'Communes' during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit.,
   p. 159]

   Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working
   class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern
   state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in
   action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North
   America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands
   of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed.
   Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in
   every major revolution -- the New England Town Meetings during the
   American Revolution, the Parisian 'Sections' during the French
   Revolution, the workers' councils and factory committees during the
   Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin's
   The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism
   is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society
   with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate
   anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without
   authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

   In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against
   oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's
   experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and
   an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This
   struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic
   anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism
   and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of
   working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against
   oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal
   individuals.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJcon.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secBcon.html
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secHcon.html
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secBcon.html
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secCcon.html
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secGcon.html
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secCcon.html
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secHcon.html
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secFcon.html
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca54
