                     A.3 What types of anarchism are there?

   One thing that soon becomes clear to any one interested in anarchism is
   that there is not one single form of anarchism. Rather, there are
   different schools of anarchist thought, different types of anarchism
   which have many disagreements with each other on numerous issues. These
   types are usually distinguished by tactics and/or goals, with the
   latter (the vision of a free society) being the major division.

   This means that anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be
   grouped into broad categories, depending on the economic arrangements
   that they consider to be most suitable to human freedom. However, all
   types of anarchists share a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker:

     "In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the
     abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the
     soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be
     available to all without distinction; for personal and social
     freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic
     advantages for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the
     Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism
     must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political
     power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in
     hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man
     by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each
     is the condition of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 62-3]

   It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main
   differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists,
   although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually
   exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists,
   anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority,
   with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United
   States. In this section we indicate the differences between these main
   trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear, while
   social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and
   capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to
   get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions
   to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a
   society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist
   anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and
   have a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we
   must not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common,
   namely a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and
   capitalist domination and exploitation.

   In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree over
   such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights and
   a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are only
   different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas, the anarchist
   movement (like life itself) is in a constant state of change,
   discussion and thought -- as would be expected in a movement that
   values freedom so highly.

   The most obvious thing to note about the different types of anarchism
   is that "[n]one are named after some Great Thinker; instead, they are
   invariably named either after some kind of practice, or, most often,
   organisational principle . . . Anarchists like to distinguish
   themselves by what they do, and how they organise themselves to go
   about doing it." [David Graeber, Fragments of An Anarchist
   Anthropology, p. 5] This does not mean that anarchism does not have
   individuals who have contributed significantly to anarchist theory. Far
   from it, as can be seen in [1]section A.4 there are many such people.
   Anarchists simply recognise that to call your theory after an
   individual is a kind of idolatry. Anarchists know that even the
   greatest thinker is only human and, consequently, can make mistakes,
   fail to live up to their ideals or have a partial understanding of
   certain issues (see [2]section H.2 for more discussion on this).
   Moreover, we see that the world changes and, obviously, what was a
   suitable practice or programme in, say, industrialising France of the
   1840s may have its limitations in 21st century France!

   Consequently, it is to be expected that a social theory like anarchism
   would have numerous schools of thought and practice associated with it.
   Anarchism, as we noted in [3]section A.5, has its roots in the
   struggles of working class people against oppression. Anarchist ideas
   have developed in many different social situations and, consequently,
   have reflected those circumstances. Most obviously, individualist
   anarchism initially developed in pre-industrial America and as a result
   has a different perspective on many issues than social anarchism. As
   America changed, going from a predominantly pre-capitalist rural
   society to an industrialised capitalist one, American anarchism
   changed:

     "Originally the American movement, the native creation which arose
     with Josiah Warren in 1829, was purely individualistic; the student
     of economy will easily understand the material and historical causes
     for such development. But within the last twenty years the communist
     idea has made great progress, owning primarily to that concentration
     in capitalist production which has driven the American workingman
     [and woman] to grasp at the idea of solidarity, and, secondly, to
     the expulsion of active communist propagandists from Europe."
     [Voltairine de Cleyre, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 110]

   Thus rather than the numerous types of anarchism being an expression of
   some sort of "incoherence" within anarchism, it simply shows a movement
   which has its roots in real life rather than the books of long dead
   thinkers. It also shows a healthy recognition that people are different
   and that one person's dream may be another's nightmare and that
   different tactics and organisations may be required at different social
   periods and struggles. So while anarchists have their preferences on
   how they think a free society will, in general, be like and be created
   they are aware that other forms of anarchism and libertarian tactics
   may be more suitable for other people and social circumstances.
   However, just because someone calls themselves or their theory
   anarchism does not make it so. Any genuine type of anarchism must share
   the fundamental perspectives of the movement, in other words be
   anti-state and anti-capitalist.

   Moreover, claims of anarchist "incoherence" by its critics are usually
   overblown. After all, being followers of Marx and/or Lenin has not
   stopped Marxists from splitting into numerous parties, groups and
   sects. Nor has it stopped sectarian conflict between them based on
   whose interpretation of the holy writings are the "correct" ones or who
   has used the "correct" quotes to bolster attempts to adjust their ideas
   and practice to a world significantly different from Europe in the
   1850s or Russia in the 1900s. At least anarchists are honest about
   their differences!

   Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place
   themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not
   mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with
   individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more
   appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for
   individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of
   society we would like to live in.

A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?

   While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that
   the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some kind
   of state, the differences between individualists and social anarchists
   are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority and
   anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.

   The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now (and
   so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists
   generally prefer education and the creation of alternative
   institutions, such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually
   support strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as
   rent strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
   argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out of
   government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, not
   revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action to
   create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being in
   contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
   of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they
   seek to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property
   by means of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around
   mutual banks and co-operatives). In this way a general "social
   liquidation" would be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by
   reform and not by expropriation.

   Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create
   alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this
   is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece
   by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of
   reforms by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within
   capitalism. Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with
   anarchist principles as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority
   (be it state or capitalist). Thus the expropriation of the capitalist
   class and the destruction of the state by social revolution is a
   libertarian, not authoritarian, act by its very nature as it is
   directed against those who govern and exploit the vast majority. In
   short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists and revolutionists,
   trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within capitalism while
   trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However, as some
   social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is not
   the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.

   The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy
   proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution
   to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
   system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
   rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
   abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the
   individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity). In
   effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is Property?
   and argue that possession must replace property in a free society (see
   [4]section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property).
   Thus property "will lose a certain attribute which sanctifies it now.
   The absolute ownership of it -- 'the right to use or abuse' -- will be
   abolished, and possession, use, will be the only title. It will be seen
   how impossible it would be for one person to 'own' a million acres of
   land, without a title deed, backed by a government ready to protect the
   title at all hazards." [Lucy Parsons, Freedom, Equality & Solidarity,
   p. 33

   However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
   propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for
   communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
   ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
   possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
   create them. Thus "your watch is your own, but the watch factory
   belongs to the people." "Actual use," continues Berkman, "will be
   considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. The
   organisation of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the
   coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective
   possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community,
   will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for
   profit." [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]

   This system would be based on workers' self-management of their work
   and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of
   that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because
   "in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent,
   when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the
   attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of industry
   is untenable." Given this, it is impossible to "estimate the share of
   each in the riches which all contribute to amass" and, moreover, the
   "common possession of the instruments of labour must necessarily bring
   with it the enjoyment in common of the fruits of common labour."
   [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 45 and p. 46] By this social
   anarchists simply mean that the social product which is produced by all
   would be available to all and each individual who has contributed
   productively to society can take what they need (how quickly we can
   reach such an ideal is a moot point, as we discuss in [5]section
   I.2.2). Some social anarchists, like mutualists for example, are
   against such a system of libertarian (or free) communism, but, in
   general, the vast majority of social anarchists look forward to the end
   of money and, therefore, of buying and selling. All agree, however,
   that anarchy will see "Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation
   stopped everywhere" and "the wage system abolished" whether by "equal
   and just exchange" (like Proudhon) or by the free sharing (like
   Kropotkin). [Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 281]

   In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies
   that this system of use-rights should include the product of the
   workers labour. Instead of social ownership, individualist anarchists
   propose a more market based system in which workers would possess their
   own means of production and exchange the product of their labour freely
   with other workers. They argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly
   free market. Rather, by means of the state, capitalists have placed
   fetters on the market to create and protect their economic and social
   power (market discipline for the working class, state aid for the
   ruling class in other words). These state created monopolies (of money,
   land, tariffs and patents) and state enforcement of capitalist property
   rights are the source of economic inequality and exploitation. With the
   abolition of government, real free competition would result and ensure
   the end of capitalism and capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin
   Tucker's essay State Socialism and Anarchism for an excellent summary
   of this argument).

   The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar
   land) are the product of individual labour and so they accept that
   people should be able to sell the means of production they use, if they
   so desire. However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead
   favour an "occupancy and use" system. If the means of production, say
   land, is not in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is
   available to others for use. They think this system, called mutualism,
   will result in workers control of production and the end of capitalist
   exploitation and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a
   regime of "occupancy and use" cannot be squared with wage labour. If a
   workplace needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the
   group who use it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in
   fact, used by more than that person then, obviously, "occupancy and
   use" is violated. Equally, if an owner employs others to use the
   workplace then the boss can appropriate the product of the workers'
   labour, so violating the maxim that labour should receive its full
   product. Thus the principles of individualist anarchism point to
   anti-capitalist conclusions (see [6]section G.3).

   This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears
   being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom
   (including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
   puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the
   abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more
   into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity .
   . . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign
   power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I
   experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the
   might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity." [The Ego and Its
   Own, p. 257] Proudhon also argued against communism, stating that the
   community becomes the proprietor under communism and so capitalism and
   communism are based on property and so authority (see the section
   "Characteristics of communism and of property" in What is Property?).
   Thus the Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places
   the individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
   the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well as
   dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively
   eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to
   produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue
   that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to
   capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced
   with that of "society."

   Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that Stirner's
   and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but only about
   authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, "before and in 1848, the
   theory [of communism] was put forward in such a shape as to fully
   account for Proudhon's distrust as to its effect upon liberty. The old
   idea of Communism was the idea of monastic communities under the severe
   rule of elders or of men of science for directing priests. The last
   vestiges of liberty and of individual energy would be destroyed, if
   humanity ever had to go through such a communism." [Act for Yourselves,
   p. 98] Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a new
   development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's and
   Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed against it as
   they could not be familiar with it.

   Rather than subject the individual to the community, social anarchists
   argue that communal ownership would provide the necessary framework to
   protect individual liberty in all aspects of life by abolishing the
   power of the property owner, in whatever form it takes. In addition,
   rather than abolish all individual "property," communist anarchism
   acknowledges the importance of individual possessions and individual
   space. Thus we find Kropotkin arguing against forms of communism that
   "desire to manage the community after the model of a family . . . [to
   live] all in the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet
   the same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to
   impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, to
   guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual." [Small
   Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8-9] The aim of
   anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place "the product
   reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the
   liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home." [The Place of
   Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought, p. 7] This ensures
   individual expression of tastes and desires and so individuality --
   both in consumption and in production, as social anarchists are firm
   supporters of workers' self-management.

   Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition to
   communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and
   ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
   anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather use
   community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society" control
   the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social anarchism
   is based on importance of individuality and individual expression:

     "Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests
     -- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a
     solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political liberty
     is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god,
     the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give
     unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding -- god
     the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her]
     independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew
     the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified
     god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long as
     the individual is not so! . . .'" [Op. Cit., pp. 14-15]

   In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for
   voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves,
   this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread,
   p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5 as well as Malatesta's Errico
   Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 99 and p. 103). This, social
   anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their principles or
   the communist nature of their desired society as such exceptions are
   rooted in the "use rights" system both are based in (see [7]section
   I.6.2 for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists an
   association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that
   compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their
   common needs. Therefore, all anarchists emphasise the importance of
   free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all
   anarchists agree with Bakunin:

     "Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and this kind of
     collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free
     community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure of
     circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free
     spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200]

   If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods with
   others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments that
   the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
   anarchists support the right of individuals not to join a commune while
   Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to pool
   their possessions as they see fit, including communistic associations.
   However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual wished to claim
   property rights so as to exploit the labour of others, social
   anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism in the
   name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to be a
   ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:

     "No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the
     comfortable cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea
     of domination . . . But the heralds of domination presume to
     practice individualism in the name of their ego, over the obedient,
     resigned, or inert ego of others." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 40]

   Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production
   can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an
   anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As
   Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When
   one's bargaining power is weaker than another then any "free exchange"
   will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist
   one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time
   rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious as
   those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position
   than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be
   affected.

   Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist
   anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into
   capitalism. If, as seems likely, the "unsuccessful" competitors are
   forced into unemployment they may have to sell their labour to the
   "successful" in order to survive. This would create authoritarian
   social relationships and the domination of the few over the many via
   "free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts (and others like
   them), in all likelihood, "opens . . . the way for reconstituting under
   the heading of 'defence' all the functions of the State." [Peter
   Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 297]

   Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and free
   market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all schools of
   abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance of
   authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty." This is
   due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker argued that the
   state was marked by two things, aggression and "the assumption of
   authority over a given area and all within it, exercised generally for
   the double purpose of more complete oppression of its subjects and
   extension of its boundaries." [Instead of a Book, p. 22] However, the
   boss and landlord also has authority over a given area (the property in
   question) and all within it (workers and tenants). The former control
   the actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or
   subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the same social
   relationships as that created by the state, as it comes from the same
   source (monopoly of power over a given area and those who use it).

   Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance of
   individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
   freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation of
   social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in
   nature. "The individualists," argued Malatesta, "give the greatest
   importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into
   account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the
   outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation." [The Anarchist
   Revolution, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the worker in
   the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places the citizen to
   the state, namely of one of domination and subjection. Similarly with
   the tenant and the landlord.

   Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects of
   the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
   statist implications, because "the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by
   virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to break
   strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this school of
   so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of the police
   force, hence for government, and the prime definition of anarchism is
   no government." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 8] It is
   partly for this reason social anarchists support social ownership as
   the best means of protecting individual liberty.

   Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round" by
   accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of many of Tucker's economic
   ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that require more
   than one worker. This naturally complements their support for
   "occupancy and use" for land, which would effectively abolish
   landlords. Without co-operatives, workers will be exploited for "it is
   well enough to talk of [the worker] buying hand tools, or small
   machinery which can be moved about; but what about the gigantic
   machinery necessary to the operation of a mine, or a mill? It requires
   many to work it. If one owns it, will he not make the others pay
   tribute for using it?" This is because "no man would employ another to
   work for him unless he could get more for his product than he had to
   pay for it, and that being the case, the inevitable course of exchange
   and re-exchange would be that the man having received less than the
   full amount." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Why I am an Anarchist", Exquisite
   Rebel, p. 61 and p. 60] Only when the people who use a resource own it
   can individual ownership not result in hierarchical authority or
   exploitation (i.e. statism/capitalism). Only when an industry is
   co-operatively owned, can the workers ensure that they govern
   themselves during work and can get the full value of the goods they
   make once they are sold.

   This solution is the one Individualist Anarchists do seem to accept and
   the only one consistent with all their declared principles (as well as
   anarchism). This can be seen when French individualist E. Armand argued
   that the key difference between his school of anarchism and
   communist-anarchism is that as well as seeing "ownership of the
   consumer goods representing an extension of [the worker's] personality"
   it also "regards ownership of the means of production and free disposal
   of his produce as the quintessential guarantee of the autonomy of the
   individual. The understanding is that such ownership boils down to the
   chance to deploy (as individuals, couples, family groups, etc.) the
   requisite plot of soil or machinery of production to meet the
   requirements of the social unit, provided that the proprietor does not
   transfer it to someone else or reply upon the services of someone else
   in operating it." Thus the individualist anarchist could "defend
   himself against . . . the exploitation of anyone by one of his
   neighbours who will set him to work in his employ and for his benefit"
   and "greed, which is to say the opportunity for an individual, couple
   or family group to own more than strictly required for their normal
   upkeep." ["Mini-Manual of the Anarchist Individualist", pp. 145-9,
   Anarchism, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 147 and pp. 147-8]

   The ideas of the American individualist anarchists logically flow to
   the same conclusions. "Occupancy and Use" automatically excludes wage
   labour and so exploitation and oppression. As Wm. Gary Kline correctly
   points out, the US Individualist anarchists "expected a society of
   largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
   between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] It is this
   vision of a self-employed society that logically flows from their
   principles which ensures that their ideas are truly anarchist. As it
   is, their belief that their system would ensure the elimination of
   profit, rent and interest place them squarely in the anti-capitalist
   camp alongside social anarchists.

   Needless to say, social anarchists disagree with individualist
   anarchism, arguing that there are undesirable features of even
   non-capitalist markets which would undermine freedom and equality.
   Moreover, the development of industry has resulted in natural barriers
   of entry into markets and this not only makes it almost impossible to
   abolish capitalism by competing against it, it also makes the
   possibility of recreating usury in new forms likely. Combine this with
   the difficulty in determining the exact contribution of each worker to
   a product in a modern economy and you see why social anarchists argue
   that the only real solution to capitalism is to ensure community
   ownership and management of the economy. It is this recognition of the
   developments within the capitalist economy which make social anarchists
   reject individualist anarchism in favour of communalising, and so
   decentralising, production by freely associated and co-operative labour
   on a large-scale rather than just in the workplace.

   For more discussion on the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, and
   why social anarchists reject them, see section G -- [8]"Is
   individualist anarchism capitalistic?"

A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?

   Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
   communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply
   involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does
   exist is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism.
   Mutualism is based around a form of market socialism -- workers'
   co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour via a system of
   community banks. This mutual bank network would be "formed by the whole
   community, not for the especial advantage of any individual or class,
   but for the benefit of all . . . [with] no interest . . . exacted on
   loans, except enough to cover risks and expenses." Such a system would
   end capitalist exploitation and oppression for by "introducing
   mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it everywhere, and
   labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Charles
   A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45 and p. 45]

   The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the
   individualist form by having the mutual banks owned by the local
   community (or commune) instead of being independent co-operatives. This
   would ensure that they provided investment funds to co-operatives
   rather than to capitalistic enterprises. Another difference is that
   some social anarchist mutualists support the creation of what Proudhon
   termed an "agro-industrial federation" to complement the federation of
   libertarian communities (called communes by Proudhon). This is a
   "confederation . . . intended to provide reciprocal security in
   commerce and industry" and large scale developments such as roads,
   railways and so on. The purpose of "specific federal arrangements is to
   protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] from capitalist and
   financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside." This is
   because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right."
   Thus the agro-industrial federation would be required to ensure the
   anarchist nature of society from the destabilising effects of market
   exchanges (which can generate increasing inequalities in wealth and so
   power). Such a system would be a practical example of solidarity, as
   "industries are sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot
   suffer without the others sharing in its suffering. They should
   therefore federate, not to be absorbed and confused together, but in
   order to guarantee mutually the conditions of common prosperity . . .
   Making such an agreement will not detract from their liberty; it will
   simply give their liberty more security and force." [The Principle of
   Federation, p. 70, p. 67 and p. 72]

   The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support
   for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom
   is best served by communalising production and sharing information and
   products freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms
   of social anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by
   federations of producers' associations and communes rather than
   mutualism's system of individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the
   "future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom
   upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in
   their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a
   great federation, international and universal" and "the land, the
   instruments of work and all other capital may become the collective
   property of the whole of society and be utilised only by the workers,
   in other words by the agricultural and industrial associations."
   [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206 and p. 174] Only by
   extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual workplaces
   can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see [9]section I.1.3
   for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share
   some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial
   confederations would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of
   production which are the property of each of these groups and which
   will by a reciprocal contract become the collective property of the
   whole . . . federation. In this way, the federation of groups will be
   able to . . . regulate the rate of production to meet the fluctuating
   needs of society." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 376]

   These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers'
   self-management of production within co-operatives but see
   confederations of these associations as being the focal point for
   expressing mutual aid, not a market. Workplace autonomy and
   self-management would be the basis of any federation, for "the workers
   in the various factories have not the slightest intention of handing
   over their hard-won control of the tools of production to a superior
   power calling itself the 'corporation.'" [Guillaume, Op. Cit., p. 364]
   In addition to this industry-wide federation, there would also be
   cross-industry and community confederations to look after tasks which
   are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any particular
   industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, this has
   similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.

   Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the
   means of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and
   reject the individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who
   use them. The reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be
   done, capitalism and statism could regain a foothold in the free
   society. In addition, other social anarchists do not agree with the
   mutualist idea that capitalism can be reformed into libertarian
   socialism by introducing mutual banking. For them capitalism can only
   be replaced by a free society by social revolution.

   The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the
   question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the
   abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists
   consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be
   the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a
   state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in
   common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of
   retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise,
   would be settled by each group for itself." [Anarchism, p. 295] Thus,
   while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via
   producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be
   distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while
   collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods
   according to the labour contributed. However, most
   anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases
   and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both
   agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested
   by the communist maxim: "From each according to their abilities, to
   each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this
   will come about (see [10]section I.2.2).

   For anarcho-communists, they think that "communism -- at least partial
   -- has more chances of being established than collectivism" after a
   revolution. [Op. Cit., p. 298] They think that moves towards communism
   are essential as collectivism "begins by abolishing private ownership
   of the means of production and immediately reverses itself by returning
   to the system of remuneration according to work performed which means
   the re-introduction of inequality." [Alexander Berkman, What is
   Anarchism?, p. 230] The quicker the move to communism, the less chances
   of new inequalities developing. Needless to say, these positions are
   not that different and, in practice, the necessities of a social
   revolution and the level of political awareness of those introducing
   anarchism will determine which system will be applied in each area.

   Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism.
   Anarcho-syndicalists, like other syndicalists, want to create an
   industrial union movement based on anarchist ideas. Therefore they
   advocate decentralised, federated unions that use direct action to get
   reforms under capitalism until they are strong enough to overthrow it.
   In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered as a new version of
   collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the importance of
   anarchists working within the labour movement and creating unions which
   prefigure the future free society.

   Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free
   associations of free producers." They think that these associations
   would serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very
   seriously Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create
   "not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the
   pre-revolutionary period.

   Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
   Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes
   of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers
   with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is,
   through the taking over of the management of all plants by the
   producers themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants,
   and branches of industry are independent members of the general
   economic organism and systematically carry on production and the
   distribution of the products in the interest of the community on the
   basis of free mutual agreements." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism,
   p. 55]

   Again, like all social anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists see the
   collective struggle and organisation implied in unions as the school
   for anarchism. As Eugene Varlin (an anarchist active in the First
   International who was murdered at the end of the Paris Commune) put it,
   unions have "the enormous advantage of making people accustomed to
   group life and thus preparing them for a more extended social
   organisation. They accustom people not only to get along with one
   another and to understand one another, but also to organise themselves,
   to discuss, and to reason from a collective perspective." Moreover, as
   well as mitigating capitalist exploitation and oppression in the here
   and now, the unions also "form the natural elements of the social
   edifice of the future; it is they who can be easily transformed into
   producers associations; it is they who can make the social ingredients
   and the organisation of production work." [quoted by Julian P. W.
   Archer, The First International in France, 1864-1872, p. 196]

   The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social
   anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of
   anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that building
   libertarian unions is important and that work within the labour
   movement is essential in order to ensure "the development and
   organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
   power of the working masses." [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected
   Writings, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge the
   importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think
   that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in
   struggle, and so consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more
   important than creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join
   them (of course, anarcho-syndicalists support such autonomous struggle
   and organisation, so the differences are not great).
   Communist-anarchists also do not place as great an emphasis on the
   workplace, considering struggles within it to be equal in importance to
   other struggles against hierarchy and domination outside the workplace
   (most anarcho-syndicalists would agree with this, however, and often it
   is just a question of emphasis). A few communist-anarchists reject the
   labour movement as hopelessly reformist in nature and so refuse to work
   within it, but these are a small minority.

   Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for
   anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations. They
   think it is essential that anarchists work together as anarchists to
   clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists often deny the
   importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing that
   revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.
   Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused
   into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point
   out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist
   unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
   anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the
   fusion of anarchism and unionism a source of potential confusion that
   would result in the two movements failing to do their respective work
   correctly. For more details on anarcho-syndicalism see [11]section
   J.3.8 (and [12]section J.3.9 on why many anarchists reject aspects of
   it). It should be stressed that non-syndicalist anarchists do not
   reject the need for collective struggle and organisation by workers
   (see [13]section H.2.8 on that particular Marxist myth).

   In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an
   anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally
   anti-syndicalist. For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist
   and anarcho-syndicalist ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin,
   Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman were all sympathetic to
   anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas.

   For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
   recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the works
   of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's,
   Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat
   different, as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than
   the work of a "famous" name (although this does not stop academics
   calling George Sorel the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote
   about a syndicalist movement that already existed. The idea that
   working class people can develop their own ideas, by themselves, is
   usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker is often considered a
   leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the works of Fernand
   Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand
   anarcho-syndicalism. For an overview of the development of social
   anarchism and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's
   excellent anthology No Gods No Masters cannot be bettered.

A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?

   An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis
   is a common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes
   back to the late nineteenth century and the works of Peter Kropotkin
   and Elisee Reclus. The latter, for example, argued that a "secret
   harmony exists between the earth and the people whom it nourishes, and
   when imprudent societies let themselves violate this harmony, they
   always end up regretting it." Similarly, no contemporary ecologist
   would disagree with his comments that the "truly civilised man [and
   women] understands that his [or her] nature is bound up with the
   interest of all and with that of nature. He [or she] repairs the damage
   caused by his predecessors and works to improve his domain." [quoted by
   George Woodcock, "Introduction", Marie Fleming, The Geography of
   Freedom, p. 15]

   With regards Kropotkin, he argued that an anarchist society would be
   based on a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and
   brain work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and
   agriculture (see his classic work Fields, Factories, and Workshops).
   This idea of an economy in which "small is beautiful" (to use the title
   of E.F. Schumacher's Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before
   it was taken up by what was to become the green movement. In addition,
   in Mutual Aid Kropotkin documented how co-operation within species and
   between them and their environment is usually of more benefit to them
   than competition. Kropotkin's work, combined with that of William
   Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of whom, like Kropotkin, were
   world-renowned geographers), and many others laid the foundations for
   the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.

   However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within
   classical anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the
   similarities between ecological thought and anarchism has come to the
   fore (essentially from the publication of Murray Bookchin's classic
   essay "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought" in 1965). Indeed, it would be
   no exaggeration to state that it is the ideas and work of Murray
   Bookchin that has placed ecology and ecological issues at the heart of
   anarchism and anarchist ideals and analysis into many aspects of the
   green movement.

   Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called
   eco-anarchism) it would be worthwhile to explain exactly what anarchism
   and ecology have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, "both the
   ecologist and the anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity" and
   "to both the ecologist and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is
   achieved by growing differentiation. An expanding whole is created by
   the diversification and enrichment of its parts." Moreover, "[j]ust as
   the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an eco-system and promote
   free interplay between species, so the anarchist seeks to expand the
   range of social experiments and remove all fetters to its development."
   [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 36]

   Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation,
   diversity and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and
   concerns. Hierarchy, centralisation, the state and concentrations of
   wealth reduce diversity and the free development of individuals and
   their communities by their very nature, and so weakens the social
   eco-system as well as the actual eco-systems human societies are part
   of. As Bookchin argues, "the reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is
   that] we must conserve and promote variety" but within modern
   capitalist society "[a]ll that is spontaneous, creative and
   individuated is circumscribed by the standardised, the regulated and
   the massified." [Op. Cit., p. 35 and p. 26] So, in many ways, anarchism
   can be considered the application of ecological ideas to society, as
   anarchism aims to empower individuals and communities, decentralise
   political, social and economic power so ensuring that individuals and
   social life develops freely and so becomes increasingly diverse in
   nature. It is for this reason Brian Morris argues that "the only
   political tradition that complements and, as it were, integrally
   connects with ecology -- in a genuine and authentic way -- is that of
   anarchism." [Ecology and Anarchism, p. 132]

   So what kinds of green anarchism are there? While almost all forms of
   modern anarchism consider themselves to have an ecological dimension,
   the specifically eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main
   focal points, Social Ecology and "primitivist". In addition, some
   anarchists are influenced by Deep Ecology, although not many.
   Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential and numerous
   current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of
   Murray Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the
   1950's and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with
   revolutionary social anarchism. His works include Post-Scarcity
   Anarchism, Toward an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom and a
   host of others.

   Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
   relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is
   seen as a product of domination within society, but this domination
   only reaches crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of
   Murray Bookchin:

     "The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the
     domination of man by man. . . But it was not until organic community
     relations. . . dissolved into market relationships that the planet
     itself was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This
     centuries-long tendency finds its most exacerbating development in
     modern capitalism. Owing to its inherently competitive nature,
     bourgeois society not only pits humans against each other, it also
     pits the mass of humanity against the natural world. Just as men are
     converted into commodities, so every aspect of nature is converted
     into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured and merchandised
     wantonly . . . The plundering of the human spirit by the market
     place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital." [Op.
     Cit., pp. 24-5]

   "Only insofar," Bookchin stresses, "as the ecology consciously
   cultivates an anti-hierarchical and a non-domineering sensibility,
   structure, and strategy for social change can it retain its very
   identity as the voice for a new balance between humanity and nature and
   its goal for a truly ecological society." Social ecologists contrast
   this to what Bookchin labels "environmentalism" for while social
   ecology "seeks to eliminate the concept of the domination of nature by
   humanity by eliminating domination of human by human, environmentalism
   reflects an 'instrumentalist' or technical sensibility in which nature
   is viewed merely as a passive habit, an agglomeration of external
   objects and forces, that must be made more 'serviceable' for human use,
   irrespective of what these uses may be. Environmentalism . . . does not
   bring into question the underlying notions of the present society,
   notably that man must dominate nature. On the contrary, it seeks to
   facilitate that domination by developing techniques for diminishing the
   hazards caused by domination." [Murray Bookchin, Towards an Ecological
   Society, p. 77]

   Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature,
   one which "involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark
   the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society
   -- the minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration
   of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban
   entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human
   beings." Such an ecotopia "establish entirely new eco-communities that
   are artistically moulded to the eco-systems in which they are located."
   Echoing Kropotkin, Bookchin argues that "[s]uch an eco-community . . .
   would heal the split between town and country, between mind and body by
   fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agricultural in a
   rotation or diversification of vocational tasks." This society would be
   based on the use of appropriate and green technology, a "new kind of
   technology -- or eco-technology -- one composed of flexible, versatile
   machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and
   quality, not built in obsolescence, and insensate quantitative output
   of shoddy goods, and a rapid circulation of expendable commodities . .
   . Such an eco-technology would use the inexhaustible energy capacities
   of nature -- the sun and wind, the tides and waterways, the temperature
   differentials of the earth and the abundance of hydrogen around us as
   fuels -- to provide the eco-community with non-polluting materials or
   wastes that could be recycled." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 68-9]

   However, this is not all. As Bookchin stresses an ecological society
   "is more than a society that tries to check the mounting disequilibrium
   that exists between humanity and the natural world. Reduced to simple
   technical or political issues, this anaemic view of such a society's
   function degrades the issues raised by an ecological critique and leads
   them to purely technical and instrumental approaches to ecological
   problems. Social ecology is, first of all, a sensibility that includes
   not only a critique of hierarchy and domination but a reconstructive
   outlook . . . guided by an ethics that emphasises variety without
   structuring differences into a hierarchical order . . . the precepts
   for such an ethics . . . [are] participation and differentiation." [The
   Modern Crisis, pp. 24-5]

   Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy
   and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of
   ecological problems. This is one of the key areas in which they
   disagree with "Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more
   critical of all aspects of modern life, with some going so far as
   calling for "the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms
   of technology and large scale organisation. We discuss these ideas in
   [14]section A.3.9.

   We must note here that other anarchists, while generally agreeing with
   its analysis and suggestions, are deeply critical of Social Ecology's
   support for running candidates in municipal elections. While Social
   Ecologists see this as a means of creating popular self-managing
   assemblies and creating a counter power to the state, few anarchists
   agree. Rather they see it as inherently reformist as well as being
   hopelessly naive about the possibilities of using elections to bring
   about social change (see [15]section J.5.14 for a fuller discussion of
   this). Instead they propose direct action as the means to forward
   anarchist and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering as a dead-end
   which ends up watering down radical ideas and corrupting the people
   involved (see section J.2 -- [16]What is Direct Action?).

   Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric
   nature, many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists
   who think that people, as people, are the cause of the ecological
   crisis, which many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin,
   for example, has been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep
   ecology and the anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see
   Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, for example). David Watson has
   also argued against Deep Ecology (see his How Deep is Deep Ecology?
   written under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue
   that it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and
   that only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin:

     "[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an authoritarian streak in a
     crude biologism that uses 'natural law' to conceal an
     ever-diminishing sense of humanity and papers over a profound
     ignorance of social reality by ignoring the fact it is capitalism we
     are talking about, not an abstraction called 'Humanity' and
     'Society.'" [The Philosophy of Social Ecology, p. 160]

   Thus, as Morris stresses, "by focusing entirely on the category of
   'humanity' the Deep Ecologists ignore or completely obscure the social
   origins of ecological problems, or alternatively, biologise what are
   essentially social problems." To submerge ecological critique and
   analysis into a simplistic protest against the human race ignores the
   real causes and dynamics of ecological destruction and, therefore,
   ensures an end to this destruction cannot be found. Simply put, it is
   hardly "people" who are to blame when the vast majority have no real
   say in the decisions that affect their lives, communities, industries
   and eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system that
   places profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on
   "Humanity" (and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men
   and women, whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited,
   oppressors and oppressed) the system we live under is effectively
   ignored, and so are the institutional causes of ecological problems.
   This can be "both reactionary and authoritarian in its implications,
   and substitutes a naive understanding of 'nature' for a critical study
   of real social issues and concerns." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 135]

   Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their
   spokes-persons ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the
   anti-human ideas associated with their movement. Deep ecology,
   particularly the organisation Earth First! (EF!), has changed
   considerably over time, and EF! now has a close working relationship
   with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a syndicalist union.
   While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it shares many
   ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects its
   few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human
   race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and
   leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book Defending the Earth).

A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?

   A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy being
   one of its major figures. This strand is usually called
   "anarcho-pacifism" (the term "non-violent anarchist" is sometimes used,
   but this term is unfortunate because it implies the rest of the
   movement are "violent," which is not the case!). The union of anarchism
   and pacifism is not surprising given the fundamental ideals and
   arguments of anarchism. After all, violence, or the threat of violence
   or harm, is a key means by which individual freedom is destroyed. As
   Peter Marshall points out, "[g]iven the anarchist's respect for the
   sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is non-violence and
   not violence which is implied by anarchist values." [Demanding the
   Impossible, p.637] Malatesta is even more explicit when he wrote that
   the "main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human
   relations" and that anarchists "are opposed to violence." [Errico
   Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

   However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim
   pacifism, the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in
   the sense of opposed all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is
   anti-militarist, being against the organised violence of the state but
   recognising that there are important differences between the violence
   of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed. This explains why
   the anarchist movement has always placed a lot of time and energy in
   opposing the military machine and capitalist wars while, at the same
   time, supporting and organising armed resistance against oppression (as
   in the case of the Makhnovist army during the Russian Revolution which
   resisted both Red and White armies and the militias the anarchists
   organised to resist the fascists during the Spanish Revolution -- see
   sections [17]A.5.4 and [18]A.5.6, respectively).

   On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement
   divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist
   anarchists support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do
   the Mutualists. However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as
   such, as many support the idea of violence in self-defence against
   aggression. Most social anarchists, on the other hand, do support the
   use of revolutionary violence, holding that physical force will be
   required to overthrow entrenched power and to resist state and
   capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist, Bart de
   Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence). As
   Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is
   "justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others
   from violence" and that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate
   defence and consequently, his violence against the boss, against the
   oppressor, is always morally justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55 and pp.
   53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use the words of Bakunin, since
   social oppression "stems far less from individuals than from the
   organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim to
   "ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the
   aim of an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes
   "not as individuals, but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman,
   The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and
   p. 122]

   Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most
   anarchists, as they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept
   to a minimum during any social struggle or revolution. All anarchists
   would agree with the Dutch pacifist anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt
   when he argued that "the violence and warfare which are characteristic
   conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the liberation of the
   individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited classes. The
   greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where violence
   has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution." [The
   Conquest of Violence, p. 75]

   Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name
   of one of his book's chapters, "the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism."
   For de Ligt, and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist
   system and any attempt to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to
   failure. This is because, on the one hand, war is often just economic
   competition carried out by other means. Nations often go to war when
   they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in economic
   struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, "violence
   is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it the ruling
   class would be completely unable to maintain its privileged position
   with regard to the exploited masses in each country. The army is used
   first and foremost to hold down the workers. . . when they become
   discontented." [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit., p. 62] As long as the state and
   capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so, for anarcho-pacifists,
   the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the consistent
   anarchist must be a pacifist.

   For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an
   unavoidable and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as
   well as the only means by which the privileged classes will renounce
   their power and wealth. Those in authority rarely give up their power
   and so must be forced. Hence the need for "transitional" violence "to
   put an end to the far greater, and permanent, violence which keeps the
   majority of mankind in servitude." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To
   concentrate on the issue of violence versus non-violence is to ignore
   the real issue, namely how do we change society for the better. As
   Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists who are pacifists
   confuse the issue, like those who think "it's the same as if rolling up
   your sleeves for work should be considered the work itself." To the
   contrary, "[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely rolling up your
   sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead." [What is Anarchism?, p. 183]
   And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions start relatively
   peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and only degenerate into
   violence when those in power try to maintain their position (a classic
   example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the occupation of factories
   by their workers was followed by fascist terror -- see [19]section
   A.5.5).

   As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the
   military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as
   statist/capitalist wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker
   and Sam Dolgoff, supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the
   second world war as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of
   anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the
   start of the first world war, with syndicalists and anarchists in
   Britain and North America reprinting a French CGT leaflet urging
   soldiers not to follow orders and repress their striking fellow
   workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both arrested and
   deported from America for organising a "No-Conscription League" in 1917
   while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the
   armed forces in the first and second world wars. The
   anarcho-syndicalist influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of
   government repression due to the threat its organising and anti-war
   message presented to the powerful elites who favoured war. More
   recently, anarchists, (including people like Noam Chomsky and Paul
   Goodman) have been active in the peace movement as well as contributing
   to the resistance to conscription where it still exists. Anarchists
   took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War, the
   Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in
   Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest against it).
   And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the
   slogan "No war but the class war" which nicely sums up the anarchist
   opposition to war -- namely an evil consequence of any class system, in
   which the oppressed classes of different countries kill each other for
   the power and profits of their rulers. Rather than take part in this
   organised slaughter, anarchists urge working people to fight for their
   own interests, not those of their masters:

     "More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between
     capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach
     expropriation of private property and the destruction of states such
     as the only means of guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and
     Justice and Liberty for all; and we must prepare to accomplish these
     things." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 251]

   We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against
   Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected
   everything he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the
   First World War as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and
   Imperialism. Of course, as Malatesta pointed out, "all Governments and
   all capitalist classes" do "misdeeds . . . against the workers and
   rebels of their own countries." [Op. Cit., p. 246] He, along with
   Berkman, Goldman and a host of other anarchists, put their name to
   International Anarchist Manifesto against the First World War. It
   expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist movement (at the
   time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is worth quoting
   from:

     "The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests solely in the
     existence of the State, which is the form of privilege . . .
     Whatever the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised
     oppression for the advantage of a privileged minority . . .

     "The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace,
     is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the
     State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in
     political parties . . . This confidence has been deliberately
     betrayed, and continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of
     the whole of the press, persuade their respective people that this
     war is a war of liberation.

     "We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have
     been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.

     "The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that
     there is only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is
     waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited
     against the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to revolt
     against their masters.

     "Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and
     perseveringly aim at weakening and dissolving the various States, at
     cultivating the spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples
     and armies. . .

     "We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
     discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the
     revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs. . . Social
     justice realised through the free organisation of producers: war and
     militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won, by the
     abolition of the State and its organs of destruction."
     ["International Anarchist Manifesto on the War," Anarchy! An
     Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, pp. 386-8]

   Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is
   authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist
   principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he
   argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this
   reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as
   possible." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists
   who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they
   argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people
   and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement
   and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support
   non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide
   better roads to radical change.

   So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept
   the use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its
   use. All agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will
   just recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is
   not authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist
   violence. Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most
   reject violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the
   minimum.

A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?

   Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a
   strong voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more
   recent feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon
   anarchist practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from,
   referring to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and
   anarchist movements to remind them of their principles.

   The modern anarcha-feminists built upon the feminist ideas of previous
   anarchists, both male and female. Indeed, anarchism and feminism have
   always been closely linked. Many outstanding feminists have also been
   anarchists, including the pioneering Mary Wollstonecraft (author of A
   Vindication of the Rights of Woman), the Communard Louise Michel, and
   the American anarchists (and tireless champions of women's freedom)
   Voltairine de Cleyre and Emma Goldman (for the former, see her essays
   "Sex Slavery", "Gates of Freedom", "The Case of Woman vs. Orthodoxy",
   "Those Who Marry Do Ill"; for the latter see "The Traffic in Women",
   "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation", "Marriage and
   Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). Freedom, the world's
   oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886.
   Anarchist women like Virgilia D'Andrea and Rose Pesota played important
   roles in both the libertarian and labour movements. The "Mujeres
   Libres" ("Free Women") movement in Spain during the Spanish revolution
   is a classic example of women anarchists organising themselves to
   defend their basic freedoms and create a society based on women's
   freedom and equality (see Free Women of Spain by Martha Ackelsberg for
   more details on this important organisation). In addition, all the male
   major anarchist thinkers (bar Proudhon) were firm supporters of women's
   equality. For example, Bakunin opposed patriarchy and how the law
   "subjects [women] to the absolute domination of the man." He argued
   that "[e]qual rights must belong to men and women" so that women can
   "become independent and be free to forge their own way of life." He
   looked forward to the end of "the authoritarian juridical family" and
   "the full sexual freedom of women." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 396 and
   p. 397]

   Thus anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of
   capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of
   patriarchy (rule by men). Anarchists, particularly female ones,
   recognised that modern society was dominated by men. As Ana Maria
   Mozzoni (an Italian anarchist immigrant in Buenos Aires) put it, women
   "will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the legislator
   who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces you to an
   object is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is a man; that the
   capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid work and the
   speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body, are men." Little
   has changed since then. Patriarchy still exists and, to quote the
   anarchist paper La Questione Sociale, it is still usually the case that
   women "are slaves both in social and private life. If you are a
   proletarian, you have two tyrants: the man and the boss. If bourgeois,
   the only sovereignty left to you is that of frivolity and coquetry."
   [quoted by Jose Moya, Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement,
   pp. 197-8 and p. 200]

   Anarchism, therefore, is based on an awareness that fighting patriarchy
   is as important as fighting against the state or capitalism. For "[y]ou
   can have no free, or just, or equal society, nor anything approaching
   it, so long as womanhood is bought, sold, housed, clothed, fed, and
   protected, as a chattel." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "The Gates of
   Freedom", pp. 235-250, Eugenia C. Delamotte, Gates of Freedom, p. 242]
   To quote Louise Michel:

     "The first thing that must change is the relationship between the
     sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women, and we ought to be
     walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism, and it will last
     as long as the 'stronger' half controls, or think its controls, the
     'weaker' half." [The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel, p. 139]

   Thus anarchism, like feminism, fights patriarchy and for women's
   equality. Both share much common history and a concern about individual
   freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female sex (although,
   as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have always been
   very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going far enough).
   Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism of the
   sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much
   inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine
   points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began
   functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the
   male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations
   similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No
   accident, either." ["The Tyranny of Tyranny," Quiet Rumours: An
   Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 66] It is no accident because, as feminist
   scholars have noted, women were among the first victims of hierarchical
   society, which is thought to have begun with the rise of patriarchy and
   ideologies of domination during the late Neolithic era. Marilyn French
   argues (in Beyond Power) that the first major social stratification of
   the human race occurred when men began dominating women, with women
   becoming in effect a "lower" and "inferior" social class.

   The links between anarchism and modern feminism exist in both ideas and
   action. Leading feminist thinker Carole Pateman notes that her
   "discussion [on contract theory and its authoritarian and patriarchal
   basis] owes something to" libertarian ideas, that is the "anarchist
   wing of the socialist movement." [The Sexual Contract, p. 14] Moreover,
   she noted in the 1980s how the "major locus of criticism of
   authoritarian, hierarchical, undemocratic forms of organisation for the
   last twenty years has been the women's movement . . . After Marx
   defeated Bakunin in the First International, the prevailing form of
   organisation in the labour movement, the nationalised industries and in
   the left sects has mimicked the hierarchy of the state . . . The
   women's movement has rescued and put into practice the long-submerged
   idea [of anarchists like Bakunin] that movements for, and experiments
   in, social change must 'prefigure' the future form of social
   organisation." [The Disorder of Women, p. 201]

   Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to these strong connections between
   feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical
   feminist perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic
   theory postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian
   systems. The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to
   god, is to obey the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate
   from childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton,
   incapable of questioning or even of thinking clearly." ["Anarchism: The
   Feminist Connection," Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 26]
   Similarly, the Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists
   in recognising the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing
   it." ["Anarchism/Feminism," pp. 3-7, The Raven, no. 21, p. 6]

   Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values, for
   example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,
   desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations
   and are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast,
   non-authoritarian traits and values such as co-operation, sharing,
   compassion, sensitivity, warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as
   "feminine" and are devalued. Feminist scholars have traced this
   phenomenon back to the growth of patriarchal societies during the early
   Bronze Age and their conquest of co-operatively based "organic"
   societies in which "feminine" traits and values were prevalent and
   respected. Following these conquests, however, such values came to be
   regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since men were in charge
   of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See e.g. Riane
   Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade; Elise Boulding, The Underside of
   History). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the creation of a
   non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation, sharing,
   mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."

   Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be
   achieved without both self-management and decentralisation. This is
   because the patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish
   to overthrow are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism
   implies decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many
   feminists have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with
   collective forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical
   structure and competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have
   even argued that directly democratic organisations are specifically
   female political forms. [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and
   the Development of Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed.,
   Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, pp. 56-77]
   Like all anarchists, anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation
   is the key to women's equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman:

     "Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and
     through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and
     not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over
     her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by
     refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband,
     the family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer.
     That is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all
     its complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion
     and public condemnation." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 211]

   Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
   dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It
   proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist
   campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its
   creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion
   that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move
   towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the
   so-called "management science" which women have to learn in order to
   become mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of
   techniques for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate
   hierarchies, whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of
   capitalist wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether.
   Anarcha-feminists realise that learning how to become an effective
   exploiter or oppressor is not the path to equality (as one member of
   the Mujeres Libres put it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist
   hierarchy for a masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free
   Women of Spain, pp. 22-3] -- also see [20]section B.1.4 for a further
   discussion on patriarchy and hierarchy).

   Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)
   feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica
   Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued
   that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge
   existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's only
   ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to
   participate more fully in the existing system of privilege and if these
   institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will
   still be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by Martha A.
   Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 119] Thus, for anarchists, women's freedom did
   not mean an equal chance to become a boss or a wage slave, a voter or a
   politician, but rather to be a free and equal individual co-operating
   as equals in free associations. "Feminism," stressed Peggy Kornegger,
   "doesn't mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no
   corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not
   transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a
   hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all
   hierarchy -- economic, political, and personal. And that means an
   anarcha-feminist revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 27]

   Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis which
   is missing from mainstream feminism while, at the same time, showing an
   awareness to domestic and sex-based power relations which eluded the
   mainstream socialist movement. This flows from our hatred of hierarchy.
   As Mozzoni put it, "Anarchy defends the cause of all the oppressed, and
   because of this, and in a special way, it defends your [women's] cause,
   oh! women, doubly oppressed by present society in both the social and
   private spheres." [quoted by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 203] This means that,
   to quote a Chinese anarchist, what anarchists "mean by equality between
   the sexes is not just that the men will no longer oppress women. We
   also want men to no longer to be oppressed by other men, and women no
   longer to be oppressed by other women." Thus women should "completely
   overthrow rulership, force men to abandon all their special privileges
   and become equal to women, and make a world with neither the oppression
   of women nor the oppression of men." [He Zhen, quoted by Peter Zarrow,
   Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, p. 147]

   So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,
   liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly
   focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle could
   not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist project as a
   whole." [Op. Cit., p. 119] Anarcha-feminism continues this tradition by
   arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong, not just patriarchy, and
   that feminism is in conflict with its own ideals if it desires simply
   to allow women to have the same chance of being a boss as a man does.
   They simply state the obvious, namely that they "do not believe that
   power in the hands of women could possibly lead to a non-coercive
   society" nor do they "believe that anything good can come out of a mass
   movement with a leadership elite." The "central issues are always power
   and social hierarchy" and so people "are free only when they have power
   over their own lives." [Carole Ehrlich, "Socialism, Anarchism and
   Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 44] For if, as
   Louise Michel put it, "a proletarian is a slave; the wife of a
   proletarian is even more a slave" ensuring that the wife experiences an
   equal level of oppression as the husband misses the point. [Op. Cit.,
   p. 141]

   Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism as
   a denial of liberty. Their critique of hierarchy in the society does
   not start and end with patriarchy. It is a case of wanting freedom
   everywhere, of wanting to "[b]reak up . . . every home that rests in
   slavery! Every marriage that represents the sale and transfer of the
   individuality of one of its parties to the other! Every institution,
   social or civil, that stands between man and his right; every tie that
   renders one a master, another a serf." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "The
   Economic Tendency of Freethought", The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p.
   72] The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism would free women
   ignores the fact that any such system would still see working class
   women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For
   anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be
   separated from the struggle against hierarchy as such. As L. Susan
   Brown puts it:

     "Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility
     applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting
     point and, in opposition to relations of domination and
     subordination, argues for non-instrumental economic forms that
     preserve individual existential freedom, for both men and women."
     [The Politics of Individualism, p. 144]

   Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of the
   origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of
   hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars
   have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination
   of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See,
   for example, Caroline Merchant, The Death of Nature, 1980). Both women
   and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises
   the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of
   both radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies
   must be dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.

   In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating
   women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's
   differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting
   diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists
   assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are
   not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism
   brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the
   front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not only
   external constraints but also internal ones.

   This means that anarcha-feminism urges us to practice what we preach.
   As Voltairine de Cleyre argued, "I never expect men to give us liberty.
   No, Women, we are not worth it, until we take it." This involves
   "insisting on a new code of ethics founded on the law of equal freedom:
   a code recognising the complete individuality of woman. By making
   rebels wherever we can. By ourselves living our beliefs . . . . We are
   revolutionists. And we shall use propaganda by speech, deed, and most
   of all life -- being what we teach." Thus anarcha-feminists, like all
   anarchists, see the struggle against patriarchy as being a struggle of
   the oppressed for their own self-liberation, for "as a class I have
   nothing to hope from men . . . No tyrant ever renounced his tyranny
   until he had to. If history ever teaches us anything it teaches this.
   Therefore my hope lies in creating rebellion in the breasts of women."
   ["The Gates of Freedom", pp. 235-250, Eugenia C. Delamotte, Gates of
   Freedom, p. 249 and p. 239] This was sadly as applicable within the
   anarchist movement as it was outside it in patriarchal society.

   Faced with the sexism of male anarchists who spoke of sexual equality,
   women anarchists in Spain organised themselves into the Mujeres Libres
   organisation to combat it. They did not believe in leaving their
   liberation to some day after the revolution. Their liberation was a
   integral part of that revolution and had to be started today. In this
   they repeated the conclusions of anarchist women in Illinois Coal towns
   who grew tried of hearing their male comrades "shout in favour" of
   sexual equality "in the future society" while doing nothing about it in
   the here and now. They used a particularly insulting analogy, comparing
   their male comrades to priests who "make false promises to the starving
   masses . . . [that] there will be rewards in paradise." The argued that
   mothers should make their daughters "understand that the difference in
   sex does not imply inequality in rights" and that as well as being
   "rebels against the social system of today," they "should fight
   especially against the oppression of men who would like to retain women
   as their moral and material inferior." [Ersilia Grandi, quoted by
   Caroline Waldron Merithew, Anarchist Motherhood, p. 227] They formed
   the "Luisa Michel" group to fight against capitalism and patriarchy in
   the upper Illinois valley coal towns over three decades before their
   Spanish comrades organised themselves.

   For anarcha-feminists, combating sexism is a key aspect of the struggle
   for freedom. It is not, as many Marxist socialists argued before the
   rise of feminism, a diversion from the "real" struggle against
   capitalism which would somehow be automatically solved after the
   revolution. It is an essential part of the struggle:

     "We do not need any of your titles . . . We want none of them. What
     we do want is knowledge and education and liberty. We know what our
     rights are and we demand them. Are we not standing next to you
     fighting the supreme fight? Are you not strong enough, men, to make
     part of that supreme fight a struggle for the rights of women? And
     then men and women together will gain the rights of all humanity."
     [Louise Michel, Op. Cit., p. 142]

   A key part of this revolutionising modern society is the transformation
   of the current relationship between the sexes. Marriage is a particular
   evil for "the old form of marriage, based on the Bible, 'till death
   doth part,' . . . [is] an institution that stands for the sovereignty
   of the man over the women, of her complete submission to his whims and
   commands." Women are reduced "to the function of man's servant and
   bearer of his children." [Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 220-1] Instead of
   this, anarchists proposed "free love," that is couples and families
   based on free agreement between equals than one partner being in
   authority and the other simply obeying. Such unions would be without
   sanction of church or state for "two beings who love each other do not
   need permission from a third to go to bed." [Mozzoni, quoted by Moya,
   Op. Cit., p. 200]

   Equality and freedom apply to more than just relationships. For "if
   social progress consists in a constant tendency towards the
   equalisation of the liberties of social units, then the demands of
   progress are not satisfied so long as half society, Women, is in
   subjection. . . . Woman . . . is beginning to feel her servitude; that
   there is a requisite acknowledgement to be won from her master before
   he is put down and she exalted to -- Equality. This acknowledgement is,
   the freedom to control her own person. " [Voltairine de Cleyre, "The
   Gates of Freedom", Op. Cit., p. 242] Neither men nor state nor church
   should say what a woman does with her body. A logical extension of this
   is that women must have control over their own reproductive organs.
   Thus anarcha-feminists, like anarchists in general, are pro-choice and
   pro-reproductive rights (i.e. the right of a woman to control her own
   reproductive decisions). This is a long standing position. Emma Goldman
   was persecuted and incarcerated because of her public advocacy of birth
   control methods and the extremist notion that women should decide when
   they become pregnant (as feminist writer Margaret Anderson put it, "In
   1916, Emma Goldman was sent to prison for advocating that 'women need
   not always keep their mouth shut and their wombs open.'").

   Anarcha-feminism does not stop there. Like anarchism in general, it
   aims at changing all aspects of society not just what happens in the
   home. For, as Goldman asked, "how much independence is gained if the
   narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the
   narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department
   store, or office?" Thus women's equality and freedom had to be fought
   everywhere and defended against all forms of hierarchy. Nor can they be
   achieved by voting. Real liberation, argue anarcha-feminists, is only
   possible by direct action and anarcha-feminism is based on women's
   self-activity and self-liberation for while the "right to vote, or
   equal civil rights, may be good demands . . . true emancipation begins
   neither at the polls nor in the courts. It begins in woman's soul . . .
   her freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve freedom reaches."
   [Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 216 and p. 224]

   The history of the women's movement proves this. Every gain has come
   from below, by the action of women themselves. As Louise Michel put it,
   "[w]e women are not bad revolutionaries. Without begging anyone, we are
   taking our place in the struggles; otherwise, we could go ahead and
   pass motions until the world ends and gain nothing." [Op. Cit., p. 139]
   If women waited for others to act for them their social position would
   never have changed. This includes getting the vote in the first place.
   Faced with the militant suffrage movement for women's votes, British
   anarchist Rose Witcop recognised that it was "true that this movement
   shows us that women who so far have been so submissive to their
   masters, the men, are beginning to wake up at last to the fact they are
   not inferior to those masters." Yet she argued that women would not be
   freed by votes but "by their own strength." [quoted by Sheila
   Rowbotham, Hidden from History, pp. 100-1 and p. 101] The women's
   movement of the 1960s and 1970s showed the truth of that analysis. In
   spite of equal voting rights, women's social place had remained
   unchanged since the 1920s.

   Ultimately, as Anarchist Lily Gair Wilkinson stressed, the "call for
   'votes' can never be a call to freedom. For what is it to vote? To vote
   is to register assent to being ruled by one legislator or another?"
   [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, Op. Cit., p. 102] It does not get to the
   heart of the problem, namely hierarchy and the authoritarian social
   relationships it creates of which patriarchy is only a subset of. Only
   by getting rid of all bosses, political, economic, social and sexual
   can genuine freedom for women be achieved and "make it possible for
   women to be human in the truest sense. Everything within her that
   craves assertion and activity should reach its fullest expression; all
   artificial barriers should be broken, and the road towards greater
   freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of submission and slavery."
   [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 214]

A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?

   For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of
   anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society
   traditionally regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather
   than "economics" or "politics" -- for example, through art, music,
   drama, literature, education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality,
   technology, and so forth.

   Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they
   deliberately attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most
   traditional cultural forms to promote authoritarian values and
   attitudes, particularly domination and exploitation. Thus a novel that
   portrays the evils of militarism can be considered as cultural
   anarchism if it goes beyond the simple "war-is-hell" model and allows
   the reader to see how militarism is connected with authoritarian
   institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or methods of authoritarian
   conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional patriarchal family).
   Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism implies "the
   development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that expose
   various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them with a
   system of values based on freedom and community." This "cultural
   struggle" would be part of a general struggle "to combat the material
   and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic,
   political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional
   practice of liberation." In other words, an "expanded conception of
   class analysis" and "an amplified practice of class struggle" which
   includes, but is not limited to, "economic actions like strikes,
   boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action
   groups and federations of libertarian workers' groups and development
   of workers' assemblies, collectives and co-operatives" and "political
   activity" like the "active interference with implementation of
   repressive governmental policies," the "non-compliance and resistance
   against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society" and
   "participation in movements for increasing direct participation in
   decision-making and local control." [The Anarchist Moment, p. 31]

   Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because
   authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with
   many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values
   cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political
   revolution if there it is not also accompanied by profound
   psychological changes in the majority of the population. For mass
   acquiescence in the current system is rooted in the psychic structure
   of human beings (their "character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's
   expression), which is produced by many forms of conditioning and
   socialisation that have developed with patriarchal-authoritarian
   civilisation during the past five or six thousand years.

   In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown
   tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their
   place. For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to
   give orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for
   oneself -- are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most
   comfortable with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real
   freedom, and indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a
   long string of failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the
   revolutionary ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed
   and a new hierarchy and ruling class were quickly created. These
   failures are generally attributed to the machinations of reactionary
   politicians and capitalists, and to the perfidy of revolutionary
   leaders; but reactionary politicians only attract followers because
   they find a favourable soil for the growth of their authoritarian
   ideals in the character structure of ordinary people.

   Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of
   consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of
   submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits
   are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be
   mitigated or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new
   child-rearing and educational methods. We will explore this issue more
   fully in section B.1.5 ([21]What is the mass-psychological basis for
   authoritarian civilisation?), J.6 ([22]What methods of child rearing do
   anarchists advocate?), and J.5.13 ([23]What are Modern Schools?)

   Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist
   thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of
   any anarchist movement. For anarchists, its important to "build the new
   world in the shell of the old" in all aspects of our lives and creating
   an anarchist culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however,
   consider consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine
   cultural anarchist activities with organising, using direct action and
   building libertarian alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist
   movement is one that combines practical self-activity with cultural
   work, with both activities feeding into and supporting the other.

A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?

   Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the
   idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly
   authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their
   ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious
   anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical
   position with regards to private property and inequality. In other
   words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to
   Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and that
   this is the only 'political anti-political' position in accord with
   Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the
   Impossible, p. 75]

   There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious
   ideas. As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an
   anarchist sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient
   China from about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in
   its Zen form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 53 and p. 65] Some, like the anti-globalisation activist Starhawk,
   combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist influences.
   However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of Christian
   Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here.

   Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers that
   "kings and governors have domination over men; let there be none like
   that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there "is no authority
   except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion with the denial of state
   authority within society. Thus, for a true Christian, the state is
   usurping God's authority and it is up to each individual to govern
   themselves and discover that (to use the title of Tolstoy's famous
   book) The Kingdom of God is within you.

   Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the
   corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the world was
   created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all been taken as the
   basis of a socialistic critique of private property and capitalism.
   Indeed, the early Christian church (which could be considered as a
   liberation movement of slaves, although one that was later co-opted
   into a state religion) was based upon communistic sharing of material
   goods, a theme which has continually appeared within radical Christian
   movements inspired, no doubt, by such comments as "all that believed
   were together, and had all things in common, and they sold their
   possessions and goods, and parted them all, according as every man has
   need" and "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of
   one soul, not one of them said that all of the things which he
   possessed was his own; but they had all things in common." (Acts,
   2:44,45; 4:32)

   Unsurprisingly, the Bible would have been used to express radical
   libertarian aspirations of the oppressed, which, in later times, would
   have taken the form of anarchist or Marxist terminology). As Bookchin
   notes in his discussion of Christianity's contributions to "the legacy
   of freedom," "[b]y spawning nonconformity, heretical conventicles, and
   issues of authority over person and belief, Christianity created not
   merely a centralised authoritarian Papacy, but also its very
   antithesis: a quasi-religious anarchism." Thus "Christianity's mixed
   message can be grouped into two broad and highly conflicting systems of
   belief. On one side there was a radical, activistic, communistic, and
   libertarian vision of the Christian life" and "on the other side there
   was a conservative, quietistic, materially unwordly, and hierarchical
   vision." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 266 and pp. 274-5]

   Thus clergyman's John Ball's egalitarian comments (as quoted by Peter
   Marshall [Op. Cit., p. 89]) during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in
   England:

                       "When Adam delved and Eve span,
                         Who was then a gentleman?"

   The history of Christian anarchism includes the Heresy of the Free
   Spirit in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the Anabaptists
   in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within Christianity
   surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of William Blake and
   the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions in his Practical
   Christian Socialism in 1854. However, Christian anarchism became a
   clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement with the work of the
   famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.

   Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider
   that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of the
   Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:

     "ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom
     force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force
     would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means
     doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is,
     doing wrong." [The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 242]

   Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this
   anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society
   self-organised from below:

     "Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for
     themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for
     themselves but for others?" [The Slavery of Our Times, p. 46]

   This meant that "people can only be freed from slavery by the abolition
   of Governments." [Op. Cit., p. 49] Tolstoy urged non-violent action
   against oppression, seeing a spiritual transformation of individuals as
   the key to creating an anarchist society. As Max Nettlau argues, the
   "great truth stressed by Tolstoy is that the recognition of the power
   of the good, of goodness, of solidarity - and of all that is called
   love - lies within ourselves, and that it can and must be awakened,
   developed and exercised in our own behaviour." [A Short History of
   Anarchism, pp. 251-2] Unsurprisngly, Tolstoy thought the "anarchists
   are right in everything . . . They are mistaken only in thinking that
   anarchy can be instituted by a revolution." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
   Op. Cit., p. 375]

   Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
   capitalism. He greatly admired and was heavily influenced by Proudhon,
   considering the latter's "property is theft" as "an absolute truth"
   which would "survive as long as humanity." [quoted by Jack Hayward,
   After the French Revolution, p. 213] Like Henry George (whose ideas,
   like those of Proudhon, had a strong impact on him) he opposed private
   property in land, arguing that "were it not for the defence of landed
   property, and its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded
   into such narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which
   there is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for
   landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always those
   who take part in government violence, who have the advantage." Thus
   Tolstoy recognised that property rights in anything beyond use require
   state violence to protect them as possession is "always protected by
   custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and
   they do not need to be protected by violence." [The Slavery of Our
   Times, p. 47] Indeed, he argues that:

     "Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one
     proprietor -- while thousands of people close by have no fuel --
     need protection by violence. So, too, do factories and works where
     several generations of workmen have been defrauded and are still
     being defrauded. Yet more do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of
     grain, belonging to one owner, who has held them back to sell at
     triple price in time of famine." [Op. Cit., pp. 47-8]

   As with other anarchists, Tolstoy recognised that under capitalism,
   economic conditions "compel [the worker] to go into temporary or
   perpetual slavery to a capitalist" and so is "obliged to sell his
   liberty." This applied to both rural and urban workers, for the "slaves
   of our times are not only all those factory and workshop hands, who
   must sell themselves completely into the power of the factory and
   foundry owners in order to exist; but nearly all the agricultural
   labourers are slaves, working as they do unceasingly to grow another's
   corn on another's field." Such a system could only be maintained by
   violence, for "first, the fruit of their toil is unjustly and violently
   taken form the workers, and then the law steps in, and these very
   articles which have been taken from the workmen -- unjustly and by
   violence -- are declared to be the absolute property of those who have
   stolen them." [Op. Cit., p. 34, p. 31 and p. 38]

   Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined
   individuals and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it
   impossible for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer
   is a man whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers,
   and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and
   therefore, "he must first give up ruining human lives for his own
   profit." [The Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338 and p. 339]
   Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social
   activity which a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a
   party of violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op.
   Cit., p. 378]

   So, for Tolstoy, "taxes, or land-owning or property in articles of use
   or in the means of production" produces "the slavery of our times."
   However, he rejected the state socialist solution to the social problem
   as political power would create a new form of slavery on the ruins of
   the old. This was because "the fundamental cause of slavery is
   legislation: the fact that there are people who have the power to make
   laws." This requires "organised violence used by people who have power,
   in order to compel others to obey the laws they (the powerful) have
   made -- in other words, to do their will." Handing over economic life
   to the state would simply mean "there will be people to whom power will
   be given to regulate all these matters. Some people will decide these
   questions, and others will obey them." [Tolstoy, Op. Cit., p. 40, p.
   41, p. 43 and p. 25] He correctly prophetised that "the only thing that
   will happen" with the victory of Marxism would be "that despotism will
   be passed on. Now the capitalists are ruling, but then the directors of
   the working class will rule." [quoted by Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 379]

   From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and private
   property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within society and
   create a just society. For Tolstoy, government could only be destroyed
   by a mass refusal to obey, by non-participation in govermmental
   violence and by exposing fraud of statism to the world. He rejected the
   idea that force should be used to resist or end the force of the state.
   In Nettlau's words, he "asserted . . . resistance to evil; and to one
   of the ways of resistance - by active force - he added another way:
   resistance through disobedience, the passive force." [Op. Cit., p. 251]
   In his ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural
   Russian life and aimed for a society based on peasant farming of
   communal land, artisans and small-scale co-operatives. He rejected
   industrialisation as the product of state violence, arguing that "such
   division of labour as now exists will . . . be impossible in a free
   society." [Tolstoy, Op. Cit., p. 26]

   Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his
   fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain out
   of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation of
   peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a free
   society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist). The
   Catholic Worker Group
   in the United States was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy (and
   Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch Christian pacifist and
   anarchist who founded it in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and
   religious anarchism in general can also be found in Liberation Theology
   movements in Latin and South America who combine Christian ideas with
   social activism amongst the working class and peasantry (although we
   should note that Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by
   state socialist ideas rather than anarchist ones).

   So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws anarchist
   conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in [24]section A.2.20,
   most anarchists disagree, arguing that anarchism implies atheism and it
   is no coincidence that the biblical thought has, historically, been
   associated with hierarchy and defence of earthly rulers. Thus the vast
   majority of anarchists have been and are atheists, for "to worship or
   revere any being, natural or supernatural, will always be a form of
   self-subjugation and servitude that will give rise to social
   domination. As [Bookchin] writes: 'The moment that human beings fall on
   their knees before anything that is 'higher' than themselves, hierarchy
   will have made its first triumph over freedom.'" [Brian Morris, Ecology
   and Anarchism, p. 137] This means that most anarchists agree with
   Bakunin that if God existed it would be necessary, for human freedom
   and dignity, to abolish it. Given what the Bible says, few anarchists
   think it can be used to justify libertarian ideas rather than support
   authoritarian ones and are not surprised that the hierarchical side of
   Christianity has predominated in its long (and generally oppressive)
   history.

   Atheist anarchists point to the fact that the Bible is notorious for
   advocating all kinds of abuses. How does the Christian anarchist
   reconcile this? Are they a Christian first, or an anarchist? Equality,
   or adherence to the Scripture? For a believer, it seems no choice at
   all. If the Bible is the word of God, how can an anarchist support the
   more extreme positions it takes while claiming to believe in God, his
   authority and his laws?

   For example, no capitalist nation would implement the no working on the
   Sabbath law which the Bible expounds. Most Christian bosses have been
   happy to force their fellow believers to work on the seventh day in
   spite of the Biblical penalty of being stoned to death ("Six days shall
   work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day,
   a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be
   put to death." Exodus 35:2). Would a Christian anarchist advocate such
   a punishment for breaking God's law? Equally, a nation which allowed a
   woman to be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night
   would, rightly, be considered utterly evil. Yet this is the fate
   specified in the "good book" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Would premarital
   sex by women be considered a capital crime by a Christian anarchist?
   Or, for that matter, should "a stubborn and rebellious son, which will
   not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother" also
   suffer the fate of having "all the men of his city . . . stone him with
   stones, that he die"? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Or what of the Bible's
   treatment of women: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands."
   (Colossians 3:18) They are also ordered to "keep silence in the
   churches." (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Male rule is explicitly stated: "I
   would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head
   of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians
   11:3)

   Clearly, a Christian anarchist would have to be as highly selective as
   non-anarchist believers when it comes to applying the teachings of the
   Bible. The rich rarely proclaim the need for poverty (at least for
   themselves) and seem happy to forgot (like the churches) the difficulty
   a rich man apparently has entering heaven, for example. They seem happy
   to ignore Jesus' admonition that "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell
   that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
   heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21). The followers of the
   Christian right do not apply this to their political leaders, or, for
   that matter, their spiritual ones. Few apply the maxim to "Give to
   every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods
   ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Nor do they
   hold "all things common" as practised by the first Christian believers.
   (Acts 4:32) So if non-anarchist believers are to be considered as
   ignoring the teachings of the Bible by anarchist ones, the same can be
   said of them by those they attack.

   Moreover idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to
   reconcile with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice
   far more than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches
   hold de facto political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South
   America, in nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth,
   typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has
   the power to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role
   of the Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.

   In addition, most social anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as
   dogmatic and extreme, seeing the need (sometimes) for violence to
   resist greater evils. However, most anarchists would agree with
   Tolstoyians on the need for individual transformation of values as a
   key aspect of creating an anarchist society and on the importance of
   non-violence as a general tactic (although, we must stress, that few
   anarchists totally reject the use of violence in self-defence, when no
   other option is available).

A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"?

   In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "anarchism without
   adjectives" in its broadest sense "referred to an unhyphenated form of
   anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as
   communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, . . .
   [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the
   coexistence of different anarchist schools." [Anarchist Ideology and
   the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898, p. 135]

   The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del
   Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his
   comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain who
   at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of their two
   theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt to show greater
   tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists
   should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone -- even in
   theory. Thus the economic preferences of anarchists should be of
   "secondary importance" to abolishing capitalism and the state, with
   free experimentation the one rule of a free society.

   Thus the theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetives"
   ("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a
   intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument
   can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's
   death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism
   (as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the New
   Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did see
   their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist
   Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as
   Bakunin had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist
   Anarchism was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo
   Cafiero, Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.

   Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as
   the main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major
   issue was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella
   this played a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and
   tactics implied by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the
   Communist Anarchists stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist
   militants, generally opposed trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not
   one of these as he saw the importance of militant workers
   organisations) as well as being somewhat anti-organisation as well.
   Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy and tactics came in for a lot
   of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists who strongly supported
   working class organisation and struggle.

   This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its
   way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many
   anarchists to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right
   for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses."
   [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over
   time, most anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot
   foresee the economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and
   so started to stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism
   and the state) rather than the different visions of how a free society
   would operate. As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that
   ignoring the labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the
   working class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their
   commitment to communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than
   later, after a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work
   together as there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools,
   in our eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to
   variation in time and place, of the society of the future, which is too
   remote from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and
   possible combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and
   the individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation
   of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at
   this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them."
   [Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173]

   Thus, Malatesta continued, "[e]ven the question as between
   anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of
   qualification, of method and agreement" as the key is that, no matter
   the system, "a new moral conscience will come into being, which will
   make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just as legal slavery
   and compulsion are now repugnant to them." If this happens then,
   "whatever the specific forms of society may turn out to be, the basis
   of social organisation will be communist." As long as we "hold to
   fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to instil them in the
   masses" we need not "quarrel over mere words or trifles but give
   post-revolutionary society a direction towards justice, equality and
   liberty." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173 and p. 174]

   Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the
   same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There
   Benjamin Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not
   anarchists while John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's
   ideas. Just as people like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of
   tolerance between anarchist groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de
   Cleyre "came to label herself simply 'Anarchist,' and called like
   Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without Adjectives,' since in the absence
   of government many different experiments would probably be tried in
   various localities in order to determine the most appropriate form."
   [Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 393] In her own words, a
   whole range of economic systems would be "advantageously tried in
   different localities. I would see the instincts and habits of the
   people express themselves in a free choice in every community; and I am
   sure that distinct environments would call out distinct adaptations."
   ["Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 79] Consequently, individualist and
   communist anarchist "forms of society, as well as many intermediations,
   would, in the absence of government, be tried in various localities,
   according to the instincts and material condition of the people . . .
   Liberty and experiment alone can determine the best forms of society.
   Therefore I no longer label myself otherwise than 'Anarchist' simply."
   ["The Making of An Anarchist", The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, pp.
   107-8]

   These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such
   noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting
   the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without
   adjectives" (see Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism, pages 195 to
   201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant
   position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists
   recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist"
   while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types of
   anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are flawed.
   However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism
   (communism, syndicalism, religious etc) are not mutually exclusive and
   you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance is
   reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives."

   One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the
   tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue that
   their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist movement.
   After all, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid of the
   state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a use of
   "anarchism without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly agreed at
   the time that the types of economics that were being discussed were
   anti-capitalist (i.e. socialistic). For Malatesta, for example, there
   were "anarchists who foresee and propose other solution, other future
   forms of social organisation" than communist anarchism, but they
   "desire, just as we do, to destroy political power and private
   property." "Let us do away," he argued, "with all exclusivism of
   schools of thinking" and let us "come to an understanding on ways and
   means, and go forwards." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 175] In other
   words, it was agreed that capitalism had to be abolished along with the
   state and once this was the case free experimentation would develop.
   Thus the struggle against the state was just one part of a wider
   struggle to end oppression and exploitation and could not be isolated
   from these wider aims. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the
   abolition of capitalism along with the state they are not anarchists
   and so "anarchism without adjectives" does not apply to the so-called
   "anarchist" capitalists (see [25]section F on why "anarcho"-capitalism
   is not anarchist).

   This is not to say that after a revolution "anarcho"-capitalist
   communities would not exist. Far from it. If a group of people wanted
   to form such a system then they could, just as we would expect a
   community which supported state socialism or theocracy to live under
   that regime. Such enclaves of hierarchy would exist simply because it
   is unlikely that everyone on the planet, or even in a given
   geographical area, will become anarchists all at the same time. The key
   thing to remember is that no such system would be anarchist and,
   consequently, is not "anarchism without adjectives."

A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?

   As discussed in [26]section A.3.3, most anarchists would agree with
   Situationist Ken Knabb in arguing that "in a liberated world computers
   and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate dangerous or
   boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more interesting
   activities." Obviously "[c]ertain technologies -- nuclear power is the
   most obvious example -- are indeed so insanely dangerous that they will
   no doubt be brought to a prompt halt. Many other industries which
   produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities will, of course,
   cease automatically with the disappearance of their commercial
   rationales. But many technologies . . ., however they may presently be
   misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. It's simply a matter of
   using them more sensibly, bringing them under popular control,
   introducing a few ecological improvements, and redesigning them for
   human rather than capitalistic ends." [Public Secrets, p. 79 and p. 80]
   Thus most eco-anarchists see the use of appropriate technology as the
   means of creating a society which lives in balance with nature.

   However, a small but vocal minority of self-proclaimed Green anarchists
   disagree. Writers such as John Zerzan, John Moore and David Watson have
   expounded a vision of anarchism which, they claim, aims to critique
   every form of power and oppression. This is often called
   "anarcho-primitivism," which according to Moore, is simply "a shorthand
   term for a radical current that critiques the totality of civilisation
   from an anarchist perspective, and seeks to initiate a comprehensive
   transformation of human life." [Primitivist Primer]

   How this current expresses itself is diverse, with the most extreme
   elements seeking the end of all forms of technology, division of
   labour, domestication, "Progress", industrialism, what they call "mass
   society" and, for some, even symbolic culture (i.e. numbers, language,
   time and art). They tend to call any system which includes these
   features "civilisation" and, consequently, aim for "the destruction of
   civilisation". How far back they wish to go is a moot point. Some see
   the technological level that existed before the Industrial Revolution
   as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture and all forms of
   technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the wild, to a
   hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist and
   dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used to
   create an anarchist society based on industrial production which
   minimises its impact on ecosystems.

   Thus we find the primitivist magazine "Green Anarchy" arguing that
   those, like themselves, "who prioritise the values of personal autonomy
   or wild existence have reason to oppose and reject all large-scale
   organisations and societies on the grounds that they necessitate
   imperialism, slavery and hierarchy, regardless of the purposes they may
   be designed for." They oppose capitalism as it is "civilisation's
   current dominant manifestation." However, they stress that it is
   "Civilisation, not capitalism per se, was the genesis of systemic
   authoritarianism, compulsory servitude and social isolation. Hence, an
   attack upon capitalism that fails to target civilisation can never
   abolish the institutionalised coercion that fuels society. To attempt
   to collectivise industry for the purpose of democratising it is to fail
   to recognise that all large-scale organisations adopt a direction and
   form that is independent of its members' intentions." Thus, they argue,
   genuine anarchists must oppose industry and technology for
   "[h]ierarchical institutions, territorial expansion, and the
   mechanisation of life are all required for the administration and
   process of mass production to occur." For primitivists, "[o]nly small
   communities of self-sufficient individuals can coexist with other
   beings, human or not, without imposing their authority upon them." Such
   communities would share essential features with tribal societies,
   "[f]or over 99% of human history, humans lived within small and
   egalitarian extended family arrangements, while drawing their
   subsistence directly from the land." [Against Mass Society]

   While such tribal communities, which lived in harmony with nature and
   had little or no hierarchies, are seen as inspirational, primitivists
   look (to use the title of a John Zerzan book) forward to seeing the
   "Future Primitive." As John Moore puts it, "the future envisioned by
   anarcho-primitivism . . . is without precedent. Although primitive
   cultures provide intimations of the future, and that future may well
   incorporate elements derived from those cultures, an
   anarcho-primitivist world would likely be quite different from previous
   forms of anarchy." [Op. Cit.]

   For the primitivist, other forms of anarchism are simply self-managed
   alienation within essentially the same basic system we now endure.
   Hence Moore's comment that "classical anarchism" wants "to take over
   civilisation, rework its structures to some degree, and remove its
   worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in civilisation
   remains unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely because the
   aspects of civilisation they question are minimal . . . overall life
   patterns wouldn't change too much." Thus "[f]rom the perspective of
   anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism appear as reformist,
   whether or not they regard themselves as revolutionary." [Op. Cit.]

   In reply, "classical anarchists" point out three things. Firstly, to
   claim that the "worst abuses and oppressions" account for 1% of
   capitalist society is simply nonsense and, moreover, something an
   apologist of that system would happily agree with. Secondly, it is
   obvious from reading any "classical" anarchist text that Moore's
   assertions are nonsense. "Classical" anarchism aims to transform
   society radically from top to bottom, not tinker with minor aspects of
   it. Do primitivists really think that people who went to the effort to
   abolish capitalism would simply continue doing 99% of the same things
   they did before hand? Of course not. In other words, it is not enough
   to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!
   Thirdly, and most importantly, Moore's argument ensures that his new
   society would be impossible to reach.

   So, as can be seen, primitivism has little or no bearing to the
   traditional anarchist movement and its ideas. The visions of both are
   simply incompatible, with the ideas of the latter dismissed as
   authoritarian by the former and anarchists questioning whether
   primitivism is practical in the short term or even desirable in the
   long. While supporters of primitivism like to portray it as the most
   advanced and radical form of anarchism, others are less convinced. They
   consider it as a confused ideology which draws its followers into
   absurd positions and, moreover, is utterly impractical. They would
   agree with Ken Knabb that primitivism is rooted in "fantasies [which]
   contain so many obvious self-contradictions that it is hardly necessary
   to criticise them in any detail. They have questionable relevance to
   actual past societies and virtually no relevance to present
   possibilities. Even supposing that life was better in one or another
   previous era, we have to begin from where we are now. Modern technology
   is so interwoven with all aspects of our life that it could not be
   abruptly discontinued without causing a global chaos that would wipe
   out billions of people." [Op. Cit., p. 79]

   The reason for this is simply that we live in a highly industrialised
   and interconnected system in which most people do not have the skills
   required to live in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society.
   Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that six billion people could
   survive as hunter-gatherers even if they had the necessary skills. As
   Brian Morris notes, "[t]he future we are told is 'primitive.' How this
   is to be achieved in a world that presently sustains almost six billion
   people (for evidence suggests that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is
   only able to support 1 or 2 people per sq. mile)" primitivists like
   Zerzan do not tell us. ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41,
   Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38] Most anarchists,
   therefore, agree with Chomsky's summation that "I do not think that
   they are realising that what they are calling for is the mass genocide
   of millions of people because of the way society is now structured and
   organised . . . If you eliminate these structures everybody dies . . .
   And, unless one thinks through these things, it's not really serious."
   [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 226]

   Somewhat ironically, many proponents of primitivsm agree with its
   critics that the earth would be unable to support six billion living as
   a hunter-gatherers. This, critics argue, gives primitivism a key
   problem in that population levels will take time to fall and so any
   "primitivist" rebellion faces two options. Either it comes about via
   some kind of collapse of "civilisation" or it involves a lengthy
   transition period during which "civilisation" and its industrial
   legacies are decommissioned safely, population levels drop naturally to
   an appropriate level and people gain the necessary skills required for
   their new existence.

   The problems with the first option should be obvious but, sadly, it is
   implied by many primitivist writers. Moore, for example, talks about
   "when civilisation collapses" ("through its own volition, through our
   efforts, or a combination of the two"). This implies an extremely
   speedy process which is confirmed when he talks about the need for
   "positive alternatives" to be built now as "the social disruption
   caused by collapse could easily create the psychological insecurity and
   social vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian dictatorships
   could flourish." [Op. Cit.] Social change based on "collapse,"
   "insecurity" and "social disruption" does not sound like a recipe for a
   successful revolution.

   Then there are the anti-organisation dogmas expounded by primitivism.
   Moore is typical, asserting that "[o]rganisations, for
   anarcho-primitivists, are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular
   ideology in power" and reiterates the point by saying primitivists
   stand for "the abolition of all power relations, including the State .
   . . and any kind of party or organisation." [Op. Cit.] Yet without
   organisation, no modern society could function. There would be a total
   and instant collapse which would see not only mass starvation but also
   ecological destruction as nuclear power stations meltdown, industrial
   waste seeps into the surrounding environment, cities and towns decay
   and hordes of starving people fighting over what vegetables, fruits and
   animals they could find in the countryside. Clearly an
   anti-organisation dogma can only be reconciled with the idea of a near
   overnight "collapse" of civilisation, not with a steady progress
   towards a long term goal. Equally, how many "positive alternatives"
   could exist without organisation?

   Moore dismissed any critique that points out that a collapse would
   cause mass destruction as "just smear tactics," "weird fantasies spread
   by some commentators hostile to anarcho-primitivism who suggest that
   the population levels envisaged by anarcho-primitivists would have to
   be achieved by mass die-offs or nazi-style death camps." The
   "commitment of anarcho-primitivists to the abolition of all power
   relations . . . means that such orchestrated slaughter remains an
   impossibility as well as just plain horrendous." [Op. Cit.] Yet no
   critic is suggesting that primitivists desire such a die-off or seek to
   organise it. They simply point out that the collapse of civilisation
   would result in a mass die-off due to the fact that most people do not
   have the skills necessary to survive it nor could the Earth provide
   enough food for six billion people trying to live in a primitivist
   manner. Other primitivists have asserted that it can, stating "[i]t is
   not possible for all six billion of the planet's current inhabitants to
   survive as hunter-gatherers, but it is possible for those who can't to
   grow their own food in significantly smaller spaces . . . as has been
   demonstrated by permaculture, organic gardening, and indigenous
   horticulture techniques." [Against Mass Society] Unfortunately no
   evidence was provided to show the truth of this assertion nor that
   people could develop the necessary skills in time even if it were. It
   seems a slim hope to place the fate of billions on, so that humanity
   can be "wild" and free from such tyrannies as hospitals, books and
   electricity.

   Faced with the horrors that such a "collapse" would entail, those
   primitivists who have thought the issue through end up accepting the
   need for a transition period. John Zerzan, for example, argues that it
   "seems evident that industrialisation and the factories could not be
   gotten rid of instantly, but equally clear that their liquidation must
   be pursued with all the vigour behind the rush of break-out." Even the
   existence of cities is accepted, for "[c]ultivation within the cities
   is another aspect of practical transition." [On the Transition:
   Postscript to Future Primitive]

   However, to accept the necessity of a transition period does little
   more than expose the contradictions within primitivism. Zerzan notes
   that "the means of reproducing the prevailing Death Ship (e.g. its
   technology) cannot be used to fashion a liberated world." He ponders:
   "What would we keep? 'Labour-saving devices?' Unless they involve no
   division of labour (e.g. a lever or incline), this concept is a
   fiction; behind the 'saving' is hidden the congealed drudgery of many
   and the despoliation of the natural world." How this is compatible with
   maintaining "industrialisation and the factories" for a (non-specified)
   period is unclear. Similarly, he argues that "[i]nstead of the coercion
   of work -- and how much of the present could continue without precisely
   that coercion? -- an existence without constraints is an immediate,
   central objective." [Op. Cit.] How that is compatible with the arguing
   that industry would be maintained for a time is left unasked, never
   mind unanswered. And if "work" continues, how is this compatible with
   the typical primitivist dismissal of "traditional" anarchism, namely
   that self-management is managing your own alienation and that no one
   will want to work in a factory or in a mine and, therefore, coercion
   will have to be used to make them do so? Does working in a self-managed
   workplace somehow become less alienating and authoritarian during a
   primitivist transition?

   It is an obvious fact that the human population size cannot be reduced
   significantly by voluntary means in a short period of time. For
   primitivism to be viable, world population levels need to drop by
   something like 90%. This implies a drastic reduction of population will
   take decades, if not centuries, to achieve voluntarily. Given that it
   is unlikely that (almost) everyone on the planet will decide not to
   have children, this time scale will almost certainly be centuries and
   so agriculture and most industries will have to continue (and an exodus
   from the cities would be impossible immediately). Likewise, reliable
   contraceptives are a product of modern technology and, consequently,
   the means of producing them would have to maintained over that time --
   unless primitivists argue that along with refusing to have children,
   people will also refuse to have sex.

   Then there is the legacy of industrial society, which simply cannot be
   left to decay on its own. To take just one obvious example, leaving
   nuclear power plants to melt down would hardly be eco-friendly.
   Moreover, it is doubtful that the ruling elite will just surrender its
   power without resistance and, consequently, any social revolution would
   need to defend itself against attempts to reintroduce hierarchy.
   Needless to say, a revolution which shunned all organisation and
   industry as inherently authoritarian would not be able to do this (it
   would have been impossible to produce the necessary military supplies
   to fight Franco's fascist forces during the Spanish Revolution if the
   workers had not converted and used their workplaces to do so, to note
   another obvious example).

   Then there is another, key, contradiction. For if you accept that there
   is a need for a transition from 'here' to 'there' then primitivism
   automatically excludes itself from the anarchist tradition. The reason
   is simple. Moore asserts that "mass society" involves "people working,
   living in artificial, technologised environments, and [being] subject
   to forms of coercion and control." [Op. Cit.] So if what primitivists
   argue about technology, industry and mass society are all true, then
   any primitivist transition would, by definition, not be libertarian.
   This is because "mass society" will have to remain for some time (at
   the very least decades, more likely centuries) after a successful
   revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective, be based
   on "forms of coercion and control." There is an ideology which
   proclaims the need for a transitional system which will be based on
   coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in time, disappear into a
   stateless society. It also, like primitivism, stresses that industry
   and large scale organisation is impossible without hierarchy and
   authority. That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to
   "classical" anarchists to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating
   Engels arguments against Bakunin as arguments for "anarchy" (see
   [27]section H.4 for a discussion of Engels claims that industry
   excludes autonomy).

   So if, as seems likely, any transition will take centuries to achieve
   then the primivitist critique of "traditional" anarchism becomes little
   more than a joke -- and a hindrance to meaningful anarchist practice
   and social change. It shows the contradiction at the heart of
   primitivism. While its advocates attack other anarchists for supporting
   technology, organisation, self-management of work, industrialisation
   and so on, they are themselves are dependent on the things they oppose
   as part of any humane transition to a primitivist society. And given
   the passion with which they attack other anarchists on these matters,
   unsurprisingly the whole notion of a primitivist transition period
   seems impossible to other anarchists. To denounce technology and
   industrialism as inherently authoritarian and then turn round and
   advocate their use after a revolution simply does not make sense from a
   logical or libertarian perspective.

   Thus the key problem with primitivism can be seen. It offers no
   practical means of achieving its goals in a libertarian manner. As
   Knabb summarises, "[w]hat begins as a valid questioning of excessive
   faith in science and technology ends up as a desperate and even less
   justified faith in the return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a
   failure to engage the present system in any but an abstract,
   apocalyptical way." To avoid this, it is necessary to take into account
   where we are now and, consequently, we will have to "seriously consider
   how we will deal with all the practical problems that will be posed in
   the interim." [Op. Cit., p. 80 and p. 79] Sadly, primitivist ideology
   excludes this possibility by dismissing the starting point any real
   revolution would begin from as being inherently authoritarian.
   Moreover, they are blocking genuine social change by ensuring that no
   mass movement would ever be revolutionary enough to satisfy their
   criteria:

     "Those who proudly proclaim their 'total opposition' to all
     compromise, all authority, all organisation, all theory, all
     technology, etc., usually turn out to have no revolutionary
     perspective whatsoever -- no practical conception of how the present
     system might be overthrown or how a post-revolutionary society might
     work. Some even attempt to justify this lack by declaring that a
     mere revolution could never be radical enough to satisfy their
     eternal ontological rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing bombast may
     temporarily impress a few spectators, but its ultimate effect is
     simply to make people blas." [Knabb, Op. Cit., pp. 31-32]

   Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving
   primitivism. Moore argues that the "kind of world envisaged by
   anarcho-primitivism is one unprecedented in human experience in terms
   of the degree and types of freedom anticipated ... so there can't be
   any limits on the forms of resistance and insurgency that might
   develop." [Op. Cit.] Non-primitivists reply by saying that this implies
   primitivists don't know what they want nor how to get there. Equally,
   they stress that there must be limits on what are considered acceptable
   forms of resistance. This is because means shape the ends created and
   so authoritarian means will result in authoritarian ends. Tactics are
   not neutral and support for certain tactics betray an authoritarian
   perspective.

   This can be seen from the UK magazine "Green Anarchist," part of the
   extreme end of "Primitivism." Due to its inherent unattractiveness for
   most people, it could never come about by libertarian means (i.e. by
   the free choice of individuals who create it by their own acts) and so
   cannot be anarchist as very few people would actually voluntarily
   embrace such a situation. This led to "Green Anarchist" developing a
   form of eco-vanguardism in order, to use Rousseau's expression, to
   "force people to be free." This was expressed when the magazine
   supported the actions and ideas of the (non-anarchist) Unabomber and
   published an article ("The Irrationalists") by one its editors stating
   that "the Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they
   did not blast any more government offices . . . The Tokyo sarin cult
   had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior
   to the attack they gave themselves away." [Green Anarchist, no. 51, p.
   11] A defence of these remarks was published in the next issue and a
   subsequent exchange of letters in the US-based Anarchy: A Journal of
   Desire Armed magazine (numbers 48 to 52) saw the other editor justify
   this sick, authoritarian nonsense as simply examples of "unmediated
   resistance" conducted "under conditions of extreme repression."
   Whatever happened to the anarchist principle that means shape the ends?
   This means there are "limits" on tactics, as some tactics are not and
   can never be libertarian.

   However, few primitivists take such an extreme position. Most
   "primitivist" anarchists rather than being anti-technology and
   anti-civilisation as such instead (to use David Watson's expression)
   believe it is a case of the "affirmation of aboriginal lifeways" and of
   taking a far more critical approach to issues such as technology,
   rationality and progress than that associated with Social Ecology.
   These eco-anarchists reject "a dogmatic primitivism which claims we can
   return in some linear way to our primordial roots" just as much as the
   idea of "progress," "superseding both Enlightenment and
   Counter-Enlightenment" ideas and traditions. For them, Primitivism
   "reflects not only a glimpse at life before the rise of the state, but
   also a legitimate response to real conditions of life under
   civilisation" and so we should respect and learn from "palaeolithic and
   neolithic wisdom traditions" (such as those associated with Native
   American tribes and other aboriginal peoples). While we "cannot, and
   would not want to abandon secular modes of thinking and experiencing
   the world. . . we cannot reduce the experience of life, and the
   fundamental, inescapable questions why we live, and how we live, to
   secular terms. . . Moreover, the boundary between the spiritual and the
   secular is not so clear. A dialectical understanding that we are our
   history would affirm an inspirited reason that honours not only
   atheistic Spanish revolutionaries who died for el ideal, but also
   religious pacifist prisoners of conscience, Lakota ghost dancers,
   taoist hermits and executed sufi mystics." [David Watson, Beyond
   Bookchin: Preface for a future social ecology, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240
   and pp. 66-67]

   Such "primitivist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines,
   mostly US-based, like Fifth Estate. For example, on the question of
   technology, they argue that "[w]hile market capitalism was a spark that
   set the fire, and remains at the centre of the complex, it is only part
   of something larger: the forced adaptation of organic human societies
   to an economic-instrumental civilisation and its mass technics, which
   are not only hierarchical and external but increasingly 'cellular' and
   internal. It makes no sense to layer the various elements of this
   process in a mechanistic hierarchy of first cause and secondary
   effects." [Watson, Op. Cit., pp. 127-8] For this reason primitivists
   are more critical of all aspects of technology, including calls by
   social ecologists for the use of appropriate technology essential in
   order to liberate humanity and the planet:

     "To speak of technological society is in fact to refer to the
     technics generated within capitalism, which in turn generate new
     forms of capital. The notion of a distinct realm of social relations
     that determine this technology is not only ahistorical and
     undialectical, it reflects a kind of simplistic base/superstructure
     schema." [Watson, Op. Cit., p. 124]

   Thus it is not a case of who uses technology which determines its
   effects, rather the effects of technology are determined to a large
   degree by the society that creates it. In other words, technology is
   selected which tends to re-enforce hierarchical power as it is those in
   power who generally select which technology is introduced within
   society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent habit of
   turning technology against the powerful and technological change and
   social struggle are inter-related -- see [28]section D.10). Thus even
   the use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from the
   range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have
   certain effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of
   critically evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and
   rejecting it as required to maximise individual freedom, empowerment
   and happiness. Few Social Ecologists would disagree with this approach,
   though, and differences are usually a question of emphasis rather than
   a deep political point.

   However, few anarchists are convinced by an ideology which, as Brian
   Morris notes, dismisses the "last eight thousand years or so of human
   history" as little more than a source "of tyranny, hierarchical
   control, mechanised routine devoid of any spontaneity. All those
   products of the human creative imagination -- farming, art, philosophy,
   technology, science, urban living, symbolic culture -- are viewed
   negatively by Zerzan -- in a monolithic sense." While there is no
   reason to worship progress, there is just as little need to dismiss all
   change and development out of hand as oppressive. Nor are they
   convinced by Zerzan's "selective culling of the anthropological
   literature." [Op. Cit., p. 38] Most anarchists would concurr with
   Murray Bookchin:

     "The ecology movement will never gain any real influence or have any
     significant impact on society if it advances a message of despair
     rather than hope, of a regressive and impossible return to
     primordial human cultures, rather than a commitment to human
     progress and to a unique human empathy for life as a whole . . . We
     must recover the utopian impulses, the hopefulness, the appreciation
     of what is good, what is worth rescuing in yumn civilisation, as
     well as what must be rejected, if the ecology movement is to play a
     transformative and creative role in human affairs. For without
     changing society, we will not change the diastrous ecological
     direction in which capitalism is moving." [The Ecology of Freedom,
     p. 63]

   In addition, a position of "turning back the clock" is deeply flawed,
   for while some aboriginal societies are very anarchistic, not all are.
   As anarchist anthropologist David Graeber points out, "we know almost
   nothing about like in Palaeolithic, other than the sort of thing that
   can be gleaned from studying very old skulls . . . But what we see in
   the more recent ethnographic records is endless variety. There were
   hunter-gatherer societies with nobles and slaves, there are agrarian
   societies that are fiercely egalitarian. Even in . . . Amazonia, one
   finds some groups who can justly be described as anarchists, like the
   Piaroa, living alongside others (say, the warlike Sherentre, who are
   clearly anything but." [Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, pp.
   53-4] Even if we speculate, like Zerzan, that if we go back far enough
   we would find all of humanity in anarchistic tribes, the fact remains
   that certain of these societies did develop into statist, propertarian
   ones implying that a future anarchist society that is predominantly
   inspired by and seek to reproduce key elements of prehistoric forms of
   anarchy is not the answer as "civilisation" may develop again due to
   the same social or environmental factors.

   Primitivism confuses two radically different positions, namely support
   for a literal return to primitive lifeways and the use of examples from
   primitive life as a tool for social critique. Few anarchists would
   disagree with the second position as they recognise that current does
   not equal better and, consequently, past cultures and societies can
   have positive (as well as negative) aspects to them which can shed
   light on what a genuinely human society can be like. Similarly if
   "primitivism" simply involved questioning technology along with
   authority, few would disagree. However, this sensible position is, in
   the main, subsumed within the first one, the idea that an anarchist
   society would be a literal return to hunter-gatherer society. That this
   is the case can be seen from primitivist writings (some primitivists
   say that they are not suggesting the Stone Age as a model for their
   desired society nor a return to gathering and hunting, yet they seem to
   exclude any other options by their critique).

   So to suggest that primitivism is simply a critique or some sort of
   "anarchist speculation" (to use John Moore's term) seems incredulous.
   If you demonise technology, organisation, "mass society" and
   "civilisation" as inherently authoritarian, you cannot turn round and
   advocate their use in a transition period or even in a free society. As
   such, the critique points to a mode of action and a vision of a free
   society and to suggest otherwise is simply incredulous. Equally, if you
   praise foraging bands and shifting horticultural communities of past
   and present as examples of anarchy then critics are entitled to
   conclude that primitivists desire a similar system for the future. This
   is reinforced by the critiques of industry, technology, "mass society"
   and agriculture.

   Until such time as "primitivists" clearly state which of the two forms
   of primitivism they subscribe to, other anarchists will not take their
   ideas that seriously. Given that they fail to answer such basic
   questions of how they plan to deactivate industry safely and avoid mass
   starvation without the workers' control, international links and
   federal organisation they habitually dismiss out of hand as new forms
   of "governance," other anarchists do not hold much hope that it will
   happen soon. Ultimately, we are faced with the fact that a revolution
   will start in society as it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests
   a means of transforming it. Primitivism shies away from such minor
   problems and, consequently, has little to recommend it in most
   anarchists' eyes.

   This is not to suggest, of course, that non-primitivist anarchists
   think that everyone in a free society must have the same level of
   technology. Far from it. An anarchist society would be based on free
   experimentation. Different individuals and groups will pick the way of
   life that best suits them. Those who seek less technological ways of
   living will be free to do so as will those who want to apply the
   benefits of (appropriate) technologies. Similarly, all anarchists
   support the struggles of those in the developing world against the
   onslaught of (capitalist) civilisation and the demands of (capitalist)
   progress.

   For more on "primitivist" anarchism see John Zerzan's Future Primitive
   as well as David Watson's Beyond Bookchin and Against the Mega-Machine.
   Ken Knabb's essay The Poverty of Primitivism is an excellent critique
   of primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard's Anarchism vs. Primitivism.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA4.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB3.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22"
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG3.html
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI.html#seci62
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secGcon.html
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci13
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj38
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj39
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca39
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj514
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca54
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca56
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca55
  20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html#secb14
  21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html#secb15
  22. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ6.html
  23. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj510
  24. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca220
  25. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secFcon.html
  26. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca33
  27. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html
  28. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
