Anti-capitalism is a political ideology and movement encompassing a variety of attitudes and ideas that oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists seek to combat the worst effects of capitalism and to eventually replace capitalism with alternative economic systems such as socialism and communism.
Characteristics
Anti-capitalism can range from a reformist position, which aims to limit corporate power and oppose neoliberal policies, to a radical position, which entirely rejects capitalism and seeks to replace the existing social order. Key principles of anti-capitalism, as outlined by the charter of the World Social Forum, include a committent to democracy and egalitarianism. Anti-capitalists view capitalism either as a social relation or as a distinct economic and political system,
and how they view it informs their methods of opposing it. Reformist
anti-capitalism places itself in opposition to specific economic
practices, including commodification and capital accumulation, and seeks to combat the negative externalities of capitalism without fundamentally altering the economic system; on the other hand, forms of revolutionary socialism
see capitalism as a fundamentally flawed social system that needs to be
overthrown and replaced. Although the reformist and revolutionary
perspectives differ, they are not necessarily distinct, with
anti-capitalists often taking aspects of one or the other depending on
the material conditions they are faced with.
Towards the end of the 1990s, the British environmentalist group Reclaim the Streets sought to build ties with the anti-globalisation movement, culminating with the Carnival Against Capital on 18 June 1999 in London. Although the protest precipitated a decline in the British anti-capitalist movement, following the rise of Tony Blair's New Labour
government, it also renewed contacts within the international
anti-capitalist movement and accelerated a shift towards revolutionary
anti-capitalism. During the late 1990s, confrontations between militant anti-capitalists and the police became commonplace at G8 summits and WTO conferences, which were regularly targeted for protests by a diverse and decentralised coalition of organisations. The largest of these were the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, where anarchists, environmentalists and trade unionists caused conference negotiations to collapse; this inspired a new wave of anti-capitalist activism in the 21st century, with large protests taking place against the 26th G8 summit in Prague and the 27th G8 summit in Genoa.
With its roots in the Age of Enlightenment, libertarian socialism was first constituted as a tendency by the anti-authoritarian faction of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), during their conflict with the Marxist faction.
Libertarian socialism quickly spread throughout Europe and the American
continent, reaching its height during the early stages of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and particularly during the Spanish Revolution of 1936. Its defeat during these revolutions led to its brief decline, before its principles were resurrected by the New Left and new social movements of the late 20th century.
While its key principles of decentralisation, workers' control, and mutual aid are generally shared across the many schools of libertarian socialism, differences have emerged over the questions of revolutionary spontaneity, reformism, and whether to prioritise the abolition of the state or of capitalism.
Libertarian socialists tend to reject the view that political institutions such as the state represent an inherently good, or even neutral, power. Some libertarian socialists, such as Peter Kropotkin, consider the state to be an inherent instrument of landlordism and capitalism, therefore opposing the state with equal intensity as they oppose capitalism.
Libertarian socialism first emerged from the anti-authoritarian faction of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), after it was expelled from the organisation by the Marxist faction at the Hague Congress of 1872. The libertarian socialist Mikhail Bakunin had rejected Karl Marx's calls for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", as he predicted it would only create a new ruling class, composed of a privileged minority, which would use the state to oppress the working classes. He concluded that: "no dictatorship
can have any other aim than to perpetuate itself, and it can only give
rise to and instill slavery in the people that tolerates it." Marxists responded to this by insisting on the eventual "withering away of the state", in which society would transition from dictatorship to anarchy, in an apparent attempt to synthesise authoritarian and libertarian forms of socialism.
By the early 20th century, libertarian socialists had gained a leading influence over the left-wing in the Netherlands, France and Italy and went on to play major roles in the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. In India, the libertarian socialist tradition was represented in the early twentieth century anti-colonial movement by Bhagat Singh.
Anarchists also organised among the urban proletariat, forming clandestine factory committees that proved more attractive to revolution-minded workers than the more reformisttrade unions favoured by the Bolsheviks. During the 1917 Revolution,
in which libertarian socialists played a leading role, the Bolsheviks
changed tack and adopted elements of the libertarian socialist programme
in their appeals to the workers. But by 1919, the new Bolshevik
government had come to view the libertarian socialists as a threat to
their power and moved to eliminate their influence. Libertarian
socialist organisations were banned and many of their members were
arrested, deported to Siberia or executed by the Cheka.
Libertarian socialism reached its apex of popularity with the Spanish Revolution of 1936,
during which libertarian socialists led "the largest and most
successful revolution against capitalism to ever take place in any industrial economy".
In Spain, traditional forms of self-management and common ownership dated back to the 15th century. The Levante, where collective self-management of irrigation was commonplace, became the hotbed of anarchist collectivisation. Building on this traditional collectivism,
from 1876, the Spanish libertarian socialist movement grew through
sustained agitation and the establishment of alternative institutions
that culminated in the Spanish Revolution. During this period, a series of workers' congresses, first convoked by the Spanish Regional Federation of the IWA,
debated and refined proposals for the construction of a libertarian
socialist society. Over several decades, resolutions from these
congresses formed the basis of a specific program on a range of issues,
from the structure of communes and the post-revolutionary economy to
libertarian cultural and artistic initiatives. These proposals were published in the pages of widely distributed libertarian socialist periodicals, such as Solidaridad Obrera and Tierra y Libertad, which each circulated tens of thousands of copies. By the outbreak of the revolution, the anarcho-syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) enjoyed widespread popularity, counting 1.5 million members within its ranks.
During the revolution, the means of production were brought under workers' control and worker cooperatives formed the basis for the new economy. According to Gaston Leval, the CNT established an agrarian federation in the Levante that encompassed 78% of Spain's most arable land.
The regional federation was populated by 1,650,000 people, 40% of whom
lived on the region's 900 agrarian collectives, which were
self-organised by peasant unions.
Although industrial and agricultural production was at its
highest in the anarchist-controlled areas of the Spanish Republic, and
the anarchist militias displayed the strongest military discipline, liberals and communists alike blamed the "sectarian" libertarian socialists for the defeat of the Republic in the Spanish Civil War. These charges have been disputed by contemporary libertarian socialists, such as Robin Hahnel and Noam Chomsky, who have accused such claims of lacking substantial evidence.
Decline
Following the defeat of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, libertarian socialism fell into decline. Left-wing politics throughout the world came to be dominated either by social democracy or Marxism-Leninism,
which attained power in a number of countries and thus had the means to
support their ideological allies. In contrast, Hahnel argues,
libertarian socialists were not able to gain influence within the labour
movement. At a time when reformist trade unions were consistently
winning concessions, the libertarian socialists' anti-reformist message
gained little traction. Their platform of workers' self-management also
failed to appeal to industrial workers. Until the 1960s, libertarian socialists were limited mostly to making critiques of authoritarian socialism and capitalism, although Hahnel asserts that these arguments were largely overshadowed by those from neoconservatives and Marxists respectively.
New Left
Noam Chomsky, the most prominent advocate of libertarian socialism in the New Left
Libertarian socialist themes received a revival during the 1960s, when it was reconstituted as part of the nascent New Left. This revival occurred largely unconsciously, as new leftists were often
unaware of their libertarian socialist predecessors. The concepts of grassroots democracy, workers' control, solidarity and autonomy were thus reinvented by the new generation. They also picked up the principles of decentralisation, participatory democracy and mutual aid. These libertarian socialist themes drove the growth of the New Left,
which by this point was disillusioned by the mainstream social
democratic and Marxist-Leninist political groupings, due to the
capitalistic tendencies of the former and the rigid authoritarianism of
the latter.
A specific and explicit libertarian socialist tendency also began
to emerge. While some more libertarian Marxists adopted the term in
order to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialists, anarchists began calling themselves "libertarian socialist" in order to
avoid the negative connotations associated with anarchism. The libertarian socialist Daniel Guérin
specifically attempted to synthesise anarchism and Marxism into a
single tendency, which inspired the growth of the French libertarian
communist movement. For a time, even the American anarcho-capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard attempted to make common cause with libertarian socialists, but later shifted away from socialism and towards right-wing populism.
Many libertarian socialists of this period were particularly influenced by the analysis of Cornelius Castoriadis and his group Socialisme ou Barbarie. This new generation included the non-vanguardist Marxist organisation Facing Reality, the British libertarian socialist group Solidarity, and the Australian councilists of the Self-Management Group. Some of this new generation of libertarian socialists also joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), swelling the old union's numbers, organising agricultural workers and launching a new journal, The Rebel Worker. This libertarian socialist milieu, with their criticisms of democratic centralism and trade unionism, and their advocacy of workers' self-management and council democracy, went on to inspire the French situationists and Italian autonomists.
While most sections of the New Left expressed a form of libertarian socialism, others were instead being inspired by the Cuban and Chinese Communist Revolutions to embrace forms of authoritarian socialism such as Maoism–Third Worldism. As such, according to Hahnel, the New Left failed to form a coherent
ideological program or establish lasting support to carry forward the
momentum of the late 1960s, resulting in many dropping out of activism altogether.
According to Robin Hahnel, new social movements continued the New
Left's tendency of failing to develop a "comprehensive libertarian
socialist theory and practice". Libertarian socialist activism became
focused on achieving practical reforms and theoretical developments
centred around common "core values" such as economic democracy, economic justice and sustainable development, without building a coherent critique of capitalism. Activists from the 1970s and 1980s influenced by libertarian socialism
did not advance coherent alternatives to markets and central planning,
and had no reformist campaign. Eventually, Hahnel argues, they turned to
traditional single-issue campaigns and abandoned their "big picture" libertarian socialist approach.
These movements were somewhat successful in achieving their goals: the movements for gay and women's rights changed societal outlook on gender oppression; the anti-racist movement proved it necessary to tackle the social aspects of racialisation; the anti-imperialist movement reconceived of anti-imperialism outside of economic terms; and the environmentalist movement launched a wave of ecological defense and restoration. Together, Hahnel argues, they broke from the class reductionism
prevalent in traditional forms of libertarian socialism, proving
intersectional oppressions other than class also demanded attention. Through the new social movements, libertarian socialism developed an
awareness of different aspects of oppression, beyond class analysis.
Contemporary era
Libertarian socialism again received a revival of interest in the wake of the fall of communism and concurrent rise of neoliberalism. It proved particularly attractive to people from the former Eastern Bloc, who saw it as an alternative both to western capitalism and Marxism-Leninism. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been two major experiments in libertarian socialism: the Zapatista uprising in Mexico and the Rojava Revolution in Syria.
In 2012, the Rojava Revolution established the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES; or "Rojava") to put "libertarian socialist ideas ... into practice", and whose cantons present themselves as a "libertarian socialist alternative to the colonially established state boundaries in the Middle East." Various sources have drawn parallels between the Rojava Revolution and the Zapatista uprising of 1994 or the Spanish Revolution of 1936, and noted the influence of libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin, specifically his concept of libertarian municipalism, on the revolution.
In the 20th century, social anarchism emerged as a significant current of anarchism and explicitly identified as libertarian socialist. Anarcho-syndicalist Gaston Leval
explained: "We therefore foresee a Society in which all activities will
be coordinated, a structure that has, at the same time, sufficient
flexibility to permit the greatest possible autonomy for social life, or
for the life of each enterprise, and enough cohesiveness to prevent all
disorder. [...] In a well-organised society, all of these things must
be systematically accomplished by means of parallel federations,
vertically united at the highest levels, constituting one vast organism
in which all economic functions will be performed in solidarity with all
others and that will permanently preserve the necessary cohesion".
Significant thinkers in the anarchist tradition who are described as libertarian socialist include Colin Ward and David Graeber.
There was a strong left-libertarian current in the British labour movement and the term "libertarian socialist" has been applied to a number of democratic socialists, including some prominent members of the British Labour Party. The Socialist League was formed in 1885 by William Morris and others critical of the authoritarian socialism of the Social Democratic Federation. It was involved in the new unionism, the rank-and-file union militancy of the 1880s–1890s, which anticipated syndicalism in some key ways (Tom Mann,
a New Unionist leader, was one of the first British syndicalists). The
Socialist League was dominated by anarchists by the 1890s.
The Common Wealth Party was inspired by Christian socialism as well as libertarian socialism. Others in the tradition of the ILP and described as libertarian socialists included G. D. H. Cole (the founder of guild socialism and influenced by Morris), George Orwell,Michael Foot, Raymond Williams, and Tony Benn. Another is former Labour Party minister Peter Hain, who has written in support of libertarian socialism, identifying an axis involving a "bottom-up vision of socialism, with anarchists at the revolutionary end and democratic socialists [such as himself] at its reformist end" as opposed to the axis of state socialism with Marxist–Leninists at the revolutionary end and social democrats at the reformist end. Another mainstream Labour politician who has been described as a libertarian socialist is Robin Cook.
Debates
Reasons for decline
American economist Robin Hahnel claimed that libertarian socialists "were by far the worst underachievers among 20th century anti-capitalists." He contrasted libertarian socialist failings with those of social democracy, arguing that while the latter had abandoned their principles of economic democracy and justice in favour of reformism, the former had proved incapable of sustaining anti-capitalist uprisings and largely ignored the importance of political and economic reform. Hahnel consequently suggested that, in the 21st century, libertarian
socialists should work together with other anti-capitalist social
movements, organize for reform without abandoning anti-capitalist
principles and strive to build grassroots institutions of self-management, even if those projects are "imperfect".
Priorities
While most libertarian socialists consider it necessary to combat both economic and political power
in tandem, regarding each as fundamental to the survival of the other,
some consider it a priority to combat one or the other first. Some, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Alexander Berkman,
considered capitalism to rely on the support and protection of the
state. They thus concluded that if the state were to be abolished,
capitalism would naturally dissolve in its wake. But others, including Noam Chomsky, believe that the state is only inherently oppressive because of its control by a plutocratic class
and that "society is governed by those who own it". Chomsky holds that
government, while not benign, can at least be held accountable, while
corporate power is neither benign nor accountable. Though he holds the abolition of the state to be desirable, Chomsky
considers the abolition of capitalism to be of greater urgency.
Theoretical coherence
Libertarian socialism has faced criticism from some scholars who
argue that its core principles contain internal contradictions.
Economist Robin Hahnel notes that while libertarian socialists advocate
for decentralized, anti-authoritarian models of organization, historical
attempts to implement such systems—such as during the Spanish
Revolution—often struggled with practical challenges like coordinating
defense against external threats or maintaining economic efficiency
without centralized structures. Hahnel suggests these difficulties stem
from tensions between the ideology's emphasis on radical autonomy and
the pragmatic requirements of sustaining large-scale social movements,
calling it a "self-limiting" theory that inadvertently undermines its
own goals. Similarly, political theorist Noam Chomsky has acknowledged that
libertarian socialist ideals, while morally compelling, face inherent
logistical hurdles in balancing collective self-management with
functional governance, observing that "the gap between doctrine and
reality" often reveals unresolved theoretical gaps.
Topographic map of the subcontinent and surrounding regions
The Indian subcontinent is a physiographic region of Asia below the Himalayas which projects into the Indian Ocean between the Bay of Bengal to the east and the Arabian Sea to the west. It is now divided between Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. Although the terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are often
also used interchangeably to denote a wider region which includes, in
addition, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, the "Indian subcontinent" is more of a geophysical term, whereas "South Asia" is more geopolitical. "South Asia" frequently also includes Afghanistan, which is not considered part of the subcontinent even in extended usage.
Name
Historically, the region surrounding and southeast of the Indus River was often simply referred to as India
in many historical sources. Even today, historians use this term to
denote the entire Indian subcontinent when discussing history up until
the era of the British Raj. Over time, however, "India" evolved to refer to a distinct political entity that eventually became a nation-state (today the Republic of India).
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term subcontinent
signifies a "subdivision of a continent which has a distinct
geographical, political, or cultural identity" and also a "large land
mass somewhat smaller than a continent". Its use to signify the Indian subcontinent is evidenced from the early
twentieth century when most of the territory was either part of the British Empire or allied with them. It was a convenient term to refer to the region comprising both British India and the princely states.
The term has been particularly common in the British Empire and its successors, while the term South Asia is the more common usage in Europe and North America as well as in most countries in South Asia itself sometimes. According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance". Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term South Asia is becoming more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia. While South Asia, a more accurate term that reflects the region's contemporary political demarcations, is replacing the Indian subcontinent,
a term closely linked to the region's colonial heritage, as a cover
term, the latter is still widely used in typological studies.
Since the Partition of India,
citizens of Pakistan (which became independent of British India in
1947) and Bangladesh (which became independent of Pakistan in 1971)
often perceive the use of the Indian subcontinent as offensive and suspicious because of the dominant placement of India in the term. As such it is being increasingly less used in those countries. Meanwhile, many Indian analysts prefer to use the term because of the socio-cultural commonalities of the region. The region has also been called the "Asian subcontinent", the "South Asian subcontinent", as well as "India" or "Greater India" in the classical and pre-modern sense.
The sport of cricket, introduced to the region by the British, is notably popular in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Within a cricket context, these countries are sometimes referred to simply as the subcontinent e.g. "Australia's tour of the subcontinent". The term is also sometimes used adjectivally in cricket e.g. "subcontinental conditions".
Cimmeria,
having rifted from Gondwana shown drifting towards Eurasia, closing the
Paleo-Tethys Ocean above, opening the Neo-Tethys Ocean below, and
carrying parts of what is today the Tibetan PlateauThe accretions of the Karakoram, the Kohistan-Ladakh island arc, and the Gangdese belt to Eurasia preceded the final India-Eurasia collision. The stars mark the syntaxis-causing obtrustions.
After the Lhasa terrane had adjoined Eurasia, an active
continental margin opened along its southern flank, below which the
Neo-Tethys oceanic plate had begun to subduct. Magmatic activity along this flank produced the Gangdese batholith in what is today the Tibetan trans-Himalaya. Another subduction zone opened to the west, in the ocean basin above the Kohistan-Ladakh island arc.
This island arc—formed by one oceanic plate subducting beneath another,
its magma rising and creating continental crust—drifted north, closed
its ocean basin and collided with Eurasia. Ladakh is today in the Indian-administered region of Kashmir and Kohistan in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, both on the Indian subcontinent.
The collision of India with Eurasia closed the Neo-Tethys Ocean. The suture zone (in this instance, the remnants of the Neo-Tethys
subduction zone pinched between the two continental crusts), which marks
India's welding to Eurasia, is called the Indus-Yarlung suture zone. It lies north of the Himalayas. The headwaters of the Indus River and the Yarlung Tsangpo (later in its course, the Brahmaputra) flow along this suture zone. These two Eurasian rivers, whose courses were continually diverted by
the rising Himalayas, define the western and eastern limits,
respectively, of the Himalayan mountain range.