An anti-war movement (also antiwar) is a social movement, usually in opposition to a particular nation's decision to start or carry on an armed conflict, unconditional of a maybe-existing just cause. The term anti-war can also refer to pacifism,
which is the opposition to all use of military force during conflicts,
or to anti-war books, paintings, and other works of art. Many activists
distinguish between anti-war movements and peace movements. Anti-war activists work through protest and other grassroots
means to attempt to pressure a government (or governments) to put an
end to a particular war or conflict or to prevent it in advance.
Anti-war rally of schoolchildren in Pilathara, India
Substantial antiwar sentiment developed in the United States roughly between the end of the War of 1812 and the commencement of the Civil War in what is called the Antebellum era. A similar movement developed in England during the same period. The movement reflected both strict pacifist and more moderate non-interventionist positions. Many prominent intellectuals of the time, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau (seeCivil Disobedience) and William Ellery Channing contributed literary works against war. Other names associated with the movement include William Ladd, Noah Worcester, Thomas Cogswell Upham, and Asa Mahan. Many peace societies were formed throughout the United States, the most prominent of which being the American Peace Society. Numerous periodicals (such as The Advocate of Peace) and books were also produced. The Book of Peace,
an anthology produced by the American Peace Society in 1845, must
surely rank as one of the most remarkable works of antiwar literature
ever produced.
A recurring theme in this movement was the call for the
establishment of an international court to adjudicate disputes between
nations. Another distinct feature of antebellum antiwar literature was
the emphasis on how war contributed to a moral decline and brutalization
of society in general.
A key event in the early history of the modern anti-war stance in literature and society was the American Civil War, where it culminated in the candidacy of George B. McClellan for US president as a Peace Democrat against incumbent President Abraham Lincoln.
The outlines of the antiwar stance are seen: the argument of the costs
of maintaining the present conflict not being worth the gains that can
be made, the appeal to end the horrors of war, and the argument of war
being waged for the profit of particular interests. During the war, the New York Draft Riots were started as violent protests against Lincoln's Enrollment Act of Conscription
to draft men to fight in the war. The outrage over conscription was
augmented by the ability to "buy" one's way out, which could be afforded
only by the wealthy. After the war, The Red Badge of Courage
described the chaos and sense of death which resulted from the changing
style of combat: away from the set engagement, and towards two armies
engaging in continuous battle over a wide area.
In Britain, in 1914, the Public SchoolsOfficers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Camp, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the immenence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present) that
war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing,
that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and
that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be
decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a
British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments,
but during the next four years, those of us who survived the
holocaust-probably not more than one-quarter of us – learned how right
the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it.
Having voiced these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorrien's career,
or prevent him from carrying out his duty in the First World War to the
best of his abilities.
With the increasing mechanization of war, opposition to its
horrors grew, particularly in the wake of the First World War. European avant-garde cultural movements such as Dada were explicitly anti-war.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 gave the American authorities the right to close newspapers and jailed individuals for having anti-war views.
On June 16, 1918, Eugene V. Debs
made an anti-war speech and was arrested under the Espionage Act of
1917. He was convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison, but
President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence on December 25, 1921.
Between the World Wars
In 1924 Fred Friedrich published Krieg dem Krieg! (War Against War!): an album of photographs drawn from German military and medical archives from the first world war. In Regarding the Pain of OthersSontag describes the book as 'photography as shock therapy' that was designed to 'horrify and demoralize'.
It was in the 1930s that the Western anti-war movement took
shape, to which the political and organizational roots of most of the
existing movement can be traced. Characteristics of the anti-war
movement included opposition to the corporate interests perceived as
benefiting from war, to the status quo
which was trading the lives of the young for the comforts of those who
are older, the concept that those who were drafted were from poor
families and would be fighting a war in place of privileged individuals
who were able to avoid the draft and military service, and to the lack
of input in decision making that those who would die in the conflict
would have in deciding to engage in it.
In 1933, the Oxford Union resolved in its Oxford Pledge, "That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country."
Opposition to World War II was most vocal during its early period, and stronger still before it started while appeasement and isolationism were considered viable diplomatic options. Communist-led organizations, including veterans of the Spanish Civil War, opposed the war during the period starting with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact but then turned into hawks after Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
The war seemed, for a time, to set anti-war movements at a distinct social disadvantage; very few, mostly ardent pacifists, continued to argue against the war and its results at the time. However, the Cold War followed with the post-war realignment,
and the opposition resumed. The grim realities of modern combat, and
the nature of mechanized society ensured that the anti-war viewpoint
found presentation in Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five and The Tin Drum.
This sentiment grew in strength as the Cold War seemed to present the
situation of an unending series of conflicts, which were fought at
terrible cost to the younger generations.
U.S. Marshals arresting a Vietnam War protester in Washington, D.C., 1967
Organized opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War
began slowly and in small numbers in 1964 on various college campuses
in the United States and quickly as the war grew deadlier. In 1967 a
coalition of antiwar activists formed the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam
which organized several large anti-war demonstrations between the
late-1960s and 1972. Counter-cultural songs, organizations, plays and
other literary works encouraged a spirit of nonconformism, peace, and
anti-establishmentarianism. This anti-war sentiment developed during a
time of unprecedented student activism and right on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, and was reinforced in numbers by the demographically significant baby boomers.
It quickly grew to include a wide and varied cross-section of Americans
from all walks of life. The anti-Vietnam war movement is often
considered to have been a major factor affecting America's involvement
in the war itself. Many Vietnam veterans, including the former Secretary of State and former U.S. Senator John Kerry and disabled veteran Ron Kovic, spoke out against the Vietnam War on their return to the United States.
Opposition to the South African Border War spread to a general resistance to the apartheid military. Organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resisters, were set up. Many opposed the war at this time.
More than 50,000 people participated in many protests, and more
than 150,000 people took part in the most massive protest called “The
Black Ribbon March” in solidarity with people in Sarajevo. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 200,000 people deserted from the Yugoslav People's Army, while between 100,000 and 150,000 people emigrated from Serbia refusing to participate in the war. According to professor Renaud De la Brosse, senior lecturer at the University of Reims and a witness called by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), it is surprising how great the resistance to Milošević's propaganda was among Serbs, given that and the lack of access to alternative news.
There was initially little opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War in the United States and the United Kingdom, which was seen as a response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
and was supported by most the American public. Most vocal opposition
came from pacifist groups and groups promoting a leftist political
agenda. In the United States, the group A.N.S.W.E.R.
was one of the most visible organizers of anti-war protests, but the
group faced considerable controversy over allegations that it was a
front for the Stalinist Workers World Party.
Over time, opposition to the war in Afghanistan has grown more
widespread, partly as a result of weariness with the length of the
conflict and partly as a result of a conflating of the conflict with the
unpopular war in Iraq.
The anti-war position gained renewed support and attention in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies. Millions of people staged mass protests across the world in the immediate prelude to the invasion, and demonstrations and other forms of anti-war activism
have continued throughout the occupation. The primary opposition within
the U.S. to the continued occupation of Iraq has come from the grassroots. Opposition to the conflict,
how it had been fought, and complications during the aftermath period
divided public sentiment in the U.S., resulting in majority public
opinion turning against the war for the first time in the spring of
2004, a turn which has held since.
The American country music band Dixie Chicks
opposition to the war caused many radio stations to stop playing their
records, but who were supported in their anti-war stance by the equally
anti-war country music legend Merle Haggard,
who in the summer of 2003 released a song critical of US media coverage
of the Iraq War. Anti-war groups protested during both the Democratic
National Convention and 2008 Republican National Convention protests held in St. Paul, Minnesota in September 2008.
In May 2021, protests broke out following a flare-up of the Israel–Palestine conflict. The 2021 conflict lasted from May 6 until May 21 when a ceasefire was signed.
English poet Robert Southey's 1796 poem After Blenheim is an early modern example of anti-war literature that was written generations after the Battle of Blenheim but while Britain was again at war against France.
World War I produced a generation of poets and writers influenced by their experiences in the war. The work of poets, including Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon,
exposed the contrast between the realities of life in the trenches and
how the war was seen by the British public at the time and the earlier
patriotic verse penned by Rupert Brooke. The German writer Erich Maria Remarque penned All Quiet on the Western Front, which has been adapted for several mediums and has become of the most often cited pieces of anti-war media.
The second half of the 20th century also witnessed a strong
anti-war presence in other art forms, including anti-war music such as "Eve of Destruction" and One Tin Soldier and films such as M*A*S*H and Die Brücke, opposing the Cold War in general or specific conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has also generated significant artistic anti-war works, including the American filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which holds the box-office record for documentary films, and the Canadian musician Neil Young's 2006 album Living with War.
Anti-war intellectual and scientist-activists and their work
Various
people have discussed the philosophical question of whether war is
inevitable, and how it can be avoided; in other words, what are the
necessities of peace. Various intellectuals and others have discussed it
from an intellectual and philosophical point of view, not only in
public, but participating or leading anti-war campaigns despite its
differing from their main areas of expertise, leaving their professional
comfort zones to warn against or fight against wars.
Philosophical possibility of avoiding war
Immanuel Kant: In (1795) "Perpetual Peace" ("Zum ewigen Frieden"). Immanuel Kant
booklet on "Perpetual Peace" in 1795. Politically, Kant was one of the
earliest exponents of the idea that perpetual peace could be secured
through universal democracy and international cooperation.
Leading scientists and intellectuals
Here is a list of notable anti-war scientists and intellectuals.
Linus Pauling was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his peace activism (his second nobel prize). circulated multiple petitions among scientists.
There are many philosophical differences among anarchists
concerning questions of ideology, values and strategy. Ideas about how
anarchist societies should work vary considerably, especially with
respect to economics.
There are also disagreements about how such a society might be brought
about, with some anarchists being committed to a strategy of nonviolence
while others advocate armed struggle.
Anarchist schools of thought encompass not only a range of individual schools, but also a considerable divergence in the use of some key terms. Some terms such as socialism
have been subject to multiple definitions and ideological struggle
throughout the period of the development of anarchism. Others such as capitalism
are used in divergent and often contradictory ways by different schools
within the tradition. In addition, the meanings of terms such as mutualism
have changed over time, sometimes without spawning new schools. All of
these terminological difficulties contribute to misunderstandings within
and about anarchism. A central concern is whether the term anarchism is
defined in opposition to hierarchy, authority and the state,
or state and capitalism. Debates over the meaning of the term emerge
from the fact that it refers to both an abstract philosophical position
and to intellectual, political and institutional traditions, all of
which have been fraught with conflict. Some minimal, abstract
definitions encourage the inclusion of figures, movements and
philosophical positions which have historically positioned themselves
outside, or even in opposition to, individuals and traditions that have
identified themselves as anarchist. While opposition to the state
is central, there is a lot of talk among scholars and anarchists on the
matter and various currents perceive anarchism slightly differently.
While it might be true to say that anarchism is a cluster of political philosophies opposing authority and hierarchical organization (including the state, capitalism, nationalism and all associated institutions) in the conduct of all human relations in favour of a society based on voluntary association, freedom and decentralisation,
this definition has its own shortcomings as the definition based on
etymology (which is simply a negation of a ruler), or based on
anti-statism (anarchism is much more than that) or even the
anti-authoritarian (which is an a posteriori concussion).
Nonetheless, major elements of the definition of anarchism include the following:
The will for a non-coercive society.
The rejection of the state apparatus.
The belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society.
A suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.
Usages in political circles have varied considerably. In 1894, Richard T. Ely
noted that the term had "already acquired a variety of meanings". In
its most general sense, these included the view that society is "a
living, growing organism, the laws of which are something different from
the laws of individual action". Several years earlier in 1888, the individualist anarchistBenjamin Tucker included the full text of a "Socialistic Letter" by Ernest Lesigne in his essay on "State Socialism and Anarchism". According to Lesigne, there are two socialisms: "One is dictatorial, the other libertarian". As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy, anarchism is placed on the far-left of the political spectrum and much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of left-wing politics such as communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics. As anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview, many anarchist types and traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely. As a result, anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally yet maintain the common tenets of anarchism, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism, or similar dual classifications. Nonetheless, anti-capitalism is considered a necessary element of anarchism by most anarchists.
While most anarcho-capitalists theorists and scholars divide
anarchism into social anarchism vis-à-vis individualist anarchism
meaning socialism vs. capitalism, seeing the two as mutually exclusive although accepting all anarchist schools of thought under panarchy on the basis of voluntaryism,
anarchist theorists and scholars opposing to anarcho-capitalism reject
this, not seeing them as a struggle between socialism and capitalism or
as mutually exclusive, but instead as complementary, with their
differences mainly being based on the means to attain anarchy,
rather than on their ends, arguing against certain anarcho-capitalist
theorists and scholars who see individualist anarchism as pro-capitalist
and reiterating that anarchism as a whole is socialist, meaning libertarian and anti-statist socialism. Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radically individualists, seeing anarcho-communism as the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Notwithstanding the name, collectivist anarchism is also seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.
Anarchism is generally considered an individualist philosophy, opposing
all forms of authoritarian collectivism, but one which does see the individual or the community
as complementary rather than mutually exclusive, with anarcho-communism
and social anarchism in particular most rejecting the
individualist–collectivist dichotomy. Finally, social anarchism is a
term used in the United States to refer to Murray Bookchin's circle and its omonymous journal.
Schools of thought such as anarcha-feminism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-transhumanism and green anarchism
have different economic views and can be either part of individualist
anarchism or social anarchism. To differentiate it from individualist
anarchism, anarchists prefer using social anarchism, a term used to
characterize certain strides of anarchism vis-à-vis individualist
anarchism, with the former focusing on the social aspect and generally
being more organisational as well as supporting decentralisedeconomic planning and the latter focusing on the individual and generally being more anti-organisational as well as supporting a free-market form of socialism, respectively, rather than seeing the two categories as mutually exclusive or as socialism vis-à-vis capitalism, leading to anarchism without adjectives. Mutualism
is seen as the middle or third category between social anarchism and
individualist anarchism, although it has been considered part of both
social anarchism and individualist anarchism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon spoke of social individualism and described mutualism and the freedom it pursued as the synthesis between communism and property.
From a materialist perspective, individualist anarchism is the
anarchist form in the pre-capitalist and largely agrarian and
merchantilist capitalism before the Industrial Revolution,
during which individualist anarchism became a form of artisanal and
self-employed socialism, especially in the United States. Instead,
social anarchism is anarchism in an industrial society, being the form of industrial or proletarian socialism, with post-left anarchy and its criticism of industrial technology and anti-workerism arising in a post-industrial society. Some anarchists may see such categorisations in these terms.
Despite their differences, these are all forms of libertarian
socialism. Before socialism became associated in the 20th century with Marxist–Leninist states and similar forms of authoritarian and statist socialism, considered by critics as state capitalism and administrative command economies rather than planned economies, the word socialism was a broad concept which was aimed at solving the labour problem through radical changes in the capitalist economy.
This caused issues between traditional anarchists and
anarcho-captalists, whose understanding of socialism is that of the 20th
century Marxist–Leninist states and whose school of thought is
generally not recognized as part of anarchism.
Anarchists such as Luigi Galleani and Errico Malatesta have seen no contradiction between individualist anarchism and social anarchism, with the latter especially seeing the issues not between the two forms of anarchism, but between anarchists and non-anarchists. Anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker
argued that it was "not Socialist Anarchism against Individualist
Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism". Similarly, the view of an individualist–socialist divide is contested as individualist anarchism is largely socialistic.
Among anarchists, there is no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence in revolutionary struggle. For example, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta wrote of violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force in revolutionary
settings. At the same time, they denounced acts of individual
terrorism, see Bakunin's "The Program of the International Brotherhood"
(1869) and Malatesta's "Violence as a Social Factor" (1895). Other anarchists such as Leo Tolstoy and Dorothy Day have been advocates of pacifism.
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent,
possibly due to a number of high-profile violent actions, including riots, assassinations, insurrections and terrorism committed by some anarchists as well as persistently negative media portrayals. Late 19th-century revolutionaries encouraged acts of political violence, called propaganda of the deed, such as bombings and the assassinations of heads of state to further anarchism. However, the term originally referred to exemplary forms of direct action meant to inspire the masses to revolution and propaganda of the deed may be violent or nonviolent.
While all anarchists consider antimilitarism (opposition to war) to be inherent to their philosophy, anarcho-pacifists
take this further by following Tolstoy's belief in pacifism. Although
numerous anarchist-related initiatives have been based on the tactic of nonviolence (see Earth First! and Food Not Bombs), many anarchists reject pacifism as an ideology, instead supporting a diversity of tactics. Authors Ward Churchill (Pacifism as Pathology, 1986) and Peter Gelderloos (How Nonviolence Protects the State, 2005; "The Failure of Nonviolence",
2013) have published influential books critical of pacifist doctrine
which they view as ineffectual and hypocritical. In a 2010 article,
author Randall Amster argued for the development of a "complementarity of tactics" to bridge the pacifist and more militant aspects of anarchism.
As a result of anarchism's critical view of certain types of private property, many anarchists see the destruction of property as an acceptable form of violence or argue that it is not in fact violence at all. In her widely cited 1912 essay Direct Action, Voltairine de Cleyre drew on American historical events, including the destroying of revenue stamps and the Boston Tea Party as a defense of such activities.
Many anarchists participate in subversive organizations as a means to undermine the establishment, such as Food Not Bombs, radical labor unions, alternative media and radical social centers.
This is in accordance with the anarchist ideal that governments are
intrinsically evil and that only by destroying the power of governments
can individual freedoms and liberties be preserved. However, some
anarchist schools in theory adopt the concept of dual power which means creating the structures for a new anti-authoritarian society in the shell of the old, hierarchical one.
While most anarchists firmly oppose voting, or otherwise
participating in the state institution, there are a few that disagree.
The prominent anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stood for election to the French Constituent Assembly twice in 1848. In the 1890s, Paul Brousse developed the concept of libertarian municipalism in Switzerland which involved participating in local elections.
Anarchists have opposed voting for multiple reasons. Taking part in
elections has historically resulted in radicals becoming part of the
system they oppose rather than ending it. Voting acknowledges the state's legitimacy.
During the 2004 United States presidential election, the anarchist collectiveCrimethInc. launched "Don't Just Vote, Get Active", a campaign promoting the importance of direct action
rather than electoral change. Anarchists in other countries often
engage in similar anti-voting campaigns and advocate a more pragmatic
approach, including voting in referenda. Other prominent anarchists like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have pledged their support for progressive candidates such as Ralph Nader. In addition to merely voting, some anarchists such as Proudhon and more recently Icelandic activist Smári McCarthy have stood for and won elections to national legislative bodies. American individualist anarchistLysander Spooner
argued that voting was a legitimate means of self-defense against the
state and noted that many supporters of the state consider both voting and abstention to be acknowledgments of the state's legitimacy. Spooner's essay "No Treason"
offers an individualist anarchist rebuttal to the argument that
existing democratic governments are justified by majority consent.
During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, there was debate within anarchist circles about whether to take an abstentionist position, vote for independence,
or to vote to remain in the United Kingdom, thus anarchists rarely
fitted into the easy binary of Yes/No voters of the referendum, with all seeking to go beyond the choices offered at the ballot box. There was also a debate about what Scottish independence would mean for the anarchist movement and social struggle. Groups like the Anarchist Federation in Scotland (mainly in Edinburgh and Glasgow) took a critical stance skeptical of the benefits of Scottish independence.
Within the United Kingdom, there was considerable debate around the Brexit vote
in 2016. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to the European Union,
yet the vote was seen as one imposed by two factions of the right-wing. Yet again, there was debate about whether to vote to Remain in the European Union, abstain (some left communists argued for abstaining) or vote to Leave since the United Kingdom government (the Conservative Party) was mostly in favour of remain while UK Independence Party and far-right parties favoured Leave. There was also debate within the left amongst anarchists and those who considered themselves to have a Lexit (Left Exit position). The victory of the Leave side united anarchists whether voters or abstainers against the racist incidents and rise of right-wing populism and neo-nationalism which was considered to have happened following the result of the vote. Many anarchists and anti-authoritarianleftists argue Brexit was negative for social struggles and migrants in particular and considerable efforts were made to analyze why the Leave result happened.
Democracy in anarchism
For individualist anarchists,
"the system of democracy, of majority decision, is held null and void.
Any impingement upon the natural rights of the person is unjust and a
symbol of majority tyranny". Libertarian municipalistMurray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy and said majority rule is consistent with anarchism. While preferring the term assembly rather than democracy, Bookchin has in turn been accused of municipal statism, i.e. non-anarchism. Later, Bookchin renounced anarchism to identify himself as an advocate of Communalism.
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent due
mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots,
assassinations and insurrections involving anarchists. However, the use
of terrorism and assassination is condemned by most anarchist ideology,
although there remains no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence. Some anarchists have opposed coercion while others have supported it, particularly in the form of violent revolution on the path to anarchy.
Some anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in nonviolence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate nonviolent resistance
as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They
often see violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue
that as such violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some
of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's French followers even saw strike action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional socialist tactics.
Other anarchists advocate Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication
that relates to peoples fundamental needs and feelings using strategies
of requests, observations and empathy yet providing for the use of
protective force while rejecting pacifism as a compromising strategy of
the left that just perpetuates violence.
Other anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta
saw violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force. Malatesta
took the view that it is "necessary to destroy with violence, since one
cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies [the means of life and
for development] to the workers" (Umanità Nova, number 125, 6 September 1921).
Between 1894 and 1901, individual anarchists assassinated numerous heads of state, including:
Such propaganda of the deed was not popular among anarchists and many in the movement condemned the tactic. President William McKinley's assassin Leon Czolgosz claimed to be a disciple of Emma Goldman.
Goldman disavowed the act, although she did not condemn Czolgosz's
motivations in doing it. Goldman included in her definition of anarchism
the observation that all governments rest on violence and this is one
of the many reasons they should be opposed. Goldman herself did not
oppose tactics like assassination until she went to Russia, where she
witnessed the violence of the Russian state and the Red Army.
From then on, Goldman condemned the use of terrorism, especially by the
state, but she still supported most other forms of revolutionary
violence throughout her life. In a debate with a pacifist five years
before her death, she countered that "the organized force used against
the followers of Gandhi has finally forced them to use violence, much to
the distress of Gandhi" and concluded that "as a method of combating
the complex social injustices and inequalities, non-resistance cannot be
a decisive factor" (non-resistance was the term for nonviolence used by
Tolstoy and other early 20th century pacifists). Goldman at this time
was an information officer for the anarchist militias of the Spanish Revolution which were committed to armed struggle.
Depictions in the press and popular fiction (for example, a malevolent bomb-throwing anarchist in Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent)
helped create a lasting public impression that anarchists are violent
terrorists. This perception was enhanced by events such as the Haymarket riot, where anarchists were blamed for throwing a bomb at police who came to break up a public meeting in Chicago. More recently, anarchists have been involved in protests against World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings across the globe which the media has described as violent or riots. Traditionally, May Day in London has also been a day of marching, but in recent years the Metropolitan Police
have warned that a "hardcore of anarchists" are intent on causing
violence. Anarchists often respond that it is the police who initiate
violence at these demonstrations, with anarchists who are otherwise
peaceful sometimes forced to defend themselves. The anarchists involved
in such protests often formed black blocs at these protests and some engaged in property destruction, vandalism, or in violent conflicts with police,
although others stuck to non-violent principles. Those participating in
black blocs distinguish between violence and property destruction as
they claim that violence is when a person inflicts harm to another
person while property destruction or property damage is not violence,
although it can have indirect harm such as financial harm. Most
anarchists do not consider the destruction of property to be violent as
do most activists who believe in non-violence.
Anarchist protesters in Boston opposing state-waged war
Most anarchists consider opposition to militarism to be inherent in their philosophy. Some anarchists take it further and follow Leo Tolstoy's belief in non-violence (note that these anarcho-pacifists are not necessarily Christian anarchists as Tolstoy was), advocating nonviolent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution.
Anarchist literature often portrays war as an activity in which
the state seeks to gain and consolidate power, both domestically and in
foreign lands. Many anarchists subscribe to Randolph Bourne's view that "war is the health of the state". Anarchists believe that if they were to support a war, they would be strengthening the state—indeed, Peter Kropotkin was alienated from other anarchists when he expressed support for the British in World War I.
Individualism vs. collectivism
While some anarchists favour collective property or no property, others such as some American individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner support a form of private property
while opposing property titles to unused land. Tucker argues that
collectivism in property is absurd: "That there is an entity known as
the community which is the rightful owner of all land, [...] I maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence". He was particularly adamant in his opposition to communism,
even to the point of asserting that those who opposed private property
were not anarchists: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it
includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or
whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free
market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of
necessity an Archist". Similarly, Albert Meltzer argued that since individualist anarchists
like Tucker promote the idea of private armies, they actually support a
"limited State", contending that it "is only possible to conceive of
Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity
for repression of countering it".
Anarcho-communists reject the criticism, pointing to the principle of
voluntary association that underpins their theory and differentiates it
from state communism. Some individualist anarchists are willing to recognize such communism as a legitimate form. Kevin Carson
writes that "free market, libertarian communist, syndicalism, and other
kinds of collectivist anarchists must learn to coexist in peace and
mutual respect today, in our fight against the corporate state, and
tomorrow, in the panarchy that is likely to succeed it".
Some forms of anarcho-communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realisation of individual freedom. Hence, most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism itself as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society. Furthermore, post-left anarchists like Bob Black
went as far as to argue that "communism is the final fulfillment of
individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism
and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is
also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to
speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual,"
[...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg.
Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the
greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity". Max Baginski has argued that property and the free market
are just other "spooks", what Stirner called to refer mere illusions,
or ghosts in the mind, writing: "Modern Communists are more
individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality,
family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook,
in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...]
Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the
individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as
heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take
in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to
expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand". Peter Kropotkin
argued that "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount
of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community
be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better
than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing,
even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's
work". Dielo Truda
similarly argued that "[t]his other society will be libertarian
communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their
full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect
harmony". In "My Perspectives" of Willful Disobedience
(2: 12), it was argued as such: "I see the dichotomies made between
individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the
struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as
false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing
their own critique and struggle".
The Right to Be Greedy is a book published in 1974 by an American Situationist
collective called For Ourselves: Council for Generalized
Self-Management which Black describes it in its preface as an "audacious
attempt to synthesize a collectivist social vision of left-wing origin
with an individualistic (for lack of a better word) ethic usually
articulated on the right".
Its authors say that "[t]he positive conception of egoism, the
perspective of communist egoism, is the very heart and unity of our
theoretical and practical coherence". The book was highly influenced by the work of Max Stirner, with Black humorously suggesting that it was a synthesis of Marxism and Stirner's philosophy which may be called Marxism–Stirnerism just as he wrote an essay on Groucho-Marxism, writing in the preface to The Right to be Greedy:
"If Marxism-Stirnerism is conceivable, every orthodoxy prating of
freedom or liberation is called into question, anarchism included. The
only reason to read this book, as its authors would be the first to
agree, is for what you can get out of it".
Although commonly misconcepted, Marxism rejected egalitarianism
in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly
distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes
based on the division between workers and owners of productive property. Marx and Engels believed that an internationalproletarian revolution would bring about a socialist society
which would then eventually give way to a communist stage of social
development which would be a classless, stateless, moneyless, humane
society erected on common ownership. However, Marx's view of
classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal
interest (such as a universal notion of equality), but it was about the
creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their
true interests and desires, making his notion of communist society radically individualistic. Marx was a proponent of two principles, the first ("To each according to his contribution") applied to socialism and the second ("From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs")
to an advanced communist society. Although his position is often
confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism in which only the
goods and services resulting from production are distributed according
to a notional equality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as
abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete
principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and
economic logic.
He is a believer in human freedom and human development. For Marx, the
"true realm of freedom" consists in the "development of human powers as
an end in itself".
He conceives of a communist society as one in which "the full and free
development of every individual forms the ruling principle".
Marx justified the forms of equality he did advocate such as the
communal ownership and control of the economy on the grounds that they
led to human freedom and human development rather than simply because
they were egalitarian, writing that in such a society there are
"[u]niversally developed individuals, whose social relations, as their
own communal relations, are hence also subordinated to their own
communal control". This communal control includes "their subordination
of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth".
Most modern and historical anarchists describe themselves as anti-racists. Many early anarchists, notably Lucy Parsons (a person of color and formerly an enslaved American), viewed racism as one of many negative side-effects of capitalism and expected that it would vanish in a post-capitalist
world. However, among modern anarchists anti-racism plays a more
prominent role and racism is typically viewed as one of several forms of
social hierarchy and stratification which must be destroyed. No
anarchist organizations has ever included racism as part of its platform
and many—particularly modern formations—include explicit anti-racism,
with the national-anarchist movement being rejected as part of anarchism for his perceived racism, among other reasons. For instance, American anarchists were alone in opposing racism against Chinese and Mexican
workers in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Since the late
1970s, anarchists have been involved in fighting the rise of
neo-fascist groups. In Germany and the United Kingdom, some anarchists
worked within militantanti-fascist groups alongside members of the Marxist left. They advocated directly combating fascists
with physical force rather than relying on the state. Since the late
1990s, a similar tendency has developed within anarchism in the United
States.
Anti-Racist Action
is one of the largest grassroots anti-fascist and anti-racist
organizations in North America today and counts many anarchists among
its members. Their tactics, centered around directly confronting neo-fascist and white-supremacist
groups, are considered controversial both within the anarchist movement
(where they are sometimes portrayed as well-intentioned, but
ineffective) and in mainstream society (where they are often portrayed
as violent and disruptive).
Many anarchists also oppose the concept of race itself, arguing that it has no biological basis in science and is a social construction designed to divide the working class and preserve capitalism.
Christian anarchists believe that there is no higher authority than God and oppose earthly authority such as government and established churches. They believe that Jesus' teachings and the practice of the early Church were clearly anarchistic. Some of them feel that the teachings of the Nazarenes and other early groups of followers were corrupted by contemporary religious views, most notably when Theodosius I declared NiceneChristianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christian anarchists who follow Jesus' directive to turn the other cheek are usually strict pacifists,
although some believe in a limited justification of defense, especially
defense of others. The most famous advocate of Christian anarchism was Leo Tolstoy, author of The Kingdom of God Is Within You,
who called for a society based on compassion, nonviolent principles and
freedom. Christian anarchists tend to form experimental communities
(such as the Catholic Worker). They also occasionally resist taxation.
Buddhist anarchism originated in the influential Chinese anarchist movement of the 1920s. Taixu,
one of the leading thinkers and writers of this school, was deeply
influenced by the work of Christian anarchists like Tolstoy and by the
ancient Chinese well-field system. In the late 19th century, the Ghadar movement in India (see Har Dayal), influenced by Buddhist thought and by Swami Dayananda Saraswati (founder of Arya Samaj), saw anarchism as a way of propagating the ancient culture of the Arya (not to be confused with the much later appropriation of Aryan identity by Nazism). Buddhist anarchism was later revived in the 1960s by writers such as Gary Snyder; an incarnation of this school of thought was popularized by Jack Kerouac in his book The Dharma Bums.
With its focus on the environment and equality along with its often decentralized nature, Neopaganism has led to a number of Neopagan anarchists. One of the most prominent is Starhawk, who writes extensively about both spirituality and activism.
Discussing the anarchist movement in Britain in 2002, Adam K. has
argued that it "has an especially ignorant and hegemonistic perception
of the Muslim community" which he attributed to "the [A]nglo-centric
nature of the movement". Quoting the statement that "Islam
is an enemy of all freedom loving people" from an anarchist magazine,
he argues that this is "no different to the bigoted rhetoric of George Bush or even BNP leader Nick Griffin".
Throughout all of its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism which they believe can be maintained only by state violence. Anarchists generally follow Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in opposing ownership of workplaces by capitalists and aim to replace wage labor with workers' associations. These anarchists also agree with Peter Kropotkin's
comment that "the origin of the anarchist inception of society [lies
in] the criticism [...] of the hierarchical organisations and the
authoritarian conceptions of society" rather than in simple opposition
to the state or government. They argue that the wage system is hierarchical and authoritarian in nature and consequently capitalism cannot be anarchist. Conversely, anarcho-capitalists generally support wage labor and oppose workplace democracy
which most anarchists support, claiming that wage labor is voluntary.
However, most anarchists argue that certain capitalist transactions,
including wage labor, are not voluntary and that maintaining the class
structure of a capitalist society requires coercion which violates both
anarchist principles and anarcho-capitalism's non-aggression principle itself. Anarchists who support wage labor do so as long as the employers and employees are paid equally for equal hours worked
and neither party has authority over the other. By following this
principle, no individual profits from the labor of another. Those
anarchists describe the wages received in such an employer-employee
relationship as the individual laborer's full product and generally
envisione that in such a society every worker would be self-employed and
own their own private means of production, free to walk away from
employment contracts.
Some supporters argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. However, most early individualist anarchists considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists [who see] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism". Many defined themselves as socialists. These early individualist anarchists defined capitalism in various ways, but it was often discussed in terms of usury:
"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and
houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is
a usurer". Excluding these, they tended to support free trade, free competition and varying levels of private property such as mutualism based on occupation and use property norms. It is this distinction which has led to the rift between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Historically, anarchists considered themselves socialists and opposed
to capitalism, therefore anarcho-capitalism is considered by many
anarchists today as not being a form of anarchism.
Furthermore, terms like anarcho-socialism or socialist anarchism
are rejected by most anarchists since they generally consider themselves
socialists of the libertarian tradition,
but they are nevertheless used by anarcho-capitalism theorists and
scholars who recognize anarcho-capitalism to differentiate between the
two. Ultimately, anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard,
who coined the term itself and developed such philosophy through the
1970s, stated that individualist anarchism is different from capitalism
due to the individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value and many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all, or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism, seeing it instead as a form of New Rightlibertarianism.
Anarchist organisations such as the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (Spain) and the Anarchist Federation
(Britain and Ireland) generally take an explicitly anti-capitalist
stance. In the 20th century, several economists began to formulate a
form of radical American libertarianism
known as anarcho-capitalism. This has met resistance from those who
hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive or statist and many
anarchists and scholars do not consider anarcho-capitalism to properly
cohere with the spirit, principles, or history of anarchism.
While other anarchists and scholars regard anarchism as referring only
to opposition to the non-privatisation of all aspects of the state and
do consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, Gary Chartier has joined Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman and Chris Matthew Sciabarra in maintaining that because of its heritage and its emancipatory goals and potential radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists can and should call themselves socialists, echoing the language of libertarian socialists like American individualist anarchistsBenjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner and British Thomas Hodgskin.
In particular, Chartier has argued that proponents of a genuinely free market, termed freed market to distinguish them from the common conception which these left-libertarians (referred to as left-wing market anarchists or market-oriented left-libertarians) believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges,
should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global
anti-capitalist movement while emphasizing that the abuses the
anti-capitalist movement highlights result from state-tolerated violence
and state-secured privilege rather than from voluntary cooperation and
exchange. Indeed, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical and pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race.
One major issue and divide between anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism are the terms capitalism and socialism themselves.
For anarcho-capitalists, capitalism mean the free market rather than actually existing capitalism (of which they are critics, arguing that the problem rests on corporatism and state capitalism, a term coined by German socialist Wilhelm Liebknecht, but whose concept can be traced back to anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Jan Wacław Machajski, rather than capitalism itself) as advocated by anti-capitalists and socialism is conflated with state socialism and Marxist–Leninist states.
However, the term socialism originally included any opponent of
capitalism, a term coined in the 18th century to mean a construed political system built on privileges for the owners of capital.
Contra anarcho-capitalists, anarchists argue that capitalism necessarily rest on the state
to survive and state capitalism is seen as the inevitable result of
both capitalism and state socialism. Furthermore, the free market itself
for classical economists such as Adam Smith
did not necessarily refer to a market free from government interference
as it is now commonly assumed or how anarcho-capitalists see it, but
rather free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and
artificial scarcities, implying that economic rents, i.e. profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition. While anarcho-capitalists who argue for private property which supports absentee and landlordism ownership rather than occupation and use property norms as well as the homestead principle
are considered right-libertarians rather than anarchists (this is due
to anarchism generally viewing any absentee ownership and ownership
claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate
and seeing the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation as
advocated by some anarcho-capitalists as anathema to traditional schools
of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes
equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise),
other anarcho-capitalists are closer to mutualism and are considered
part of free-market anarchism which argue that a true free-market or laissez-faire system would be best served under socialism rather than capitalism.
As a whole, anarchism is seen part of the socialist tradition, with the main divide being between anti-market anarchists (most social anarchists, including anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists and collectivist anarchists) who support some form of decentralisedeconomic planning and pro-market anarchists (certain individualist anarchists, including free-market anarchists and mutualists) who support free-market socialism. As such, Chartier has argued that anarcho-capitalists should reject capitalism and call themselves free-market advocates,
writing that "it makes sense for [freed-market advocates] to name what
they oppose "capitalism." Doing so calls attention to the freedom
movement's radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society
as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of
freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on
liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren't confused with people
who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses
solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as
ordinary people around the world who use "capitalism" as a short-hand
label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts
their lives".
Another major issue and divide within anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is that of property, more specifically the issues of private property. By property, or private property, ever since Proudhon's book What is Property?, published in 1840, anarchists meant possession (or what other socialists, including Marxists and communists, distingue as personal property) which he considered as liberty ("Property is liberty") versus productive property (such as land and infrastructure, or what Marxists terms the means of production and the means of labor) which he considered as theft ("Property is theft"), causing him to also say "Property is impossible".
Individualist anarchists like Tucker started calling possession
as property, or private property. Anarcho-capitalists generally make no
such distinction. Such distinction is extremely important to anarchists
and other socialists because in the capitalist mode of production private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent. They make the following distinctions:
Personal property, or possession, includes items intended for
personal use (e.g. one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, vehicles and
sometimes money). It must be gained in a socially fair manner and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.
Anarchists generally agree that private property is a social
relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship
between person and thing), e.g. artifacts, factories, mines, dams,
infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas. In this
context, private property and ownership means ownership of the means of
production, not personal possessions.
To anarchists and socialists alike, the term private property refers to capital or the means of production while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
Globalization
Many anarchists are actively involved in the anti-globalization movement, seeing corporate globalization as a neocolonialist attempt to use economic coercion on a global scale, carried out through state institutions such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, Group of Eight and the World Economic Forum. Globalization is an ambiguous term that has different meanings to different anarchist factions. Many anarchists use the term to mean neocolonialism and/or cultural imperialism (which they may see as related). Others, particularly anarcho-capitalists, use globalization to mean the worldwide expansion of the division of labor and trade which they see as beneficial so long as governments do not intervene. Anarcho-capitalists and market anarchists
also see the worldwide expansion of the division of labor through trade
(globalization) as a boon, but they oppose the regulation and
cartelization imposed by the World Bank, World Trade Organization and
"managed trade" agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Many also object to fiat money issued by central banks and resulting debasement of money and confiscation of wealth. Groups such as Reclaim the Streets were among the instigators of the so-called anti-globalization movement.
The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999 is generally regarded as the first of the major anti-globalization protests. Anarchists such as the WOMBLES have on occasion played a significant role in planning, organising and participating in subsequent protests.
The protests tended to be organised on anarchist direct action
principles with a general tolerance for a range of different activities
ranging from those who engage in tactical frivolity to the black blocs.
Syndicalist Ulrike Heider categorized anarchism into left anarchism, right anarchism and green anarchism. The term right anarchism, or right-wing anarchism,
has been used to refer to schools of thoughts which are not generally
considered part of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism.
Anarchism has a long history of opposing imperialism, both in the core nations (the colonizers) and the periphery nations
(the colonized). In general, anarchists have preferred to focus on
building revolutions at home and doing solidarity work for comrades in
other countries, e.g. Guy Aldred was jailed for printing Shyamji Krishnavarma's The Indian Sociologist. Another example of this was Rudolf Rocker, a prominent German anarchist and anti-fascist who was particularly active amongst Jewish workers. In his Nationalism and Culture,
he argued for a "federation of European peoples" which would include
Jews. Rejecting biological theories of race and the concept of nation,
he argued that since it was European states that had conquered and
colonized the rest of the world, successful libertarian organization
amongst Europeans was "the first condition for the creation of a world
federation which will also secure the so-called colonial peoples the same rights for the pursuit of happiness. Many modern anarchists and other anti-imperialists share this approach.
Historically, anarchism was supportive of the anationalist movement as well as of the Esperanto language, a language constructed to serve as a politically and ethnically neutral international language. After the Spanish Civil War, Francoist Spain persecuted anarchists and Catalan nationalists, among whom the use of Esperanto was extensive. The so-called national-anarchist movement is not recognized as part of anarchism by anarchists and scholars due to anarchism opposition to nationalism, the nation state, tribalism and neo-tribalism and national-anarchism's perceived racism and sexism, arguing that it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension. Some accuse national-anarchists of being white nationalists who promote ethnic and racial separatism while others argue they want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim.
During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, there was debate within anarchist circles about whether to take an abstentionist position, vote for independence, or to vote to remain in the United Kingdom, therefore anarchists rarely fitted into the easy binary of Yes/No voters of the referendum,
with all seeking to go beyond the choices offered at the ballot box.
There was also a debate about what Scottish independence would mean for
the anarchist movement and social struggle. Groups like the Anarchist Federation in Scotland (mainly in Edinburgh and Glasgow) took a critical stance skeptical of the benefits of Scottish independence. Scottish anarchists argued that Scottish independence and Scottish nationalism
diverted energy away from grassroots struggles and that the movement
for Scottish independence sucked people towards Scottish nationalism and
electoral politics.
The environment and sustainability have been an issue for anarchists from at least as far back as Peter Kropotkin's 1899 book Fields, Factories and Workshops,
but since the late 1970s anarchists in English-speaking world and
European countries have been agitating for the natural environment. Eco-anarchists or green anarchists often embrace deep ecology, a worldview that strives to cultivate biodiversity and sustainability. Eco-anarchists often use direct action against what they see as Earth-destroying institutions. Of particular importance is the Earth First! movement that takes action such as tree sitting. The more militant Earth Liberation Front which grew out of Earth First! also has connections with the anarchist movement. Another important component is ecofeminism which sees the domination of nature as a metaphor for the domination of women.
A movement called post-left anarchy seeks to distance itself from the traditional left—communists, socialists, social democrats and the like—and to escape the confines of ideology
in general. Post-leftists argue that anarchism has been weakened by its
long attachment to contrary leftist movements and single issue causes (anti-war, anti-nuclear
and so on). It calls for a synthesis of anarchist thought and a
specifically anti-authoritarian revolutionary movement outside of the
leftist milieu. Important groups and individuals associated with
post-left anarchy include CrimethInc., the magazine Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and its editor Jason McQuinn, Bob Black, Hakim Bey and others.
Some activists calling themselves insurrectionary anarchists
are critical of formal anarchist labor unions and federations and
advocate informal organization, carrying out acts of resistance in
various struggles. Proponents include Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo M. Bonanno, author of works including Armed Joy and The Anarchist Tension. This tendency is represented in the United States in magazines such as Willful Disobedience and Killing King Abacus.
Communism
While communism
is proposed as a form of social and economic organisation by many
anarchists, other anarchists consider it a danger to the liberty and
free development of the individual. Most schools of anarchism have recognized a distinction between libertarian and authoritarian forms of communism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
said of communism that "whether of the utopian or the Marxist variety,
that it destroyed freedom by taking away from the individual control
over his means of production", adding: "Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak". Mikhail Bakunin
stated: "I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and
because for me humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a
Communist, because Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for
the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it
inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of the
State". However, Bakunin was speaking of authoritarian and statist forms of communism and socialism (see also state capitalism and its origins and early uses of the term) as verified by the last line which mentions state property—anarcho-communists
explicitly reject state property and authority, especially centralized
authority—and famously proclaimed: "We are convinced that freedom
without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality". Even American individualist anarchistBenjamin Tucker, who insisted on the voluntary nature of all association and opposed communism along with majority rule, organized religion and the institution of marriage due to their compulsory nature,
argued: "Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist.
This excludes from Anarchism all believers in compulsory Communism. As
for the believers in voluntary Communism (of whom there are precious
few), they are of necessity believers in the liberty to hold private
property, for to pool one's possessions with those of others is nothing
more or less than an exercise of proprietorship".
Karl Marx's communist society is actually based on free association which he called a community of freely associated individuals.
Marx's communist society is one in which "the full and free development
of every individual forms the ruling principle" and "the free
development of each is the condition for the free development of all".
Hence, Marx justified the forms of equality he did advocate such as the
communal ownership and control of the economy on the grounds that they
led to human freedom and human development, arguing that "the realm of
freedom actually begins only where labor which is determined by
necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of
things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production.
According to Allen Woods, a communist society is one that has
transcended class antagonisms and "would not be one in which some truly
universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must be
sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals freely
act as the truly human individuals they are", making Marx's communist
society radically individualistic.
Although Peter Kropotkin,
one of the leading proponents of anarcho-communism while also opposing
statist communism, argued for an economic model of free distribution
between all individuals, many individualist anarchists
oppose communism in all its forms on the grounds that voluntary
communism is not practicable. Individualist anarchists such as Benjamin
Tucker, Victor Yarros and Henry Appleton have denied that communism is a genuine form of anarchism. They rejected its strategies and argued that it is inherently authoritarian.
In the opinion of Appleton, "Communism, being opposed to natural law,
must necessarily call upon unnatural methods if it would put itself into
practice" and employ "pillage, brute force, and violence". As a response, Albert Meltzer
argued that since individualist anarchists like Tucker promote the idea
of private armies, they actually support a "limited State", contending
that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free,
communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of
countering it".
Anarcho-communists also reject the criticism, pointing to the principle
of voluntary association that underpins their theory and differentiates
it from statist communism. Some individualist anarchists are willing to recognize such communism as a legitimate form. Kevin Carson
writes that "free market, libertarian communist, syndicalism, and other
kinds of collectivist anarchists must learn to coexist in peace and
mutual respect today, in our fight against the corporate state, and
tomorrow, in the panarchy that is likely to succeed it".
As a response, there emerged in the 1980s United States the tendency of post-left anarchy which was influenced profoundly by egoism in aspects such as the critique of ideology. Jason McQuinn
says that "when I (and other anti-ideological anarchists) criticize
ideology, it is always from a specifically critical, anarchist
perspective rooted in both the skeptical, individualist-anarchist
philosophy of Max Stirner". Bob Black and Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher also strongly adhere to Stirnerist egoism. A reprinting of The Right to be Greedy in the 1980s was done with the involvement of Black who also wrote the preface to it. In the book's preface, Black has humorously suggested the idea of "MarxistStirnerism" just as he wrote an essay on "groucho-marxism",
writing: "If Marxism-Stirnerism is conceivable, every orthodoxy prating
of freedom or liberation is called into question, anarchism included.
The only reason to read this book, as its authors would be the first to
agree, is for what you can get out of it".
Hakim Bey has said: "From Stirner's "Union of Self-Owning Ones" we proceed to Nietzsche's circle of "Free Spirits" and thence to Charles Fourier's "Passional Series", doubling and redoubling ourselves even as the Other multiplies itself in the eros of the group".
Bey also wrote: "The Mackay Society, of which Mark & I are active
members, is devoted to the anarchism of Max Stirner, Benj. Tucker & John Henry Mackay.
[...] The Mackay Society, incidentally, represents a little-known
current of individualist thought which never cut its ties with
revolutionary labor. Dyer Lum, Ezra & Angela Haywood represent this school of thought; Jo Labadie, who wrote for Tucker's Liberty,
made himself a link between the American "plumb-line" anarchists, the
"philosophical" individualists, & the syndicalist or communist
branch of the movement; his influence reached the Mackay Society through
his son, Laurance. Like the Italian Stirnerites (who influenced us
through our late friend Enrico Arrigoni) we support all anti-authoritarian currents, despite their apparent contradictions".
Marxism
Anarchism has had a strained relationship with Marxism since Karl Marx's life. The dispute between Marx and Mikhail Bakunin highlighted the differences between anarchism and Marxism, with Bakunin criticizing Marx for his authoritarian bent.
Bakunin also argued—against certain ideas of a number of Marxists—that
not all revolutions need to be violent. For instance, he strongly
rejected Marx's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a concept that vanguardist socialism, including Marxist–Leninism, would use to justify one-party rule from above by a party representing the proletariat.
Bakunin insisted that revolutions must be led by the people directly
while any "enlightened elite" must only exert influence by remaining "invisible [...] not imposed on anyone [...] [and] deprived of all official rights and significance". He held that the state should be immediately abolished because all forms of government eventually lead to oppression.
Bakunin has sometimes been called the first theorist of the concept of a new class,
meaning that a class of intellectuals and bureaucrats running the state
in the name of the people or the proletariat—but in reality in their
own interests alone. Bakunin argued that the "State has always been the
patrimony of some privileged class: a priestly class, an aristocratic
class, a bourgeois class. And finally, when all the other classes have
exhausted themselves, the State then becomes the patrimony of the
bureaucratic class and then falls—or, if you will, rises—to the position
of a machine". Bakunin also had a different view as compared to Marx's
on the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat.
As such, "[b]oth agreed that the proletariat would play a key role, but
for Marx the proletariat was the exclusive, leading revolutionary agent
while Bakunin entertained the possibility that the peasants and even the lumpenproletariat (the unemployed, common criminals, etc.) could rise to the occasion".
Bakunin "considers workers' integration in capital as destructive of
more primary revolutionary forces. For Bakunin, the revolutionary
archetype is found in a peasant milieu (which is presented as having
longstanding insurrectionary traditions, as well as a communist
archetype in its current social form—the peasant commune) and amongst
educated unemployed youth, assorted marginals from all classes,
brigands, robbers, the impoverished masses, and those on the margins of
society who have escaped, been excluded from, or not yet subsumed in the
discipline of emerging industrial work. [...] [I]n short, all those
whom Marx sought to include in the category of the lumpenproletariat".
While both anarchists and Marxists share the same final goal, the creation of a free, egalitarian society without social classes and government, they strongly disagree on how to achieve this goal. Anarchists, especially social anarchists, believe that the classless, stateless society should be established by the direct action of the masses, culminating in social revolution
and refusing any intermediate stage such as the dictatorship of the
proletariat on the basis that such a dictatorship will become a
self-perpetuating fundament. However, libertarian Marxists
argue that Marx used the phrase to mean that the worker control at the
point of production and not a party would still be a state until society
is reorganized according to socialist principles. For Bakunin, the
fundamental contradiction is that for the Marxists "anarchism or freedom
is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in
order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved". Ultimately, the main divide between anarchism and Marxism is between decentralisation and centralisation, with anarchists favouring decentralisation and Marxists arguing that due to the Industrial Revolution and later stages of the Industrial Revolution a certain degree of authority and centralisation has become necessary or inevitable.
Anarchists and many non-Marxist libertarian socialists
reject the need for a transitory state phase, claiming that socialism
can only be established through decentralized, non-coercive
organization. The phrases barracks socialism or barracks communism became a shorthand for this critique, evoking the image of citizens' lives being as regimented as the lives of conscripts in a barracks. Ironically, the term barracks communism (German: Kasernenkommunismus) was coined by Marx himself to refer to a crude, authoritarian, forced collectivism and communism
where all aspects of life are bureaucratically regimented and communal.
Originally, Marx used the expression to criticise the vision of Sergey Nechayev outlined in "The Fundamentals of the Future Social System" which had a major influence on other Russian revolutionaries like Pyotr Tkachev and Vladimir Lenin. The term barracks here does not refer to military barracks, but to the workers' barracks-type primitive dormitories in which industrial workers lived in many places in the Russian Empire of the time. Later, political theorists of the Soviet Union applied this term to China under Mao Zedong. Still later during the Soviet perestroika period, the term was used to apply to the history of the Soviet Union itself.
Noam Chomsky
is critical of Marxism's dogmatic strains and the idea of Marxism
itself, but he still appreciates Marx's contributions to political
thought. Unlike some anarchists, Chomsky does not consider Bolshevism
"Marxism in practice", but he does recognize that Marx was a
complicated figure who had conflicting ideas. While acknowledging the
latent authoritarianism in Marx, Chomsky also points to the libertarian
strains that developed into the council communism of Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek. However, his commitment to libertarian socialism has led him to characterize himself as an anarchist with radical Marxist leanings.
As a response to those critiques, libertarian Marxism refers to a broad
scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism, emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives such as Stalinism and Maoism, among others. Libertarian Marxism is also often critical of reformist positions, such as those held by social democrats. Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Friedrich Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France, emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation. Along with anarchism, libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.
.JPG)
.jpg)
