anarchism(an'erkizm) n. [ANRCH(Y)+-ISM] 1. the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups 2. resistance, sometimes by terrorism, to organized government

syndicalism (-iz'm) n. [Fr. syndicalisme < syndical, of a syndic or labor union (chambre syndicale) < syndic: see SYNDIC] a theory and movement of trade unionism in which all means of production and distribution would be brought under the control of federations of labor unions by the use of direct action, such as general strikes-

I was drawn to anarchism in particular because I am basically convinced that anarchism is as far as you can take an explicit, conscious idea of revolution without selling out and becoming part of the system again. I certainly don't represent the anarchist community, and in some ways I can't even really call myself an anarchist. To me, anarchism as a body of theory has a lot of problems, and the contemporary anarchist movement in particular is in all kinds of trouble, but when it comes right down to it, despite all it's faults, it continues to be just about the best thing I have ever heard of.

Anarchism is truly revolutionary because it is the only alternative system anybody ever came up with that really opposes power, in all it's forms. Major revolutions in the past have always occurred when a relatively agitated population sought redress of the most severe abuses of either political or economic power, and they inevitably became either a malevolent color negative of the overthrown oppressor, like in Russia or the First Republic; or a hypocritical compromise which is manipulated into becoming a mere farcical reform (inevitably quickly undermined...) like in Mexico in 1910.

Beyond merely opposing both basic types of oppression (i.e. political and economic), anarchism on the other hand has learned a sneaky, ancient trick of avoiding each of the horns of that old dilemma, neither falling into the 'ends justify the means' trap that turns almost all well meaning reformers into Nazis if they get on top of things, nor waffling into pathetic assimilation.

So as far as I can tell anarchism has within it the ability to continue to be revolutionary, it has a real solid component in it's inherent nature which shields against either wishy washy corruption and compromise or groupthink fascism. Almost as important, anarchism as a broad body of theory does not just oppose the system, it really has a pro-active component to it which most revolutionary movements quite frankly do not have- some kind of realistic, viable (however marginally plausible) alternative to the current system.

While Marx and his followers for example understood some faint, probably outdated rules of the nature of Capitalism; and racial, gender, or culturally oriented movements have great insights into the evil nature of our society, only anarchism offers a multitude of demonstrably valid critiques of the system, and predicts, locates, and identifies patterns of human behavior and social structure which not only identify the faults of toady's way, but seem to point out a whole lot of other, better ways to do things.

They say man is a giant imprisoned in a pigmies hut...I think most 'revolutions' have sent us off to desperately fight for possession of some silly little keys to a door that is probably barred from the outside, and anarchism is telling us to stand up, break through the roof, and walk on down that hill to the next place on the agenda. --Dave the Wage Slave

Courtesy of the Down 'Home' All-City Bomb Squad #23rd Ward All-Stars: "You best comply with my U.Z.I." & the honorable Rev Dr. 'General Strike' MBA Ph.D. FAI CNT ABC IWW This document is a publication of the Fire Ant Collective (and all the people we ripped off ideas from) and nobody else did it.

This version (K) October 1995 nobody. The 1st version of Egality was released for clandestine distribution January 1994. All rights Reversed, official Fire @nt 23 proof Orthodox Discordian Catma , As long as you are an individual person and not a cabbage or something, feel free to reprint anything you find here

"It should be noted that while the State is the sort of institution which performs small tasks badly, it performs large tasks badly also..." ...Robert Anton Wilson

• *anarchist factory workers and farmers gained Control of most of a Major European country in the 1930's, and ran it under direct self-management for more than a year and
• *it took the combined might of the German, Spanish and Italian armies to defeat them?
• *an anarchist shot and killed a President of the United States?
• *anarchists wrote famous books like War and Peace?
• *anarchists once operated one of the most important Labor Unions in the USA?
• *anarchist bandits took over the Ukraine for several years during the Russian Revolution?
• *anarchists played a major role in the Mexican revolution?
• *workers and farmers in anarchist trade-unions have run large factories and giant agricultural operations under direct worker control with great success?
• *anarchists have operated public utilities such as trolleys, trains, electricity, water, food- distribution and all public and private services for a city of over two million people, and were able to do so more efficiently than the traditional authorities and property owners ever had?
• *an extremely prosperous European Country is currently governed in a quasi- anarchistic manner?
• *anarchists today are running a squatter City on the outskirts of a major European Capital?
• *anarchists helped win you the right to the eight hour day?
• *anarchists are still stirring up trouble right now?

You can write to the Fire @nt Collective for a copy of the entire 'Egality' document, which includes a brief history of anarchist theory and of the Historical anarchist movement, from it's earliest theoretical beginnings in Greece and China thousands of years ago, to modern anarchy around the world in 1995.

libertarian: (lib'er ter 'e en) n. [LIBERTY (Y) ] 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will 2. a person who advocates full civil liberties -adj of or upholding either of these principles -Webster New World Dictionary

Didn't see anything about some stupid Businessman's party founded in the 1970's did you?

An introduction to the History of anarchism and anarchist theory Page 1

...many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to---rather than alleviate---material and cultural deficit.

Anarchism is both a simple idea and a very subtle political and sociological philosophy. It has existed for Hundreds, possibly thousands of years, not merely as a historical curiosity or an arcane theory for lunatic fringe intellectuals, but as a powerful, influential, and occasionally dynamic force in human society.

Anarchism, in its many incarnations and permutations, has long existed both outside our 'civilization' among some of the older cultures of the world, as well as within it, as an important component of resistance to both political and economic repression over the years.

Anarchism basically boils down to the idea that people can live and prosper without a paternal, authoritarian, centralized government telling them what to do. It means, quite simply, self government, self management. Organization from the ground up instead of from the top down, real, not 'representative' democracy, the sort of thing that is often rather condescendingly referred to as 'grass-roots' in the mainstream press.

The basic philosophy central to most anarchist movements is simply that you don't have to screw each other over to survive, that cooperation and mutual aid is in everyone's self interest, and that a lifestyle which incorporates these philosophies is both practical and desirable.

Competition is the law of the jungle, and Cooperation is the Law of Civilization.

Many Americans scribe to the popular Darwinist mentality that it is a dog-eat-dog world, only the strong survive and all that crap. They believe that people are inherently greedy and they admire capitalism because it seems to take advantage of the wicked side of human nature to compel people to produce and work.

The anarchists however insist that human beings prospered in nature not because we were stronger than other animals, nor even because we learned to create and use weapons; that rather humanity survived and succeeded because we were capable of co-operation and communication to a degree that no other animal could match. In other words, individually, a man with a spear or a flint knife certainly wasn't any more deadly than say, a bear or a crocodile, but an organized group of human beings, cooperating, are more powerful than anything else in the Jungle...This isn't difficult to understand.

The common objection to anarchy isn't that it's not a nice idea, but that it's not practical because it doesn't incorporate, or 'capitalize' upon the uglier realities of human nature. People think societies HAVE to be organized like a school classroom or an army platoon, or a prison, in order to be stable. People think its silly to say that societies can be organized like a block-party, or a volunteer fire brigade, or an Indian tribe, or a Swiss Canton, or the internet.

when men rule governments, men won't need governments; until then we are screwed

But anarchists point out that there are numerous examples, both historical and recent, which indicate quite the opposite: that freedom from authority not only agrees with human nature, increased autonomy and liberty in fact stimulate it to much greater efficiency and productivity than any form of slavery, including the wage slavery of capitalism. Anarchists believe that it is the natural state of human beings to live in a truly democratic society, in a free federation of local communities or productive syndicates that understand and interact with the individual in a sane manner.

They do not believe in the Pyramidal centralized state in which power is concentrated in the hands of the distant (and necessarily unsympathetic, incompetent, and in fact almost invariably hostile) few- and individuals are artificially segregated, and isolated, and culturally and socially asphyxiated.

Anarchists believe that the State works poorly because it is an inherently inefficient structure, not just because of the innate wickedness of the people who live in it and under it. They believe that people are made the way they are because the "system" is the way it is, as much as the other way around.

A strong people do not need a strong leader.

Anarchism does NOT advocate the violent overthrow of the government (like communism, fascism, Nazism and so many other 'isms' do). Instead of overthrowing the government, anarchists believe in undermining it, in creating grass-roots organizations from the ground up which can join together in free solidarity, and cast off the oppressors chains.

Anarchists do not believe in killing Pharaoh and capturing his throne, taking up his scepter in the name of 'the people'. They say people should simply teach each other to stop following his orders and listen instead to our neighbors much wiser council, to the voices of our mother, nature, and to the suppressed thoughts of our sisters and brothers, which have been silent far, far too long. They say that a thousand Vaticans, Legislatures, Kremlin's, White Houses, Boardrooms, Ziggurats, and Mad Avenues can't do any harm to any of us if we learn this heretical concept: the Emperor has no clothes, that all we need to do is unite in our defiance and their power will be broken like a maelific curse.

Freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom.

History shows us that some ancient and modern indigenous peoples such as certain of the "Indian" Nations who preceded us on this continent and some of our African, Asian and European ancestors in the old country- were able to form prosperous egalitarian societies, without all-powerful kings or emperors or high priests... complex, dynamic societies based on mutual cooperation and consensus rather than competition or subjugation, with no leaders, and yet prosperous and highly productive...

Attempts have also been made to achieve this state of human existance in modern times, and despite every effort of the many opponents of revolution in general and anarchism in particular, there has been enough time and space to demonstrate that the idea is viable. The Black Flag has left a mark on history, which, despite the strident efforts to obscure the issue, has begun to take seed in the minds of the world, and as the millions of faux ideas flow through the fickle consciousness of the masses and fade away to be replaced by other flimsy lies, the fundamental truth of the anarchist message insures that the idea will grow each time it is discovered...

The anarchist sees the so-called 'Democracies' of today much as the socialist does: most anarchists view capitalism as another form of dictatorship--an economic dictatorship where the rich hold all the cards and the poor are dominated, manipulated, and subjugated, albeit in a more subtle manner than in an overt autocracy or a so-called "Communist" state, but nevertheless just as completely.

Additionally, to the anarchist, no real democracy is taking place simply because the sullen, intentionally misinformed masses are allowed to periodically indicate their approval or disapproval of their distant leaders with no real effect on anything at all. The anarchist insists that real democracy has meaning only when it exists at the local level, and can only exist when people are directly involved in the management of their own lives.

Asking a politician to give up power is like asking a gorrilla to give up bannanas...

If people are offered a parody of freedom, much as a Donkey is falsely tempted by a diet of Carrots instead of the rancid hay it's really going to get in order to make it work harder, they are only wasting their lives in pursuit of a mirage... anarchists believe that the ends never justify the means, the lesser of two evils is evil, and no government is good government. Anarchism means government by the people, directly, period. The anarchists say that democracy, real democracy not the Political Machine majority rule procedural gimmick sound-byte farce we have in the U.S., is the only road to a sane society.

Anarchism sees the individual as a member of a community, a community in which individuals can freely choose to participate with one another... in which the communities themselves can associate into larger groups, or remain separate, in a dynamic system which can and will change and readjust itself according to the wishes if it's members.

The anarchist understands that true freedom and individual liberty are essential to the maintenance of a stable and rational society, and the passionate belief in individual liberties has always distinguished anarchists over the years, but they do not entertain a childish fantasy of infinite freedom in the tradition of fanatics like the Marquis de Sade or the Society of the Golden Dawn, as popular myth might suggest after all: "Your right to swing that frying-pan ends at the tip of my nose."

The great are great only because we are on our knees, let us rise!

Some modern Conservatives like to ape libertarian theories as an excuse for laissez-faire Capitalism and the unrestricted predations of billionaires and enormous corporations, but the anarchists who pioneered the doctrines of civil liberty had nothing of the sort in mind. For example, the doctrines of individualism which are so often cited as the basis for a lot of right wing ideologies were invented in the defence of the civil liberties of individuals, that is to say, of individual human beings, not enormous institutions or gilded aristocracies. <1>

To anarchists, General Electric is no more of an 'individual' than the BATF is, they are both impersonal institutions that are neither democratic or even natural human associations, in fact anarchists see all such institutions as predatory toward individual humans, whether they are designed to supress political dissension like the FBI, to infect and corrupt our imaginations like Mad avenue, or to fleece us of our money and natural resources like every single company on the New York Stock Exchange.

Ultimately perhaps, the State is the more immediate threat to individual liberty, but while life in one of Rockafellers Company mining towns might be measurably preferable to a lethal stint in one of Stalin's Siberian goulags, anarchists would prefer to eliminate the possibilities of either of those hellish environments from the range of the human condition. Power, after all, does not only exist in Governments, but also in corporate boardrooms, printing presses, stock exchanges, and angry mobs, to name a few. Ultimately, the anarchists aren't convinced that the real seat of power is necesarily really in the visible part of the Government at all...

Organization is indispensable; for liberty arises and has meaning only within a self-regulating community of freely co-operating individuals.

The truth is in fact that the right-wing 'Libertarians' actually fear liberty and depend on the State they claim to despise, for what they actually mean by 'liberty' is nothing more than free reign for big corporations and the rich to pillage, dominate, and loot society to their hearts content within the context of a State, smaller perhaps than todays model but just as brutal and corrupt, feudal. The collapse of the State would be a disaster for any and all Capitalists, after all, without the State in place to enforce their priveleged position in society, who will protect them from the mob they fear so much?

If there were REAL individual liberty in this world, who could claim to "own" a whole forest, or a mountain, or a river, or an appartment building or even a factory, just because of some "deed" they hold and may have inherited or acquired through some dubious means? Will free men and women literally starve as they do now while certain individuals walk among them sipping champaigne and nibbling Caviar? <2>

Whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government...whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights... A little rebellion...is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.

The more idealistic of the original framers of the United States Constitution understood something about the nature of power, not just the power of the State but the power of all of the institutions and forces that existed in society as they knew it, (such as organized religion) and well knew that laws in and of themselves are meaningless unless society is willing to enforce them, that an oligarchy of any sort, whether "Socialist" or Capitalist, will only do so at the whim of the ruling elite. Which is why they tried to build in a balance of adverserial forces into our system of government, to at least preserve the status-quo of a marginal Republic rather than to simply let the super rich rule with an iron fist, as some of our other 'Founding Fathers' intended. <3>

However, anarchists insist that only through radically increased democracy it is possible for people to live in harmony, rather than in some carefully balanced struggle in opposition to one another. Constitutional safeguards, no matter how cleverly designed, can only postpone the inevitable collapse of 'Democracy' into Empire, as we saw in Rome 2,000 years ago and are seeing in the United States today.

Furthermore, the anarchists assert that economic and social injustice are the last and greatest impediments to real democracy. Only by first eliminating privelege can we acheive true harmony, a prospect which was not feasable for Jefferson and Tom Paine, but has been accomplished to some degree at certain other points in history. Only when politicial and economic power is no longer concentrated in the hands of tiny minorities, whether they be of Tycoons, Generals, Aristocrats or Bureaucratic officals, only then will Humanity breathe free of the yoke of oppression.

By seeking out those certain rare examples of this very unusual form of revolution, one can begin to understand the possibilities of a society in democratic harmony, where the independent sovereignty of strong freely associated groups joined together for mutual support at the base, can insure exactly the kind of social stability that the ruthless competition between minority interests at the pinnacle never can, no matter how many safeguards are built into their interractions.

Anarchism is really two things, a cultural, philosophical, social, political, artistic, and even theological tendency toward liberty, and also an actual historical revolutionary movement... both components of anarchism are very important. Still, some confusion remains about the difference between them, which should be cleared up.

While some of the more dynamic, vital elements of the Right-wing "Libertarian" groups may call themselves anarchists, for example, the only real anarchist movements- the only ones who ever actually accomplished anything concrete so far, were the anti-authoritarian or libertarian wing of the various labor and revolutionary groups: the libertarian socialists and the syndicalists; the workers and farmers and the few rare intellectuals who were influenced by men and women such as Pierre Joseph Prudhoun, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldmann, Prince Pyotor Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Flores Magon, Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Tolstoy, Joe Hill, Emiliano Zapata, and so many others...

The real anarchist movement arose out of the radical fringes of the 19th Century Labor movement, from the grass- roots of socialism. Anarchism was in fact the interpretation of 'socialism' by rank and file revolutionaries, just as it's bitter rival Marxism, which appeared at the same time and indeed as part of the same Labor conferences, was the model of socialism invented by the intellectual elite.

As such, the history and philosophy of anarchism was rejected by the intellectuals and the academic world, and even as Marx was being virtually canonised as a saint among the leftist elite, knowlege of anarchism has had to sneak through back alleys and subcultural refuges, and has finally come down to us through the underground, through the radical rebels, iconoclasts, and anarchist activists themselves<4>.

Unlike any other significant philosophy you can think of, anarchism exists in human knowledge only due to the force of it's own energies, no great Nations have been pushing it, no prestigious Universities sing it's praises, no expensive Public Relations campaign has been launched, and yet though believed to be long-dead, it keeps popping up among angry workers and farmers like some kind of demented politicial jack in the box...

Anarchists reject the insidious lies of both the East and West. In each case, vulgar parodies of the truth are presented as justifications for oppressive parasitic structures which enslave and corrupt their constituent members. Believe it or not, most anarchists are practical (if often weird) folks: they don't support one idea over another because of some philosophical fashion, or out of blind faith in intangible theories, they stand by their ethical standards and their political ideals because they understand it is in their own self- interest to do so, and especially because they begin to see it work in their own life as they apply these ideas to reality.

Anarchism offers us both a surprisingly rational and uniquely consistent critique of the current system, and a little known but very compelling alternative to it. Anarchy claims to be the only valid solution to the eternal dilemma of social reform, it says that if we have had enough of swinging hopelessly from the left or right wing versions of the same corrupt scam, from one version of the same vicious lie to another, then it is high time we shook off the shackles of the ancient Babylonian con, and began to take responsibility for our own lives...so what do you think?

Anarchists may hate and fear the FBI, the IRS, the NSA and the World Bank every bit as much as the most rabid survivalist in the Michigan Militia, but they also worry about the chilling threat to individual liberty posed by a bunch of sinister Private institutions running the gamut from Chase Manhattan Bank, Madison Avenue, and Standard Oil, to the Deveers Diamond syndicate, the KKK, the Vatican, the Cripps, the Church of Scientology, and the Cosa Nostra.

<2> How carefully they will have to be convinced that Mr Forbes, say, should own dozens of mansions, islands, factories, office buildings, and jet airplanes, while Jane Q. Sixpack can't have nothing but the rented space in some grimy trailer! You would have to do some fast-talking indeed to explain to an angry crowd why your inheritance entitles you to luxuries that would stagger the imagination of a Roman Emperor while a lifetime of hard-work won't even rate most people the minimum requirements of comfort and security needed to survive!

<3> But today, modern Conservatives are critical of key founders such as Thomas Jefferson, not because he owned slaves or because he bypassed the Constitution during the Louisiana purchase, but because he wrote too much Democracy into the system. The Conservatives actively and quite blatantly express their fear of what they call the Lex Majoris Partis, the majority, 'the mob', because they understand very clearly the realities of the Human Condition, even if the people themselves don't, the sweet dreams of the Rich are often marred by lurid visions of class war.

<4> Which is why you are reading this here, instead of in the Utne Reader or Mother Jones

I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; [But] not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; [nor] the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of...bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each---an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero.

Anarchism as an explicitly conscious political philosophy has also been around for a long time--my encyclopedia, for example, traces it all the way back to a philosophical movement called the Stoics in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C. and claims it was invented by their leader, Zeno of Citium, another source linked anarchism to a bronze age Chinese philosopher, though I haven't been able to verify this yet.

Other sources cite different origins, such as the writings of some early 19th century German philosophers such as Kant, and Hegel- who also influenced the early development of Karl Marx's theories of Communism; and the works of other philosophers and writers such as the Frenchman Jean Jacques Rousseau, the American Henri David Thoreau, and the 16th century Englishman Thomas Moore <1>...many other folks link it to religions such as Zen Buddhism or even early Christianity.

Even the writings of some of the so called 'founding fathers' of this country, such as Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, and James Madison, have been described as anarchistic by some people...

No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world... I cleave to no system, I am a true seeker.

Anarchism as we know it today, however, can be a little more easily traced to it's roots. Modern anarchism arose in Europe in the late 19th century as part of the same radical labor movement that saw the reinvention (or perhaps, popularization) of 'communism' and socialism. In fact the First International Workers Congress, in which Marxism was more or less invented and Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto was first introduced to the world, was broken up due to disagreements between Marx and Engel's State Socialists- who came to be called Communists, and the libertarian socialists or Bakuninists, the faction whose most famous spokesman was a guy called Michael Bakunin, which ended up being called anarchists <2>

Like the Communists, the bakuninists believed in a 'revolution' which would bring about a fair and egalitarian society which wasn't as miserable as the one they were living under back then. Unlike the Communists they had a strong belief in and respect for individual liberty and felt that centralized authority was inherently corrupt.

The Communists thought the way to save the world was to kill all of the rich people and take over in the name of the poor folks. The anarchists figured that if you kill the king and sit in his throne, before long your ass will begin to grow roots and you will be acting just like a king yourself... Bakunin, for example, expressed his fear that a "Red Bureaucracy" could very well prove to be "the most vile and terrible lie that our century has created."

The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must _begin_ by doing away with the political organization of the State...But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune

The Communists may be right about what they believe is the fatal flaw of anarchism, since so far every major anarchist revolution has indeed been eventually crushed by the forces of bloody reaction, but it is ironic perhaps that in almost every one of these cases those forces were either actively aided in their effort to crush the revolution by the Communists, as in Spain in 1936, else they consisted solely of the Communists themselves, as in the Ukraine or Kronstadt in 1921, or in Hungary in 1956. This legacy of bitter rivalry and eventually open warfare between the 'Communists' and the seemingly related anarchists can be traced back to the origins of modern Communism, and to the philosophy of it's creators..

Karl Marx, together with his confederate Frederiech Engels, invented what came to be called the Communist movement in the mid 19th century. Marx is famous and widely respected to this day even by some of his most rabid political opponents however, not because of his Communist Manifesto or his organizing efforts in the labor movement, but rather due to his extremely insightful and in fact frankly brilliant criticism of Capitalism and the whole status-quo of 19th Century European society. Marx clearly articulated the realities of the system, from the obviously predatory and parasitic nature of capitalism, to the collusive role of the church in the oppression of the poor <3>.

The Established apologists of the intellectual world were horrified by Marx's cold, concise analysis of the system outlined in his most famous and important work, Das Kapital. He presented the world with an almost irrefutable description of the inherent evils of the system, but the problem with Marx and his movement was that he didn't offer a comprehensive alternative to capitalism, other than the rather vague intention of overthrowing the current system and eventually returning to a communal or egalitarian society.

The important emphasis here is on an eventual return to communism, because the Marxists became increasingly, I think fatally infatuated with the idea of a transitional 'Peoples State', wherein the vanguard (leadership) of the Marxist party would seize control of the reigns of power and establish a 'temporary' people controlled government. The idea was that only from this position could the transition from Imperialism to Communism be successfully engineered.

Society will not be free until the last Bureaucrat hangs in the guts of the last Priest.

The radical labor movement of the 19th Century arose seemingly as a result of two combined pressures. From below, spontaneous organic worker and peasant traditions of revolt emerged in reaction to the staggering social upheavals and calamities resulting from the excesses of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, and their general militancy and sporadic insurrections pushed society toward revolution. From above, the attraction of an increasingly fecund and lively body of revolutionary theory which was growing fashionable among certain factions in the intellectual world stimulated idealists and disaffected members of society with moving rhetoric and convincing criticisms of the status quo. Though mutually complimentary in many ways, there was always some tension between the goals and ideals of these two forces...

'Socialist' theory varied widely in focus and strategical thrust, but had developed a great deal of sophistication since it's rebirth in the enlightenment <4>, among the Encyclopedists like Diderot, 17th century Cynics and social critics like Rousseau, and imaginative Utopians like Thomas Moore and later idealists such as the great English anarchist William Godwin.

In the 19th Century most revolutionary intellectuals followed the Authoritarian tradition of the Jacobins, and many eagerly planned out both a strictly disciplined model for revolution and every detail of the 'Utopia' that was to follow, in great stern clockwork schemes that have become synonymous with 'socialism'. In every country such masterminds began to appear, ready to seize control of spontaneous revolts and anxious to guide angry workers into their own vision of a new society.

In the later 19th Century, revolutionary ideology grew in sophistication and potency, in some cases by absorbing the ideas of great Metaphysical Philosophers such as Kant and especially Hegel. A new crop of much more subtle and effective revolutionists appeared, revitalized by a more profound understanding of the human condition. Most, like Marx and Engels still followed the Authoritarian model, but a few others began to speak of a vastly different approach to revolution and the re-invention of society.

Proudhon, inventor of the concept of Mutuelism, the fearsome German individualist 'Max Stirner', wild Bakunin, father of Syndicalism, and the heretical Prince Kropotkin all spoke in various shades of a libertarian or self managing society. Their ideas were not for the most part popular among the cadre of Communist intellectuals but did seem to gain favor among many elements of the organized working class, to the dismay of the more traditional Communists, who greatly feared the loss of control over the young international labor movement.

In fact when Bakunin first made his appearance in the early congresses of the great International Working Men's Association, he arrived in the middle of a struggle between the intellectuals and technicians on the one hand, who advocated strict discipline and centralized control of the entire labor movement, much of which was already under their power, and the remaining independent workers organizations on the other.

Most of these were organized under decentralized, libertarian principles and resisted both the concentration of power within the movement and the usurpation of their own popular authority on the local level, advocating instead a free federation of democratic workers (and later farmers) groups as both a model for the revolutionary movement, and eventually, for the post-revolutionary society itself. To this end they had largely fixated on the early mutuelist ideas of Proudhon, since these were the only libertarian leaning philosophy extant.

It is as much for this reason, as for any great rhetorical skill on his part <6> that Bakunin became such a famous and important spokesman for the libertarian wing of the Labor movement: he was just the only major figure who believed in a theory of socialism that to any degree matched the reality of the existing organizations of the workers themselves, most of which were libertarian and democratic by their very nature. <7> Eventually due to the threat to control of the labor movement which was posed by the continued existance of an 'anarchist' faction, Karl Marx had the International Working Mens Association moved to New York City, in America, where there basically werent any socialists of either anarchist or marxist convictions, in order to scuttle it, and so prevent anarchism from interfering with his own organization.

One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves...

This has always been the crux of the debate between the Communists, and indeed leftists of all stripes, and the anarchists over the years. The uncompromising anarchists always insisted on strictly maintaining their libertarian ideals, refusing to accept a "transitional people-controlled State" which was supposed to get phased out later, any more than they would participate in universal suffrage or a bourgeois parliament.

Sadly, what was once merely an issue in a fairly obscure political debate was transformed into a tragic day to day nightmare for millions as the seeds of disaster which existed in neo-Marxist ideology grew into the stark reality of the Bolshevik "dictatorship of the proletariat". The purgatory process which started with eviction of the anarchists and mencheviks from the first international would not be completed until after a hundred years and the murder of twenty million people in Russia alone in a series of globally unprecedented Genocidal social disasters which took place under totalitarian monsters like Stalin and Mao tse Tung. The anarchists took little comfort in seeing their predictions come true.

Virtue and intelligence belong to human beings as individuals freely associating with other individuals in small groups.

Bakunin originally advocated a form of economic organization known as collectivism. Collectivism differed from communism, in that resources on the local and individual level could still be private, and only major natural resources such as Mountains, Forests, Rivers, Lakes, Oceans, and large scale 'means of production', such as factories, public utilities, transportation infrastructure and the like, would become collectivized property.

This is not necessarily the same as 'Nationalizing' such resources, because Bakunin further advocated a form of political organization known as Syndicalism as an alternative to centralized State control.

Freedom without socialism is privelege, injustice, Socialism without Freedom is Slavery, Brutality.

Anarcho-Syndicalism means the management of industry, i.e. factories and other major workplaces, by democratic councils of the people who work in them. Bakunin envisioned a society in which individual farmers and artisans (even small business owners) could continue to operate independently and 'own' their own resources if they chose to do so, (as long as they do not employ wage labor) while other groups of small entrepenurs or peasants could form voluntary collectives or communes, and larger scale economic institutions would be managed by councils of workers, syndicates (or 'soviets' as they were known before the bolsheviks discredited that word...)..

Other sectors of society such as consumers, mutual aid federations such as credit unions and public services like transportation, entertainment, child care and health care, as well as rural farmers and urban neighborhoods would also be represented by local community councils of recallable (i.e. temporary) representatives. People would assume duties like this as a short term responsibility on a rotating basis, and perform them to whatever degree they were actually necessary rather than making them into a self perpetuating institution or a bureaucracy which creates reasons for it's own existance. The entire society would consist of an integration of free and open federations of these various entities in a dynamic interconnected network of autonomous groups.

In some versions of syndicalism workers would continue to be paid a kind of wage, based perhaps on the number of hours worked and the difficulty or danger involved in the type of work they did and/or the skills and training required to do their job, though theoretically these 'wages' would be much closer to a common average, as surplus wealth would be redirected to less developed sectors of the economy rather than hoarded in staggering amounts by a tiny minority of individuals as is the custom today.

Theoretically, these wages would represent far less importance in an anarchist-collectivist society than they do today, because they would not be required to pay say 'rent' for housing for example, other than in the sense of maintaining the upkeep of ones home or neighborhood (as opposed to supporting a whole class of landlords, bureaucrats, and speculators through rent, interest, fees, taxes royalties, etc...) However many anarchists oppose the concept of wages or work vouchers of any kind, fearing that they would prevent a real egalitarian society from emerging.

In considering the model of the anarcho-collectivist society it is important to remember that this is not just a utopian dream but has actually been achieved in real life if for a relativley brief period (for up to three years in Spain...). In practice, this model of society proved astonishingly successful in several respects, beyond even the expectations of the anarchists who brought them about, as will be discussed in the chapters dealing with the Makhno revolution in the Ukraine and the Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939.

It is also significant to point out that contrary to the predictions of some 'anarcho-Capitalists' in practice these societies were much more open and free than any other modern society, and the wishes of individuals who chose to remain separate from the collectives and syndicates were respected. This was not soley restricted to peasants and farmers and ordinary workers, in fact in some cases factory owners ended up even helping their former employees run thier old factories under self-management, but more about this later...

Property is theft.

Many anarchists later in the 19th century, such as Kropotkin, advocated a more radical restructuring of society based on the communist ideal of 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' Kropotkin and the other anarcho-communists advocated the collectivization of all property not personally usable by an individual or a family (that however, is an important distinction from what most people think is meant by the abolition of private property...)

Anarcho- Communists also envision the total abolition of the wage system, to be replaced by the rational exchange of goods and services. Most of the twentieth century anarchist theorists follow this path toward a more complete and radical re-invention of society, though some, most noticably the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain in 1936, still largely relied on Bakunin's more moderate collectivist model in practice. Generally, while many anarchists agree with the ultimate goal of anarchist-communism, there is a great deal of disagreement over how or how fast to impliment this (i.e. imediately or gradually...)

Property is freedom.

Another important school of anarchist thought focused on the individual. This is closer to the common understanding of anarchism today: the fierce independence of spirit, visceral refusal to bow to authority. The writing of many individualist-anarchists later became popular with right wing 'Libertarians' to be used as an excuse for corporate license or the predations of the rich, but this is merely a crude perversion of individualist philosophy.

For example, Max Stirner, the great German anarchist and individualist, represented what some consider the epitome of the individualist ideal, (his work, The ego and it's own, has been described by some people as 'The Billionaires Bible') and he has become very popular among laisses-faire Capitalists and the like, but the thrust of his thinking wasn't intended as an apology for the predations of Billionaires, as he makes quite clear in this famous quote about 'great men' (see Egality I).

Not all of the individualist anarchists had as strong of an egoist tone as Stirner. The early 19th Century Ameriucan thinker Henri David Thorreau, while not part of any anarchist movement per se, is considered by many anarchists to be an admirable representative of one wing of anarchist individualism.

Actually, most of the individualists were quite advanced in their understanding of economic and political realities, in some ways they were more sophisticated than the Collectivist and Communist-anarchists, who advocated fairly simple though still arguably viable economic and political models for restructuring human communities on the basis of political liberty and economic justice.

Folks like Stirner focused more on the spiritual effects of modern society on the individual, and the philosophical ramifications of the relation of the individual to society. Their critique is both more subtle and more powerful, but also more slippery. They do not for the most part refute the economic theories, but being closer to metaphysical philosophy than simple political doctrine their ideas are more easily misunderstood, or misrepresented.

Property is impossible.

Individualism came to influence an important movement in writing and art in the early twentieth Century called Dada, which rejected modern conceptions of reality and 'rational' thought in the light of the failure of modern society to avoid the unpreciented appearance of Hell On Earth such as was dramatically and exhaustivley demonstrated during the spectacle of nightmarish idiocy called World War One. Dada in turn sparked the birth of Surrealism, which eventually lead to some of the most interesting developments in neo-anarchist theory in the later Twentieth Century, but that must be saved for later chapters.

Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us.

While most of the anarchist theorists of the 19th Century were of a rather mischievous and sometimes rebelliously violent temperment, by the turn of the century numerous pacifists began to appear within the movement, particularly among the anarchist leaning Christian heresies, and some of the more idealistic groups of anarcho- Communists. Kropotkin was a pacifist through most of his carreer, and the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy was also well known for his anarcho-pacifist utopian Christian theories.

If god did exist, it would be necessary to abolish him.

Before there was such a thing as the Communist party, or the International, or Labor Unions or plots to Fluoridise the water or any of the modern trappings of the radical Left, there were plenty of uprisings of workers and farmers, going all the way back to Roman times (when people like Spartacus were playing out another cycle of revolutionary activity). In the earlier years, such as during the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment particulalry, many of the peasant risings and the like that did take place were connected to religious movements.

Despite it's almost universally reactionary nature these days, and it's traditional villainous role in society in general, certain versions of Christianity have actually been rather subversive. In Europe during the rise of Mercantilism and early Capitalism, the tendancy of Christianity to lean toward communal living, it's advocation of poverty and moral purity, and especially it's pronouncements against usury and greed, occasionally inspired a radical political interpretation of Jesus more wildly anti-aristocratic remarks among certain groups of farmers and burghers unimpressed by the rapacious villany of their new Bourgeois neighbors.

Some of these heresies grew into or inspired some very interesting and extremely revolutionary or even anarchist movements, such as the Diggers, the Luddites, the anabaptists, the Quakers and the Shakers, to name a few of the more notable ones. These days there is some echo of this tradition in left wing Catholic heresies such as the pseudo- marxist Liberation Theology.

Many 'illegalist' anarchists became notorious in Southern France and Spain around the turn of the 19th Century, but the tradition of anarchist bank-robbers and bold class conscious anarcho-gangsters persisted for some time, and some of them such as the Spaniards Durutti and Ascasi, men whose activities as outlaws eclipsed that of any Jesse James that ever lived, but whose ideological purpose put them well beyond the role of a mere 'bandit', later became important members of the anarchist labor syndicates in Spain, and played key roles in the 1936 Revolution.

An examination of the life of some of these colorful characters such as Durutti in particular reveals that many were much more complex and valuable than might first be imagined from their reputation in the mainstream world as 'anarcho-gangsters' (a term used almost exclusively by critics of anarchism, which most anarchists violently object to) because of the very un-gangster like selflessness and the seemingly uncorruptable idealism and good sense they showed, but we believe this term is in some sense accurate, as there clearly is a gangster side to some anarchists, though like 'anarchy' itself this term is misleading and can be used to describe many different things ..

Another classification most anarchists would object to besides 'Gangster' is of an anarchist 'Bandit'. A certain important sector of anarchist activity in the early 20th century primarily arose out of peasant (or poor farmers) uprisings in the countryside, as opposed to trade-union or propaganda activity in urban centers. Even in the United States we had something kind of along these lines with the Populist movement, though in Europe and Latin America they were much more radical.

Some of the most famous and important anarchist practitioners, such as Nestor Makhno who was active in the Ukraine during the Russian revolution, and Emilano Zapata who was a key player in the Mexican revolution, acted as military and ideological 'leaders' of massive peasant movements which essentially practiced banditry against the extremely harsh and overbearing feudal landowners who ruthlessly dominated the countrisde in both of those regions.

In early practice this was more of the robin-hood type thing, but the unique situation in these areas, combined with the explicitly anarchist ideology of the most influental members of the movements (i.e. most importantly Makhno and Zapata themselves) led to a sophisticated realisation of anarchist theory, in fact in both of these cases, particularly in the Ukraine, led to anarchism actually breaking out on the face of this Earth.

This phenomenon was less the result of a specific philosophy of peasant socialism in the sense that Maoism is kind of the peasant-socialist version of Bolshevik Communism, than it was the organic combination of the traditions of the common people with the revolutionary ideology of certain influental members of these movments. Specifically, in Mexico, the original Zapatistas, like their modern namesakes, drew heavily on their Indian cultural roots for a very strong tradition of small scale democratic collectivism. In the Ukraine the situation was similar, peasants had often practiced a de-centralised un-authoritarian form of collectivism at the village level for centuries, and they drew on this experience, combined with modern anarchist theory, to create explicitly anti-authoritarian societies.

Peasant socialists were criticised by other anarchists because many of the members of these movements were not considered to be sophisticated ideologically. For example, the Zapatistas (though not Zapata himself) embraced a grass- roots form of Catholicism, which horrified members of the very powerful urban anarcho-syndicalist organizations like the Casa Obrea Mundial who were active in the big cities, nearly all of whom were opposed to any form of organized religion on general principle.

This and other misunderstandings contributed to a ridiculous situation where the syndicalists in desperation actually once sided with a very short lived 'liberal' governent to defend Mexico City from Zapatas (and Pancho Villas) peasant armies. In the light of the re-emergence of a second very important incarnation of Zapatisas since 1994 it is clear that the 'Peasant Socialism' wing of anarchy deserves to be taken more seriously than it has been in the past.

In the practice of Mutual Aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support -- not mutual struggle -- has had the leading part.

The most famous of the anarchist philosophers were the partisans who advocated one or another of these various factional directions of anarchy, but some of the most interesting anarchist thinkers and activists combined several facets of libertarian and socialist thought to form new and often very important revolutionary paradigms.

Perhaps because of their greater subtelty some of these type of anarchists have been largely overlooked or misunderstood, even though their ideas may well hold the key to the continued development of anarchist theory. In this category we find such remarkable individuals who made their mark throughout the history of the modern anarchist movement, from the less easily classified 19th Century anrchists like especially Paul Joseph Proudhon, to American anarchist Emma Goldmann, libertarian socialist Rosa Luxemburg, syndicalists Flores and Ricardo Magon, the German syndicalist Rudolph Rocker, and one of my favorites, an irrepressable Italian by the name of Errico Malatesta, who embodied the rare combination of a man of action with a credible theorist.

Several modern anarchist thinkers also fall into this category to some degree, but too many forge ahead in one or another of the factional slivers, too stubborn to learn how to draw strength from the other tendancies.

In North America, with a few notable and interesting exceptions the locals did not understand anarchist philosophy for the most part, and the early anarchist movements here were originally largely made up of recent immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, Scandinavia, and Latin America. Instead, some of the very few better educated (hence rich) Americans who had even heard of anarchism borrowed some anarchist theories and interwove them into a philosophy they rather brazenly label as 'anarcho-capitalism'. (Only in America!)

The self described advocates of this theory mimic anarchist criticisms of the State, but only in the sense of Governments as distinct from Corporations and other 'anarchist' manifestations of the 'Free Market' and in fact they even envision all the various arms of the State being taken over by private enterprise, (thus transforming them into acceptable and free institutions), including 'private' police, prisons, armies, etc. By this standard a Rockafeller owned company mining town would actually be considered 'anarchist'.

To my knowlege anarcho-capitalism as a popular revolution or a mass movement has never existed outside of a few think tanks and John Birch society meetings, (except in the sense that large Corporations increasingly pay little heed to the laws that individual human beings are forced to obey in our current society, and thus could be considered 'anarchist') and there aren't even any noteworthy activists or writers in this school, with the possible exception of one eccentric 19th Century American individualist 'anarchist' clalled Lysander Spooner, and even he didn't espouse the kind of nonsense they talk about now.

Basically the main claim to fame of this school of 'anarchy' seems to be it's ability to discredit and act as a spoiler to real anarchism, since unlike every other form of anarchism this variety is well funded and supported in 'think tanks', Universities and establishment intelligentsia. It also serves to create even more arguments in favor of unrestricted maneuvers of Capital within the framework of our society. In fact many anarcho-capitalists actually lean toward 'minarchist' philosophy, which blatantly advocates the elimination of all forms of government except for just enough police and armies to protect the property of the Rich. Quite revolutionary!

There was never any such thing as anarcho-marines, the phrase is completely meaningless and irrelevent to the history of anarchism, but as such, is almost every bit as significant to the history of anararchist theory as anarcho-capitalism, and is therefore included for balance.

You can walk into work late with dignity, but you can't chase after the bus with dignity.

Similarly, there were very few if any anarcho- Lunatics in the 19th and early 20th century anarchist movements, or outside those movements, or anywhere else for that matter, with one or two possible exceptions such as Jaroslav Hasec. Jaroslav, or J to his pals, was a Czech anarchist, prankster, drinker, writer, and hooligan, who wrote a book called The Good Soldier Svejk which was the inspiration for Joseph Hellers famous World War II novel, Catch-22. He also wrote briefly for a magazine about animals, but was fired for making up articles about imaginary ones. Other than him I don't know of any significant Anarcho-Lunatics in the early movement. However, the Fire @nt Collective is comprised entirely of Anarcho-Lunatics, and since we wrote this thing, we give ourselves equal billing with real schools of thought, thus totally skewing the focus of this presentation of anarchist theory. See how corrupting power can be?

Anarchism is obviously a little known and greatly misunderstood philosophy which very few ordinary people really understand outside of some places like Spain where it has managed to make a name for itself. Since real anarchy will never be taught in a University or broadcast on TV, (although you may see like a new show about a real rebellious anarcho-marine cop who rides a harley, or something.) most anarchists bemoan their isolation in counter-cultural ghettos and are frustrated by the diffiuclty of introducing these ideas to four billion people by arduous publishing of a few anarchist books which are only distributed by obsucre underground punk rock record labels, since they understand the urgency of explaining this concept to the general public.

The only people who probably know anything about it in the U.S. for example are a small handful of secret police agents who are taught some of the rhetoric so they can do a better job of detecting and liquidating any real anarchists who may actually emerge in spite of excellent modern social conditioning. This dreary situation makes real anarchists upset.

The highly irrational Anarcho-Lunatics however believe that in an increasingly insane world, among masses of people who are dumbed down more and more with each generation raised under the TV set, that outsider status, an inability to adjust to society and in fact Lunacy itself is to be cherished and valued, since the 'normal' people, what the Church of the SubGenius call 'Pinks' 'mediocretins', 'cage dwellers' etc, are not people at all but are actually horrible monsters from outer space, armies of demented 'malicious mental dwarfs' who have by now been succesffully conditioned to actually prefer pain, suffering, ignroance, and in fact hell on earth, to anarchy.

Therefore we proudly embrace our status as the 'Lunatic Fringe' of our society. There is no other worthwhile place to be! Anyway, we will explain more about anarcho- lunacy, which is not to be confused with any real forms of anarchist philsophy, later in this document.