Anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be grouped into broad
categories, depending on the economic arrangements that they consider to
be most suitable to human freedom. However, all types of anarchists share
a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker:
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main
differences are between "individualist" and
"social" anarchists,
although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually
exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists,
anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority,
with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United
States. In this section we indicate the differences between these
main trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear,
while social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and
capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to
get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions
to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a
society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist
anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and have
a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we must
not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common, namely
a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and capitalist
domination and exploitation.
In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree over
such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights
and a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are
only different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas,
the anarchist movement (like life itself) is in a constant
state of change, discussion and thought -- as would be expected
in a movement that values freedom so highly.
To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place
themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This
does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated
with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism
is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger
base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the
sort of society we would like to live in.
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some
kind of state, the differences between individualists and social
anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority
and anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.
The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now
(and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists
generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions,
such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually support
strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as rent
strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out
of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists,
not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action
to create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being
in contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they seek
to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property by means
of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around mutual banks
and co-operatives). In this way a general "social liquidation" would
be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by reform and not by
expropriation.
Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this
is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece
by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of reforms
by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within capitalism.
Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with anarchist principles
as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority (be it state or capitalist).
Thus the expropriation of the capitalist class and the destruction of the
state by social revolution is a libertarian, not authoritarian, act by
its very nature as it is directed against those who govern and exploit
the vast majority. In short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists
and revolutionists, trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within
capitalism while trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However,
as some social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is
not the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution
to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the
individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity).
In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is
Property? and argue that possession must replace property in a
free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist
viewpoints on property).
However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for
communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
create them ("your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs
to the people." [Alexander Berkman, The ABC of Anarchism, p. 68]).
"Actual use," argues Berkman, "will be considered the only title --
not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal
miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as
owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective possession,
co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will
take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."
[Op. Cit., p. 69] This system would be based on workers' self-management
of their work and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of
the product of that labour (i.e. an economic system without money).
Some social anarchists, like mutualists, are against such a system
of libertarian (or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority
of social anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore,
of buying and selling.
In contrast, the individualist anarchist denies that this system of
use-rights should include the product of the workers labour. Instead of
social ownership, individualist anarchists propose a more market based
system in which workers would possess their own means of production and
exchange the product of their labour freely with other workers. They
argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly free market. Rather, by
means of the state, capitalists have placed fetters on the market to create
and protect their economic and social power (market discipline for the
working class, state aid for the ruling class in other words). These state
created monopolies (of money, land, tariffs and patents) and state
enforcement of capitalist property rights are the source of economic
inequality and exploitation. With the abolition of government, real
free competition would result and ensure the end of capitalism and
capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin Tucker's essay State Socialism
and Anarchism for an excellent summary of this argument).
The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar land)
are the product of individual labour and so they accept that people should
be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire.
However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead favour an
"occupancy and use" system. If the means of production, say land, is not
in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is available to others
for use. They think this system, called mutualism, will result in
workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation
and usury.
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears
being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom
(including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the
abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still
more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or
collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free
movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts
against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors;
but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of
the collectivity." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257] Proudhon also
argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the
proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are
based on property and so authority (see the section "Characteristics
of communism and of property" in What is Property?). Thus the
Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the
individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well
as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively
eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to
produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue
that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to
capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced
with that of "society."
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that
Stirner's and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but
only about authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, "before
and in 1848, the theory [of communism] was put forward in such
a shape as to fully account for Proudhon's distrust as to its
effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea of
monastic communities under the severe rule of elders or of men
of science for directing priests. The last vestiges of liberty
and of individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever
had to go through such a communism." [Act for Yourselves, p. 98]
Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a new
development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's
and Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed
against it as they could not be familiar with it.
Rather than subject the individual to the community, social
anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the
necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects
of life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever
form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish all individual
"property," communist anarchism acknowledges the importance of
individual possessions and individual space. Thus we find Kropotkin
arguing against forms of communism that "desire to manage the
community after the model of a family . . . [to live] all in
the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet the
same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary,
to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual."
[Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8-9] The aim
of anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place "the
product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to
each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home."
[The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought,
p. 7] This ensures individual expression of tastes and desires and
so individuality -- both in consumption and in production, as
social anarchists are firm supporters of workers' self-management.
Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition
to communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and
ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather
use community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society"
control the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social
anarchism is based on importance of individuality and individual
expression:
In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for
voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves,
this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's The Conquest of
Bread, p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5 as well as Malatesta's
Life and Ideas, p. 99 and p. 103). In addition, for social anarchists
an association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that
compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their
common needs. Therefore, all anarchists emphasise the importance
of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all
anarchists agree with Bakunin:
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods
with others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments
that the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
anarchists support the right of individual's not to join a commune
while Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to
pool their possessions as they see fit, including communistic
associations. However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual
wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of others,
social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism
in the name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to
be a ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an
anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. If
the "unsuccessful" competitors are forced into unemployment they may have
to sell their labour to the "successful" in order to survive. This would
create authoritarian social relationships and the domination of the few
over the many via "free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts
(and others like them), in all likelihood, "opens . . . the way for
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of
the State." [Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,
p. 297]
Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and
free market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all
schools of abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance
of authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty."
This is due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker
argued that the state was marked by two things, aggression and
"the assumption of authority over a given area and all within
it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete
oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries."
[Instead of a Book, p. 22] However, the boss and landlord also
has authority over a given area (the property in question) and
all within it (workers and tenants). The former control the
actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or
subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the
same social relationships as that created by the state, as it
comes from the same source (monopoly of power over a given
area and those who use it).
Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance
of individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation
of social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in
nature. "The individualists," argued Malatesta, "give the greatest
importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into
account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the
outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation." [The Anarchist
Revolution, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the
worker in the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places
the citizen to the state, namely of one of domination and subjection.
Similarly with the tenant and the landlord.
Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects
of the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
statist implications, because "the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by
virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to
break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this
school of so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of
the police force, hence for government, and the prime definition
of anarchism is no government." [Anarchism: Arguments For and
Against, p. 8] It is partly for this reason social anarchists
support social ownership as the best means of protecting individual
liberty.
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round"
by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of Tucker's economic
ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that require
more than one worker. This naturally complements their support
for "occupancy and use" for land, which would effectively abolish
landlords. Only when the people who use a resource own it can
individual ownership not result in hierarchical authority (i.e.
statism/capitalism). This solution, as we argue in section G, is
the one Individualist Anarchists do seem to accept. For example,
we find Joseph Labadie writing to his son urging him to get away
from wage earning and "the dominion of others." [quoted by Carlotta
Abderson, All American Anarchist, p. 222] As Wm. Gary Kline correctly
points out, the US Individualist anarchists "expected a society of
largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] It is
this vision of a self-employed society that ensures that their ideas
are truly anarchist.
Moreover, while the individualists attack "usury," they usually
ignore the problem of capital accumulation, which results in
natural barriers of entry into markets and so recreates usury
in new forms (see section C.4 "Why does the market become dominated
by big business?"). Hence a "free market" in banks, as advocated by
Tucker and other Individualist Anarchists, could result in a few big
banks dominating, with a direct economic interest in supporting
capitalist rather than co-operative investment (as they would ensure
higher returns than co-operatives). The only real solution to this
problem would be to ensure community ownership and management of
banks, as originally desired by Proudhon.
It is this recognition of the developments within the capitalist
economy which make social anarchists reject individualist anarchism
in favour of communalising, and so decentralising, production by
freely associated and co-operative labour. (For more discussion on
the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, see section G - "Is
individualist anarchism capitalistic?")
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply
involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist
is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is
based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging
the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual
bank network would be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial
advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . .
[with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks
and expenses." [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People",
pp. 44-45] Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression
for by "introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it
everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic."
[Op. Cit., p. 45]
The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist
form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune)
instead of being independent co-operatives. This would ensure that they
provided investment funds to co-operatives rather than to capitalistic
enterprises. Another difference is that some social anarchist mutualists
support the creation of what Proudhon termed an "agro-industrial federation"
to complement the federation of libertarian communities (called communes
by Proudhon). This is a "confederation . . . intended to provide
reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and large scale developments
such as roads, railways and so on. The purpose of "specific federal arrangements
is to protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] from capitalist
and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside." This is
because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right." Thus
the agro-industrial federation would be required to ensure the anarchist
nature of society from the destabilising effects of market exchanges (which
can generate increasing inequalities in wealth and so power). Such a
system would be a practical example of solidarity, as "industries are
sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the
others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate, not
to be absorbed and confused together, but in order to guarantee mutually
the conditions of common prosperity . . . Making such an agreement
will not detract from their liberty; it will simply gives their liberty
more security and force." [The Principle of Federation, p. 70, p. 67
and p. 72]
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is
best served by communalising production and sharing information and products
freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms of social
anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by federations of
producers' associations and communes rather than mutualism's system of
individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the "future social organisation
must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or
federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and
universal" and "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
may become the collective property of the whole of society and be
utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and
industrial associations." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206
and p. 174] Only by extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual
workplaces can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see section
I.1.3 for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share
some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial confederations
would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which are
the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal
contract become the collective property of the whole . . . federation.
In this way, the federation of groups will be able to . . . regulate
the rate of production to meet the fluctuating needs of society."
[James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 376]
These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers' self-management
of production within co-operatives but see confederations of these
associations as being the focal point for expressing mutual aid, not
a market. Workplace autonomy and self-management would be the basis
of any federation, for "the workers in the various factories have not
the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the
tools of production to a superior power calling itself the 'corporation.'"
[Op. Cit., p. 364] In addition to this industry-wide federation, there
would also be cross-industry and community confederations to look after
tasks which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any
particular industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, this
has similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.
Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means
of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the
individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The
reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and
statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other
social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can
be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For
them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution.
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider
the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key.
As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things
in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour
groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour,
communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself."
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 295] Thus, while communism
and collectivism both organise production in common via producers'
associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed.
Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is
more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the
labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that,
over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes
stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society
would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each
according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They
just disagree on how quickly this will come about.
For anarcho-communists, they think that "communism -- at least partial --
has more chances of being established that collectivism" after a revolution.
[Op. Cit., p. 298] They think that moves towards communism are essential
as collectivism "begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of
production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system
of remuneration according to work performed which means the re-introduction
of inequality." [Alexander Berkman, The ABC of Anarchism, p. 80] The
quicker the move to communism, the less chances of new inequalities
developing. Needless to say, these positions are not that different
and, in practice, the necessities of a social revolution and the level
of political awareness of those introducing anarchism will determine which
system will be applied in each area.
Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalists,
like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial union movement based on
anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate decentralised, federated unions that
use direct action to get reforms under capitalism until they are strong
enough to overthrow it. In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered
as a new version of collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the
importance of anarchists working within the labour movement and creating
unions which prefigure the future free society.
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free
associations of free producers." They think that these associations would
serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very seriously
Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create "not only
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the pre-revolutionary
period.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes
of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers
with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is,
through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers
themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches
of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and
systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products
in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."
[Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 55]
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that
building libertarian unions is important and that work within the
labour movement is essential in order to ensure "the development and
organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
power of the working masses." [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge
the importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think
that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in struggle,
and so consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more important than
creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join them. They also
do not place as great an emphasis on the workplace, considering struggles
within it to be equal in importance to other struggles against hierarchy
and domination outside the workplace (most anarcho-syndicalists would
agree with this, however, and often it is just a question of emphasis).
A few communist-anarchists reject the labour movement as hopelessly
reformist in nature and so refuse to work within it, but these are
a small minority.
Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for
anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations.
They think it is essential that anarchists work together as
anarchists to clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists
often deny the importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing
that revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.
Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused
into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point
out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist
unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the fusion
of anarchism and unionism a source of potential confusion that would
result in the two movements failing to do their respective work correctly.
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally anti-syndicalist.
For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist
ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman
were all sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas.
For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the
works of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's, Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat different,
as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than the work of a
"famous" name (although this does not stop academics calling George Sorel
the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote about a syndicalist movement
that already existed. The idea that working class people can develop their
own ideas, by themselves, is usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker
is often considered a leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the work's
of Fernand Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand
anarcho-syndicalism. For an excellent overview of the development of social
anarchism and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's excellent
anthology No Gods No Masters cannot be bettered.
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a
common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back to
Peter Kropotkin who argued that an anarchist society would be based on
a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and brain
work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and agriculture (see
his classic work Fields, Factories, and Workshops). This idea of an
economy in which "small is beautiful" (to use the title of E.F. Schumacher's
Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before it was taken up by what
was to become the green movement. In addition, in Mutual Aid Kropotkin
documented how co-operation within species and between them and their
environment is usually of more benefit to them than competition. Kropotkin's
work, combined with that of William Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of
whom, like Kropotkin, were world-renowned geographers), and many others
laid the foundations for the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.
However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within classical
anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the similarities between ecological
thought and anarchism has come to the fore (essentially from the publication
of Murray Bookchin's classic essay "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought"
in 1965). Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to state that it is the ideas and
work of Murray Bookchin that has placed ecology and ecological issues at
the heart of anarchism and anarchist ideals and analysis into many aspects
of the green movement.
Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called eco-anarchism)
it would be worthwhile to explain exactly what anarchism and ecology
have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, "both the ecologist and the
anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity" and "to both the ecologist
and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is achieved by growing differentiation.
An expanding whole is created by the diversification and enrichment of its
parts." Moreover, "[j]ust as the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an
eco-system and promote free interplay between species, so the anarchist
seeks to expand the range of social experiments and remove all fetters to
its development." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 72, p. 78]
Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation, diversity
and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and concerns. Hierarchy,
centralisation, the state and concentrations of wealth reduce diversity and
the free development of individuals and their communities by their very
nature, and so weakens the social eco-system as well as the actual
eco-systems human societies are part of. As Bookchin argues, "the
reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is that] we must conserve and
promote variety" but within modern capitalist society "[a]ll
that is spontaneous, creative and individuated is circumscribed by the
standardised, the regulated and the massified." [Op. Cit., p. 76,
p. 65] So, in many ways, anarchism can be considered the application
of ecological ideas to society, as anarchism aims to empower individuals
and communities, decentralise political, social and economic power so
ensuring that individuals and social life develops freely and so becomes
increasingly diverse in nature.
So what kinds of green anarchism is there? The eco-anarchist thread within
anarchism has two main focal points, Social Ecology and
"primitivist"
anarchism. In addition, some anarchists are influenced by Deep Ecology,
although not many. Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential
current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of Murray
Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the 1950's
and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with revolutionary
social anarchism. His works include Post-Scarcity Anarchism,
Toward
an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom and a host of others.
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is seen
as a product of domination within society, but this domination only reaches
crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by
the plundering of the earth by capital." [Ibid., p. 65]
Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy
and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of ecological
problems. This is one of the key areas in which they disagree with
"Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more critical of
all aspects of modern life, with some going so far as calling for
"the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms of technology
and large scale organisation.
At its most extreme, "Primitivist" anarchists argue in favour of a
return to "Hunter-Gatherer" forms of human society, opposing
technology as being hierarchical by its very nature. The British
based "Green Anarchist" magazine is a vocal supporter of this idea.
However, very few anarchists go this far. Indeed, most anarchists actually
argue that such "Primitivism" is not anarchist at all, as the return to
a "Hunter-Gatherer" society would result in mass starvation in almost all
countries as the social infrastructure collapses. Due to the inherent
unattractiveness of such "Primitivist" ideas for most people, it could
never come about by libertarian means (i.e. by the free choice of
individuals who create it by their own acts) and so cannot be anarchist
as very few people would actually voluntarily embrace such a situation.
This leads to "Green Anarchist" developing a form of eco-vanguardism in
order, to use Rousseau's expression, to "force people to be free" (as can
be seen from articles published in it in 1998 celebrating terrorist acts).
In addition, such a position of "turning back the clock" is deeply flawed,
for while aboriginal societies are generally very anarchistic, certain of
these societies did develop into statist, propertarian ones implying that
such "primitive anarchist" systems are not the answer.
However, few eco-anarchists take such an extreme position. Most "Primitivist"
anarchists rather than being anti-technology and anti-civilisation as such
instead (to use David Watson's expression) believe it is a case of the "affirmation
of aboriginal lifeways" and of taking a far more critical approach to issues such
as technology, rationality and progress than that associated with Social Ecology.
These eco-anarchists reject "a dogmatic primitivism which claims we can
return in some linear way to our primordial roots" just as much as the idea of
"progress," "superseding both Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment"
ideas and traditions. For these eco-anarchists, Primitivism "reflects
not only a glimpse at life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate
response to real conditions of life under civilisation" and so we should respect
and learn from "palaeolithic and neolithic wisdom traditions" (such as those
associated with Native American tribes and other aboriginal peoples). While
we "cannot, and would not want to abandon secular modes of thinking
and experiencing the world. . . we cannot reduce the experience of life,
and the fundamental, inescapable questions why we live, and how
we live, to secular terms. . . Moreover, the boundary between the spiritual
and the secular is not so clear. A dialectical understanding that we are
our history would affirm an inspirited reason that honours not only
atheistic Spanish revolutionaries who died for el ideal, but also
religious pacifist prisoners of conscience, Lakota ghost dancers, taoist
hermits and executed sufi mystics." [David Watson, Beyond Bookchin:
Preface for a future social ecology, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240, pp. 66-67]
Such "Primitivist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines, mostly
US -based, like Fifth Estate. For example, on the question of technology,
such eco-anarchists argue that "[w]hile market capitalism was a spark
that set the fire, and remains at the centre of the complex, it is only part
of something larger: the forced adaptation of organic human societies to
an economic-instrumental civilisation and its mass technics, which are
not only hierarchical and external but increasingly 'cellular' and internal.
It makes no sense to layer the various elements of this process in a
mechanistic hierarchy of first cause and secondary effects." [David
Watson, Op. Cit., pp. 127-8]
For this reason "Primitivist" anarchists are more critical of all
aspects of technology, including calls by social ecologists for the
use of appropriate technology essential in order to liberate
humanity and the planet. As Watson argues:
Finally, "Primitivist" anarchists, like most other anarchists, are
deeply critical of Social Ecology's support for running candidates in
municipal elections. While Social Ecologists see this as a means of
creating popular self-managing assemblies and creating a counter
power to the state, few anarchists agree. Rather they see it as inherently
reformist as well as being hopelessly naive about the possibilities of
using elections to bring about social change
(see section J.5.14 for
a fuller discussion of this). Instead they propose direct action as the
means to forward anarchist and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering
as a dead-end which ends up watering down radical ideas and corrupting
the people involved (see section J.2 -- What is Direct Action?).
For more on "Primitivist" Anarchism see John Zerzan's Future
Primitive and the excellent Elements of Refusal as well as
David Watson's Beyond Bookchin and
Against the Mega-Machine.
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric nature,
many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists who think
that people, as people, are the cause of the ecological crisis, which
many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin, for example, has
been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep ecology and the
anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see Which Way for
the Ecology Movement?, for example). David Watson has also argued
against Deep Ecology (see his How Deep is Deep Ecology? written
under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue that
it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and that
only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
To submerge ecological critique and analysis into a simplistic protest
against the human race ignores the real causes and dynamics of ecological
destruction and, therefore, ensures an end to this destruction cannot be
found. Simply put, it is hardly "people" who are to blame when the vast
majority have no real say in the decisions that affect their lives, communities,
industries and eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system
that places profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on
"Humanity" (and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men
and women, whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited,
oppressors and oppressed) the system we live under is effectively
ignored, and so are the institutional causes of ecological problems.
Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their spokes-persons
ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the anti-human ideas
associated with their movement. Deep ecology, particularly the organisation
Earth First! (EF!), has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a
close working relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW),
a syndicalist union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it
shares many ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects
its few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human
race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and
leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book Defending the Earth).
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy
being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called "anarcho-pacifism"
(the term "non-violent anarchist" is sometimes used, but this term is
unfortunate because it implies the rest of the movement are "violent,"
which is not the case!). The union of anarchism and pacifism is not
surprising given the fundamental ideals and arguments of anarchism.
After all, violence, or the threat of violence or harm, is a key means by
which individual freedom is destroyed. As Peter Marshall points out,
"[g]iven the anarchist's respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the
long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by anarchist
values." [Demanding the Impossible, p.637] Malatesta is even
more explicit when he wrote that the "main plank of anarchism is the
removal of violence from human relations" and that anarchists "are
opposed to violence." [Life and Ideas, p. 53]
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism,
the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in the sense of opposed
all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is anti-militarist, being
against the organised violence of the state but recognising that there are
important differences between the violence of the oppressor and the
violence of the oppressed. This explains why the anarchist movement has
always placed a lot of time and energy in opposing the military machine
and capitalist wars while, at the same time, supporting and organising
armed resistance against oppression (as in the case of the Makhnovist
army during the Russian Revolution which resisted both Red and White
armies and the militias the anarchists organised to resist the fascists
during the Spanish Revolution -- see sections
A.5.4 and A.5.6,
respectively).
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement
divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists
support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists.
However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support
the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social anarchists,
on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that
physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to
resist state and capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist,
Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence).
As Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is "justifiable
only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence" and
that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently,
his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally
justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55, pp. 53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use
the words of Bakunin, since social oppression "stems far less from individuals
than from the organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim
to "ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the aim of
an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes "not as individuals,
but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought
of Michael Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and p. 122]
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most anarchists, as
they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a minimum during any
social struggle or revolution. All anarchists would agree with the Dutch pacifist
anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt when he argued that "the violence and warfare
which are characteristic conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the
libertarian of the individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited
classes. The greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where
violence has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution." [The
Conquest of Violence, p. 75]
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name of one
of his book's chapters, "the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism." For de Ligt,
and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist system and any attempt
to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to failure. This is because, on the one
hand, war is often just economic competition carried out by other means. Nations
often go to war when they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in
economic struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, "violence
is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it the ruling class would
be completely unable to maintain its privileged position with regard to the
exploited masses in each country. The army is used first and foremost to hold
down the workers. . . when they become discontented." [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit.,
p. 62] As long as the state and capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so,
for anarcho-pacifists, the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the
consistent anarchist must be a pacifist.
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an unavoidable
and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as well as the only means
by which the privileged classes will renounce their power and wealth. Those
in authority rarely give up their power and so must be forced. Hence
the need for "transitional" violence "to put an end to the far greater, and
permanent, violence which keeps the majority of mankind in servitude."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To concentrate on the issue of violence versus
non-violence is to ignore the real issue, namely how do we change society
for the better. As Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists
who are pacifists confuse the issue, like those who think "it's the same
as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the work
itself." To the contrary, "[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely
rolling up your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead." [ABC of
Anarchism, p. 40] And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions
start relatively peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and
only degenerate into violence when those in power try to maintain
their position (a classic example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the
occupation of factories by their workers was followed by fascist
terror -- see section A.5.5).
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the
military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as statist/capitalist
wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker and Sam Dolgoff,
supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the second world war
as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of anarchists and
anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start of the first world
war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and North America reprinting
a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to follow orders and repress their
striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman where both
arrested and deported from America for organising a "No-Conscription League"
in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe where jailed for refusing to join the
armed forces in the first and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist
influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression
due to the threat its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful
elites who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like
Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement
as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still exists.
Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War,
the Falklands war as well as the Gulf war (including, in Italy, helping to
organise strikes in protest against it). And it was during this last conflict
when many anarchists raised the slogan "No war but the class war" which
nicely sums up the anarchist opposition to war -- namely an evil
consequence of any class system, in which the oppressed classes of
different countries kill each other for the power and profits of their
rulers. Rather than take part in this organised slaughter, anarchists
urge working people to fit for their own interests rather than those
of their masters:
(We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against
Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected everything
he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the First World War
as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and Imperialism. Of course,
as Malatesta pointed out, "all Governments and all capitalist classes" do
"misdeeds . . . against the workers and rebels of their own countries."
[Op. Cit., p. 246])
Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is
authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist
principles. That is way anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he
argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason
wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible."
[Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists
agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be
counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to
repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social
change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil
disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the
use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All
agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just
recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not
authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence.
Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence
except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum.
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a strong
voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more recent
feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon anarchist
practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from, referring
to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and anarchist
movements to remind them of their principles.
Anarchism and feminism have always been closely linked. Many outstanding
feminists have also been anarchists, including the pioneering Mary
Wollstonecraft (author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman), the
Communard Louise Michel, Voltairine de Cleyre and the tireless champion
of women's freedom, Emma Goldman (see her famous essays "The Traffic in
Women", "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation", "Marriage
and Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). Freedom, the world's
oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886. In
addition, all the major anarchist thinkers (bar Proudhon) were supporters
of women's equality. The "Free Women" movement in Spain during the Spanish
revolution is a classic example of women anarchists organising themselves
to defend their basic freedoms and create a society based on women's
freedom and equality (see Free Women of Spain by Martha Ackelsberg
for more details on this important organisation).
Anarchism and feminism have shared much common history and a concern
about individual freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female
sex (although, as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have
always been very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going
far enough). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism
of the sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine
points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No accident,
either." [quoted by Clifford Harper, Anarchy: A Graphic Guide, p. 182]
It is no accident because, as feminist scholars have noted, women were
among the first victims of hierarchical society, which is thought to have
begun with the rise of patriarchy and ideologies of domination during the
late Neolithic era. Marilyn French argues (in Beyond Power) that the
first major social stratification of the human race occurred when
men began dominating women, with women becoming in effect a "lower"
and "inferior" social class.
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to the strong connections between
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical feminist
perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic theory
postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian systems.
The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is
to obey the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable
of questioning or even of thinking clearly." [Ibid.] Similarly, the
Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists in recognising
the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it." [The Raven,
no. 21, p. 6]
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values,
for example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations and
are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast, non-authoritarian
traits and values such as co-operation, sharing, compassion, sensitivity,
warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as "feminine" and are devalued.
Feminist scholars have traced this phenomenon back to the growth of
patriarchal societies during the early Bronze Age and their conquest of
co-operatively based "organic" societies in which "feminine" traits and
values were prevalent and respected. Following these conquests, however,
such values came to be regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since
men were in charge of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See
e.g. Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade; Elise Boulding, The
Underside of History). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the
creation of a non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation,
sharing, mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be achieved
without both self-management and decentralisation. This is because the
patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish to overthrow
are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism implies
decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many feminists
have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with collective
forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical structure and
competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have even argued
that directly democratic organisations are specifically female political
forms [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and the Development of
Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed., Capitalist Patriarchy
and the Case for Socialist Feminism, pp. 56-77]. Like all anarchists,
anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation is the key to women's
equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman:
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
dominated by authoritarian ideologies or either the right or left. It
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the so-called
"management science" which women have to learn in order to become
mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of techniques
for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate hierarchies,
whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of capitalist
wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether. Anarcha-feminists
realise that learning how to become an effective exploiter or oppressor
is not the path to equality (as one member of the Mujures Libres put
it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a
masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain.
p.2] -- also see section B.1.4 for a further discussion on patriarchy
and hierarchy).
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's "only
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege" and if these
institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will still
be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg,
Op. Cit., pp. 90-91, p. 91]
So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle
could not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist
project as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 91] Anarcha-feminism continues
this tradition by arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong,
not just patriarchy, and that feminism is in conflict with its
own ideals if it desires simply to allow women to have the same
chance of being a boss as a man does.
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism
as a denial of liberty. The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be
separated from the struggle against hierarchy as such. As L. Susan
Brown puts it:
Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of the
origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See,
for example, Carline Merchant, The Death of Nature, 1980). Both women
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of both
radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies must be
dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not
only external constraints but also internal ones.
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of
anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally
regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather than "economics"
or "politics" -- for example, through art, music, drama, literature,
education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so
forth.
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they deliberately
attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most traditional cultural forms
to promote authoritarian values and attitudes, particularly domination and
exploitation. Thus a novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be
considered as cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple
"war-is-hell" model and allows the reader to see how militarism is
connected with authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or
methods of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional
patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism
"implies the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that
expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them with
a system of values based on freedom and community." [The Anarchist
Moment: Reflections on Culture, Nature and Power]
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because
authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with
many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values
cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution
if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in
the majority of the population. For mass acquiescence in the current
system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their
"character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's expression), which is
produced by many forms of conditioning and socialisation that have
developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past five
or six thousand years.
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown
tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place.
For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give
orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself --
are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable
with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and
indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a long string of
failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals
of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and
ruling class were quickly created. These failures are generally
attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists,
and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians
only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth
of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary
people.
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of
consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of
submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits
are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated
or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing
and educational methods. We will explore this issue more fully in section
B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis
for authoritarian civilisation?), J.6 (What
methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?), and J.5.13
(What are Modern Schools?)
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist
movement. For anarchists, its important to "build the new world in the
shell of the old" in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist
culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider
consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist
activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian
alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchists movement is one
that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both
activities feeding into and supporting the other.
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the
idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly
authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their
ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious
anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical
position with regards to private property and inequality. In other
words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to
Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and
that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in
accord with Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
Demanding the Impossible, p. 75]
There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious ideas.
As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an anarchist
sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from
about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in its Zen
form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit., p. 53,
p. 65] Some combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist
influences. However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of
Christian Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here.
Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers
that "kings and governors have domination over men; let there be
none like that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there
"is no authority except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion
with the denial of state authority within society. Thus, for a
true Christian, the state is usurping God's authority and it is
up to each individual to govern themselves and discover that
(to use the title of Tolstoy's famous book) The Kingdom of
God is within you.
Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the
corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the
world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all
been taken as the basis of a socialistic critique of private
property and capitalism. Indeed, the early Christian church (which
could be considered as a liberation movement of slaves, although
one that was later co-opted into a state religion) was based upon
communistic sharing of material goods, a theme which has continually
appeared within radical Christian movements (indeed, the Bible
would have been used to express radical libertarian aspirations
of the oppressed, which, in later times, would have taken the form
of anarchist or Marxist terminology). Thus clergyman's John Ball's
egalitarian comments during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England:
The history of Christian anarchism includes the Heresy of the
Free Spirit in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the
Anabaptists in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within
Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of
William Blake and the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions
in his Practical Christian Socialism in 1854. However, Christian
anarchism became a clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement
with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider
that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of
the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual
transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist
society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy
is that the recognition of the power of the good, of goodness, of
solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within ourselves,
and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised in our
own behaviour." [A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 251-2]
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon,
had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land,
arguing that "were it not for the defence of landed property, and
its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such
narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there
is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for
landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always
those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage."
[Op. Cit., p. 307] Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in
anything beyond use require state violence to protect them (possession
is "always protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice
and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence."
[Ibid.]). Indeed, he argues that:
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals
and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible
for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man
whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose
whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore,
"he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [The
Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338, p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy
argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral,
self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can
take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]
From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and
private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within
society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted
. . . resistance to evil; and to one of the ways of resistance -
by active force - he added another way: resistance through
disobedience, the passive force." [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his
ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural
Russian life and the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as Fields,
Factories and Workshops), P-J Proudhon and the non-anarchist Henry
George.
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his
fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain
out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation
of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a
free society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist).
The Catholic Worker Group in the United States was also heavily
influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch
Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded the paper the Catholic
Worker in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in
general can also be found in Liberation Theology movements in Latin
and South America who combine Christian ideas with social activism
amongst the working class and peasantry (although we should note that
Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by state socialist
ideas rather than anarchist ones).
In countries where Churches hold de facto political power, such as in
Ireland, in parts of South America, in nineteenth and early twentith
century Spain and so forth, typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious
because the Church has the power to suppress dissent and class struggle.
So, while most anarchists are atheists (and so agree with Bakunin that
if God existed it would be necessary, for human freedom and dignity,
to abolish it) there is a minority tradition within anarchism which
draws anarchist conclusions from religion. In addition, most social
anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as dogmatic and extreme, seeing
the need (sometimes) for violence to resist greater evils. However,
most anarchists would agree with Tolstoyians on the need for individual
transformation of values as a key aspect of creating an anarchist
society and on the importance of non-violence as a general tactic
(although, we must stress, that few anarchists totally reject the
use of violence in self-defence, when no other option is available).
In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "anarchism without
adjectives" in its broadest sense "referred to an unhyphenated form
of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such
as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others,
. . . [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the
coexistence of different anarchist schools." [Anarchist Ideology and
the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898, p. 135]
The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del
Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his
comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain
who at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of
their two theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt
to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be
clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic
plan on anyone -- even in theory. Thus the economic preferences
of anarchists should be of "secondary importance" to abolishing
capitalism and the state, with free experimentation the one rule
of a free society.
Thus the theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetives"
("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a
intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument
can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's
death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism
(as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the
New Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did
see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist
Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin
had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism
was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero,
Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.
Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the
main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue
was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played
a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied
by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists
stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed
trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the
importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat
anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy
and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists
who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its
way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many anarchists
to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say
the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by Max
Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over time, most
anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the
economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to
stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state)
rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate.
As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the
labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working
class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to
communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after
a revolution.
Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the
same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There Benjamin
Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not anarchists while
John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's ideas. Just as people
like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of tolerance between anarchist
groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself
simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without
Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different
experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order
to determine the most appropriate form." [Peter Marshall, Demanding
the Impossible, p. 393]
These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such
noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting
the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without
adjectives" (see Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism, pages 195 to
201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant
position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists
recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist"
while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types
of anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are
flawed. However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism (communism, syndicalism, religious etc) are not mutually exclusive and
you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance
is reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives."
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the
tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue
that their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist
movement. Afterall, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid
of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a
use of "anarchism without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly
agreed at the time that the types of economics that were being
discussed were anti-capitalist (i.e. socialistic). In other
words, it was agreed that capitalism had to be abolished along
with the state and once this was the case free experimentation
would develop. In other words, the struggle against the state was
just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and exploitation
and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As "anarcho"-capitalists
do not seek the abolition of capitalism along with the state they are not
anarchists and so "anarchism without adjectives" does not apply to the
so-called "anarchist" capitalists (see section F
on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist).
“That’s a big honor,” commented Larry. “The passenger, while they were high up, threw something and hit the pilot, the seaplane went out of control, the man jumped—and then cut free his parachute, cut the sack holding the emeralds, and hid in the swamp.” “I see a light,” Sandy said as the airplane swung far out over the dark water. “A green light, but the hydroplane wouldn’t carry lights.” "No, no; it's a good deal, but it ain't too much. Not that it could be more, very well," he added, and he glanced furtively at the woman within, who had stretched out on the lounge with her face to the wall. Mrs. Taylor was fanning her. But though the 21st of January was to be the day of the grand attack on the Ministry, the battle was not deferred till then. Every day was a field-day, and the sinking Minister was dogged step by step, his influence weakened by repeated divisions, and his strength worn out by the display of the inevitable approach of the catastrophe. The first decided defeat that he suffered was in the election of the Chairman of Committees. The Ministerial candidate, Giles Earle, was thrown out by a majority of two hundred and forty-two to two hundred and thirty-eight, and the Opposition candidate, Dr. Lee, was hailed by a shout that rent the House. Other close divisions followed. The fall of Walpole was now certain, and he would have consulted both his dignity and comfort in resigning at once. This was the earnest advice of his friends, but he had been too long accustomed to power to yield willingly. He was oppressed with a sense of his defeats, and the insolence of enemies whom he had so long calmly looked down upon without fear. He was growing old and wanted repose, but he still clung convulsively to his authority, though he had ceased to enjoy it. "Should think they was bride and groom, if they wasn't so old." "March them right over to that shed there," said the Major, "and the Quartermaster will issue them muskets and equipments, which you can turn over again when you reach Chattanooga. Good-by. I hope you'll have a pleasant trip. Remember me to the boys of the old brigade and tell them I'll be with them before they start out for Atlanta." The train finally halted on a side-track in the outskirts of Chattanooga, under the gigantic shadow of Lookout Mountain, and in the midst of an ocean of turmoiling activity that made the eyes ache to look upon it, and awed every one, even Si and Shorty, with a sense of incomprehensible immensity. As far as they could see, in every direction, were camps, forts, intrenchments, flags, hordes of men, trains of wagons, herds of cattle, innumerable horses, countless mules, mountains of boxes, barrels and bales. Immediately around them was a wilderness of trains, with noisy locomotives and shouting men. Regiments returning from veteran furlough, or entirely new ones, were disembarking with loud cheering, which was answered from the camps on the hillsides. On the river front steamboats were whistling and clanging their bells. "Go out and git you a rebel for yourself, if you want to know about 'em," Shorty had snapped at the Orderly. "There's plenty more up there on the hill. It's full of 'em." "Drat 'em! durn 'em!" "He's dead," said Realf. Should you leave me too, O my faithless ladie!" The odds were generally on Reuben. It was felt that a certain unscrupulousness was necessary to the job, and in that Backfield had the advantage. "Young Realf wudn't hurt a fly," his champions had to acknowledge. Though the money was with Reuben, the sympathy was mostly with Realf, for the former's dealings had scarcely made him popular. He was a hard man to his customers, he never let them owe him for grain or roots or fodder; his farm-hands, when drunk, spoke of him as a monster, and a not very tender-hearted peasantry worked itself sentimental over his treatment of his children. Caro was frightened, horrified—she broke free, and scrambled to her feet. She nearly wept, and it was clear even to his muddled brain that her invitation had been merely the result of innocence more profound than that which had stimulated her shyness. Rough seaman though he was, he was touched, and managed to soothe her, for she was too bashful and frightened to be really indignant. They walked a few yards further along the path, then at her request turned back towards Odiam. Calverley reluctantly departed on his mission, cursing the interruption that prevented his enjoying the degradation of his rival, and the baron now inquired whether Holgrave had confessed himself his villein. HoME国家产免费一级毛卡片
ENTER NUMBET 0017 A.3 What types of anarchism are there?
"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the
abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of
the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must
be available to all without distinction; for personal and social
freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages
for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the Anarchists
represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at
the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for
in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with
political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and
the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the
condition of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 17-18]
A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests
-- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a
solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political liberty
is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god,
the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to
give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding
-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its alter his [or her]
independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew
the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified
god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long
as the individual is not so! . . .'" [Op. Cit., pp. 14-15]
"In a free community, collectivism can only come about through the
pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a
free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin on Anarchism,
p. 200]
"No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable
cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination
. . . But the heralds of domination presume to practice individualism
in the name of their ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of
others." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 40]
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the
domination of man by man. . . But it was not until organic community
relations. . . dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself
was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency
finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to
its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans
against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the nature
world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of
nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured
and merchandised wantonly." [Op. Cit., p. 63]
"To speak of technological society is in fact to refer to the technics
generated within capitalism, which in turn generate new forms of
capital. The notion of a distinct realm of social relations that
determine this technology is not only ahistorical and undialectical,
it reflects a kind of simplistic base/superstructure schema." [Ibid.,
p. 124]
Thus it is not a case of who uses technology which determines its
effects, rather the effects of technology are determined to a large
degree by the society that creates it. In other words, technology is
selected which tends to re-enforce hierarchical power as it is those
in power who generally select which technology is introduced within
society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent habit of
turning technology against the powerful and technological change
and social struggle are inter-related -- see section D.10). Thus even
the use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from
the range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have
certain effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of
critically evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and rejecting
it as required to maximise individual freedom, empowerment and happiness.
Few Social Ecologists would disagree with this approach, though, and
differences are usually a question of emphasis rather than a deep
political point.
"[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an authoritarian streak in a crude
biologism that uses 'natural law' to conceal an ever-diminishing sense of
humanity and papers over a profound ignorance of social reality by
ignoring the fact it is capitalism we are talking about, not an abstraction
called 'Humanity' and 'Society.'" [The Philosophy of Social Ecology,
p. 160]
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?
"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between
capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
of private property and the destruction of states such as the only means of
guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and Justice and Liberty for all;
and we must prepare to accomplish these things." [Malatesta, Op. Cit.,
p. 251]
A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by
refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the
family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That
is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its
complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and
public condemnation." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 211]
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility
applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting
point and, in opposition to relations of domination and subordination,
argues for non-instrumental economic forms that preserver individual
existential freedom, for both men and women." [The Politics of
Individualism, p. 144]
A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?
A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?
Who was then a gentleman?"
"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom
force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would
certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing
to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing
wrong." [The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 242]
Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this
anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society
self-organised from below:
"Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for
themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for
themselves but for others?" [The Anarchist Reader, p. 306]
"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor
-- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection
by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations
of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more
do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one
owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of
famine." [Ibid.]
A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"?
www.heru4.com.cn
www.truemall.com.cn
www.zpym.com.cn
ec315.net.cn
yvsi.com.cn
hehou8.net.cn
boixin.com.cn
www.andegy.com.cn
www.alphatrend.com.cn
779j1.net.cn