From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Anarchist)
Jump to: navigation, search
The anarchy symbol. If you see this, there may be edgy teens who know all the solutions dangerous anarchist terrorists out and about. (Hey, why does their symbol use a capital letter?)
Smash the State
Icon Anarchism.svg
It's not anarchy
It's anarchism!
It's not fascism, it's just:
It's just fascism:
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Anarchism could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Not to be confused with the state of anarchy.
please do not say "top notch" to me unless you want to spend hrs explaining what the fuck these notches are & who determines their hierarchy
—wint embraces anarcho-notchism[1]

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy that advocates some form of political anarchy, direct democracy, or hyper-egalitarianism in decision making as preferable to hierarchical government, usually excepting decisions of individual rights, which are enshrined as unchangeable to prevent mob rule or the squelching of minority rights, in addition most anarchists (excluding "anarcho-capitalism", whether or not it is "anarchism" is debatable to say the least) are opposed to hierarchies in general, viewing them as oppressive.[2] Modern anarchists argue that all governments exist only to perpetuate their power, and apply this maxim equally to both democracies and dictatorships. While most anarchists have a specific conception of how a stateless society should be organized, some instead seek to replace the current system with what is sometimes called "Panarchism", which is basically a system where individual communities are free to create their own political system (a similar idea exists called "meta-utopia").[note 1] Under Panarchism, a community could be anarcho-communist, and bordered by anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-primitivists.

Anarchism was historically associated very strongly with the labor union movement, as many anarchists saw organized labor as being an ideal tool for the overthrow of the twin evils of the state and capitalism. However, the 'success' of the Russian Revolution, the failure of several attempted anarchist revolutions (most notably in Ukraine[3] and Catalonia)[4] and the active suppression of the anarchist movement throughout much of the 20th century devastated their support among organized labor (especially in Spain, where the CNT, formerly the largest anarchist organization in the world with nearly two million members, was outlawed and its members executed, imprisoned, or forced underground, and the United States, where the IWW was heavily repressed during the red scare with its members jailed and tortured). Most anarchist trade unions have either collapsed or abandoned all traces of their former anarchist politics, though there are still exceptions such as the IWW, FAU and CNT, although both are nowhere near the same size as they were in the 20th century.[5]

Types of anarchism[edit]

Anarchists differ from Marxists, who believe that the state and class rule are synonymous, and a tool of the enforcement of one class' rule over another. Marxist-Leninists feel a transitional state (the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat") is necessary to safe-guard the revolution until it has been finalized and will then wither away to a stateless, classless society, or communism. Anarchists by contrast favor going directly to a stateless society, arguing that a dictatorship of the proletariat will inevitably be a repressive, self-perpetuating state and will not wither away. Mikhail BakuninWikipedia's W.svg, a Russian anarchist who founded the anarcho-collectivist tendency, engaged in an ideological struggle with Karl Marx and his supporters in the 1870s inside of the International Workingmen's Association (the First International.)[6] Marx won control, but the criticisms Bakunin leveled at Marx (such as its "transitional" absolute state becoming very permanent, with the danger that (pseudo)scientific "socialists" would become a new ruling class), have obviously proven extremely prescient.

Market anarchism[edit]

Market anarchists view the government as interfering with a truly "free market", believing that both government bureaucrats and corporations stand in the way of smaller businesses and distort prices. They would prefer producer and consumer coops and self-employed professionals to wage-labour. These tendencies aims for a decentralized model of market economy.


Mutualism was the anarchist school of thought starting with Pierre-Joseph ProudhonWikipedia's W.svg, the first to call himself "anarchist" (though earlier thinkers had ideas much like his). In 1840, he wrote the book What is Property?, a critique of property-rights ideas that contains the famous declaration "Property is Theft." However, he also stated that property is freedom, rationalizing it by distinguishing two kinds of property: property earned by labor, which he stated was justified and essential to liberty, and property earned by coercion, which he stated was unjustified and would lead not to liberty but to tyranny. Seeing as the state is, by his definition, inherently coercive, it made the state illegitimate. Proudhon advocated mutual banks or a Bank of the People (similar to a credit union) for wage workers and independent craftsmen (in his time being driven out by mass production) to fund themselves. His mutualism supports what he called the "anti-capitalist free market", one with cooperative businesses competing and trading, while having a different conception of property based on the labor theory of value, namely possession, or active occupancy and use instead. This definition of property led him to mark the state as illegitimate, along with income earned through loans, investments, and rent.[7]

Even though it is based on the same theory of value that communism has, it stands alone in the field with its stance on private property. As mutualist Clarence Swartz said:

One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of one's labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property.

Mutualism effectively ceased to exist as an organized movement in the early 20th century but has recently been revived as sort of a middle position bridging the gap between anarcho-socialist tendencies on the left and the market anarchism of the libertarian movement, with Kevin Carson as its best-known modern theorist. Many mutualists support the idea of "possession," that one ceases to own land if one is not actively using it or residing upon it, thereby skirting around the inevitable issues surrounding private property.[8]

Left-market anarchism[edit]

Left-market anarchism was originated by American thinkers in the mid-19th century, around the time Proudhon and Stirner were writing. They held similar ideas to mutualism, although they were more anti-collectivist than Proudhon. They were primarily supportive of independent craftsmen in opposing rising industrial capitalism, which at that point had not yet fully taken over so much as in Europe. Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Greene, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner were the prominent thinkers here.

Historians locate left-market anarchism as a mainly American phenomenon, and the two classic histories on the subject, Native American Anarchism by Eunice Minette Schuster and Men Against the State by James J. Martin, trace its roots back to early American experiments in utopian living such as Modern Times and New Harmony, and further back to the thought of people like Henry David Thoreau and Thomas Jefferson. Schuster also found its roots in non-conformist Christian groups during the colonial era, who went in the same anarcho-pacifist direction later taken by Tolstoy. (This view was not shared by Martin, who, as an Egoist, rejected Christianity out of hand as being in any way compatible with anarchism.) The anarcho-capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard tends to agree with Schuster here, and points to the few successes in people living peacefully without government in early American history mostly being Quakers.

Non-market anarchism[edit]

The vast majority of modern and historical anarchists are non-market anarchists who prefer the abolition of wage labor, markets and the state altogether, often in favor of a system where goods are distributed primarily based on need and consumption instead.


Anarcho-collectivism was begun by the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (mentioned above). While naming Proudhon as "the father of us all", he felt mutualism was not a step far enough, particularly as capitalism and the state had both expanded in the time since. Bakunin was also opposed to religion, declaring that "the idea of God denies humanity. God being everything, man is nothing," and "if God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him" turning Voltaire's dictum on its head. More generally, he opposed organized religion, one of his most notable works being God and the State (1882), a position held by many anarchists since who view the church as another oppressive hierarchy alongside the state. Bakunin's anarcho-collectivism criticized Marxism as something that would lead to a new ruling class party hierarchy while advocating full collective worker management of production, a doctrine later expanded on by the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists. The primary difference between anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism is, to quote An Anarchist FAQ, "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."[9]


Anarcho-communism's most notable figure is Pyotr Kropotkin, a Russian geologist and zoologist who dropped his princely title at the age of twelve.. His vision was of a moneyless gift economy made up of free communes in an equal society, following the same dictum as Marx of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Other thinkers like Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta expanded upon anarcho-communism. Kropotkin's anarcho-communism refers more to voluntary communal living in communes and free sharing of everything, as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist conception of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Kropotkin's book Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution posits an equal role for cooperation in driving evolution as opposed to competition alone, and can be seen as a salvo against social Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould felt he was onto something here.[10]

Christian anarchism/anarcho-pacifism[edit]

Leo Tolstoy, the Russian known for writing great literature such as War and Peace, was also a dedicated anarchist who helped to organize peasant communes (mirs) and free, democratically-run schools for their education, among many other things. His book The Kingdom of God is Within You set forth his own radical interpretation of the Christian Gospels, believing that Jesus wished to liberate people from oppression peacefully and redistribute wealth back to the hands of its creators, essentially an earlier version of liberation theology. However, Tolstoy also opposed violence absolutely, even in self-defense or to defend others, which influenced Gandhi later. Other anarchists, while admiring Tolstoy's great work in helping Russian peasants and his compassionate moral code, believe this is an overly idealistic view that would require a "community of saints", arguing that failing to protect innocents by force if absolutely necessary is itself a moral evil. Many would agree that nonviolence is still a good tactic, even that it should be the first used, but do not go so far as Tolstoyans.

Some religious groups, most notably the Anabaptists (Hutterites, Amish, and Mennonites), are very similar in their beliefs to Tolstoy's pacifism, along with holding possessions in common. They are not strictly anarchist, however, and they usually believe the state is legitimate and ordained by God but that Christians are to be a separate people and not participate in its functions except as strictly required (i.e. paying taxes, etc).


Anarcho-syndicalism is an Anarchist school of thought which believes that revolutionary trade unions could overthrow capitalism and the state (possibly with a general strike), afterward federating among themselves freely to create a non-hierarchical society. Anarcho-syndicalists view industrial unionism as the vehicle through which the state can both be overthrown, and around which society would be organized after the revolution. Production would thus continue without disruption, with workplaces democratically managed by workers and collectively owned. Anarcho-syndicalism has some similarities to De Leonism, with the main difference being that De Leon rejected anarchism and would have the state re-organized as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" rather than abolished entirely. In terms of absolute numbers, anarcho-syndicalism has historically been the largest and most politically active anarchist tendency, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s,[11] during which various anarcho-syndicalist organizations throughout the world collectively claimed well over ten million active members. Among the various anarchist traditions, anarcho-syndicalism has a fair bit of academic prestige associated with it, and in modern times is associated with western intellectuals such as Norman Spinrad and Noam Chomsky.

The Mondragon corporation is a co-operative in Spain with over 80,000 employees (2012) that presents some idea of how workers can manage their workplaces successfully and competitively in a capitalist economy. Another example is the John Lewis chain of department stores in the UK, which had 84,700 employees in 2013. Neither of these two examples had much to do with anarcho-syndicalism, however, as they are hierarchical cooperatives with substantial pay differentials and managers having the power to hire and fire underlings. Better examples of modern anarcho-syndicalism are the CNT and CGT in Spain, CNT in France, and IWW in the USA — still highly active, though numerically diminished compared to their heyday. The anarcho-syndicalist strategy is to form workplace resistance groups amongst employees in workplaces controlled by capitalist firms, not to form cooperatives, although most anarcho-syndicalists would not be hostile to the cooperative idea, seeing it as a useful complement, especially for blacklisted workers. During the Spanish Civil War, anarcho-syndicalists established free communes in which production and innovation were reported to have increased fairly dramatically, up to even 50% according to Emma Goldman's memoirs, and were distributed in an egalitarian manner to all. Workers seized control of the factories, peasants the farmland, free schools were set up to teach in new ways, and universal literacy began to be achieved. They were eventually undermined by lack of funding due to the hostile Soviet Union controlling their money supply, attacks by the Stalinist-controlled Spanish Republican government, and finally the victory of fascist dictator Francisco Franco, supported by many in the West. This was helped by infighting of the groups on the Republican side, plus lack of support.


Not a separate tendency per se, this was partly based on the works of Emma Goldman, herself a dedicated feminist who advocated rights to birth control, abortion, free love, and open relationships along with equality for women in general long before such issues were considered acceptable for discussion, let alone to enact. Goldman argued prominently that voting rights for women by themselves would change nothing, that equality had to come along with a broader social revolution. Anarcha-feminists have followed her reasoning, critiquing sexism as simply another form of hierarchy (patriarchy or matriarchy here) while struggling for the same goals as other anarchists, especially devoted to making sure women have the same rights in anarchist movements and the idea of gender equality receives focus along with the rest. Free love advocacy and women's liberation have a long history within anarchism, going back to individualist anarchists Ezra Heywood and Moses Harman, whose freethought periodicals The Word and Lucifer the Light-Bearer were persecuted by Anthony Comstock under the Comstock Act for their open discussions of birth control and denunciation of marital rape,[12]. It continued to be influential through the writings of Emma Goldman and Ben Reitman, who were also prosecuted under the Comstock Act, with Reitman sentenced to prison for advocating birth control.[13]

Green anarchism[edit]

Green anarchists believe an ecological society living in harmony with the earth is incompatible with either capitalism or the state. They often look to Kropotkin's communal ideas as a potential model for an ecological society, while also absorbing other influences ranging from individualist anarchism to anarcho-syndicalism to distributism. Most green anarchism divides between those following Murray Bookchin's Kropotkin-influenced writings and those who tend more toward Edward Abbey's less well-defined (and probably more libertarian and individualist anarchist) preference for direct action over theory. This is sometimes portrayed as a divide between the "garden" or "urban village" model of environmentalism (Bookchin) and the "wilderness" model (Abbey).[14]

Egoist anarchism[edit]

Egoist anarchism, or simply Egoism, originated with Max Stirner in his 1844 book Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (in English, The Ego and Its Own; other translations include The Individual and His Property and Me and My Own). He argued for a rejection of all things which limits the individual, rejecting not only the usual anarchist bêtes noires (hierarchies, the state, capitalism, organized religion, nationalism etc.) but also conventional morality and values and all "higher ideals" (such as obligations), seeing them as products of the ruling authorities that existed to uphold their legitimacy. He used the Protestant Reformation as a case study in this, arguing that the Protestants' rejection of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, far from liberating them, merely enslaved them further, as they still bound themselves to the faith and morality espoused by the Church. The forces of Christian tyranny were only strengthened by growing more local and personal; secular rulers claimed spiritual power by establishing and supporting state churches, religious leaders claimed secular power, and religious conscience became a personal force that repressed people's natural desires. Stirner's work was little known in his time (though he was a friend of Marx and Engels, who critiqued The Ego and Its Own in their early book The German Ideology,[15]), only being rediscovered later in the 1890s.

Egoism and Stirner has been argued to be a major influence on Friedrich Nietzsche by thinkers such as Deleuze[16]. Stirner also was a significant influence on the anarchist Emma Goldman. More recently, Ayn Rand appropriated the Egoism label for her own philosophy, which she later named Objectivism. Rand's egoism has little to nothing to do with Stirner's other than sharing the term, in fact Rand's egoism stands in opposition to Stirner's egoism as Stirner staunchly criticized spooks such as property that Rand abides by. It's probable that Stirner would have poured milk on her head if they ever met. On the more countercultural side, Anton LaVey's rejection of Christian morality, and his rationalization for such, was also framed in words very similar to Stirner's (albeit a fair bit more vulgar).


Anarcho-primitivists go even further than green anarchists, viewing civilization itself, from modern labor-saving technologies to language, as an anti-ecological, hierarchical institution. They advocate the complete abolition of industry, capitalism, and even agriculture, returning to a hunter-gatherer mode of life which they argue is more leisurely, free, and in tune with nature. They believe wilderness and wildlife have a right to exist for their own sake, and therefore, endorse such a lifestyle that they see as least destructive. John Zerzan is probably the most prominent thinker of the primitivist tendency, although Bob Black also contributes greatly. The methods of how to achieve this primitive back-to-nature society are contentious. The British anarcho-primitivist magazine Green Anarchist once praised Unabomber Ted Kaczynski (arguably close to anarcho-primitivism in his views, although his manifesto was rooted far less in environmental concerns) and the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan who released Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. Needless to say, most green anarchists and those of other tendencies reject anarcho-primitivism.

Curiously absent is the answer to the question of which of the 7 billion people would have to die to make this dream a reality; the simple fact is that even if we all went vegetarian, without modern farming practices and the chemical industry we simply could not grow enough food for everyone. There is a reason that Britain, which now has 60 million people, only had a few million in Medieval times yet even then people routinely starved. However, anarcho-primitivists' concerns about agriculture are not without a reason, with Desert's critiques of how permaculture is unsustainable[17] now being reality with scientists warning that UK's topsoil having 100 harvests left in them only in 2014[18] and others giving warning of 30-40 years [19] before the soil becomes difficult if not impossible to grow crops on. However, this only comes from 1 peer reviewed study that has had no calculation, prediction, or hard evidence to support that this is the case as well.[20]

Insurrectionary anarchism[edit]

Insurrectionary anarchism is a recent innovation and seems to be influenced by postmodern philosophy, nihilism, guerrilla warfare tactics, and anarcho-primitivism with some Kropotkin and Stirner thrown in. It is a murky area that is difficult to understand for those not already steeped in postmodernism. Insurrectionary anarchists tend to define themselves in contrast to organizational anarchists such as anarcho-syndicalists. Any form of organization at all is suspect (conveniently ignoring the fact that Homo sapiens are social and tribal by nature), probably at least proto-statist if not explicitly so, and deserving of deconstruction through the lens of postmodernism. In practice, this means that a permanent revolution and never-ending guerrilla insurrection, in the form of ever-shifting affinity groups that never coalesce into anything permanent, is needed.

Some notable insurrectionary anarchist literatures include The Coming Insurrection, Armed Joy, with modern organizations being the Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei, the now-repressed Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth, as well as many informal groups throughout Greece and other countries.

Post-left anarchism[edit]

Post-left anarchism while preserving many characteristics of left-anarchism (such as opposition to hierarchies and oppression) abandons the moralistic critiques that left-anarchism employs. Post-left anarchism is often influenced by either anarcho-primitivists such as Zerzan or at times accelerationism through thinkers like Mark Fisher or Nick Land, as well as Deleuze. Post-left anarchists reject grand narratives that are often used by Marxists (such as dialectical materialism) but instead still retains many critiques that Marxists made, especially the more unorthodox Marxists like the Situationists.

It’s neither a political program nor an ideology. It’s not meant in any way to constitute some sort of faction or sect within the more general anarchist milieu. It’s in no way an opening to the political right; the right and left have always had much more in common with each other than either has in common with anarchism. And it’s certainly not intended as a new commodity in the already crowded marketplace of pseudo-radical ideas. It is simply intended as a restatement of the most fundamental and important anarchist positions within the context of a disintegrating international political left.[21]


Anarcho-transhumanism is a recent branch of anarchism that takes traditional and modern anarchism, typically drawing from anarcho-syndicalismWikipedia's W.svg, left-libertarianismWikipedia's W.svg or libertarian soclialism and combines it with transhumanism and post-humanismWikipedia's W.svg. It can be described as a “liberal democratic revolution, at its core the idea that people are happiest when they have rational control over their lives. Reason, science, and technology provide one kind of control, slowly freeing us from ignorance, toil, pain, disease and limited lifespans (aging)", Some anarcho-transhumanists might also follow technogaianismWikipedia's W.svg as well.


Some anarchists consider themselves "anarchists without adjectives", not desiring to follow any one tendency but claiming to welcome all ideas. "Anarchism without adjectives" was founded as a response to the sectarian infighting among other schools of anarchist thought and began with the premise that all anarchist tendencies are equally valid. AWA is seen by some as a modern version of Synthesis-Anarchism which extends to other models other than the three (Syndicalism, Communism and Individualism) that are embraced by synthesis anarchists. "Anarchists without adjectives" generally focus on de-legitimizing the state rather than on one particular conception of an anarchist society, believing that all else will naturally follow and a world without government will likely be heavily mixed.

Not anarchism[edit]

National anarchism[edit]

See the main article on this topic: National anarchism

National anarchism is a batshit crazy ideology which seeks the same aims of fascism but argues that a stateless society would achieve them better than a state ever could. National anarchists seek the establishment of 'National Autonomous Zones' which would be 'racially pure', 'traditional' in terms of gender relations, anti-capitalist and ecologically sustainable. Unlike most other anarchists, national anarchists do not oppose hierarchy. Rather they seek a hierarchy that arises 'naturally', not the current hierarchies of the capitalist system, which are based on exploitation. National anarchists share some common ground with pan-archists as they argue that 'if you don't like it, you can just leave'. They said you can just join an existing society based on other values or even start your own. For the most part, National anarchists are despised by other anarchists. That is provided they have even heard of them. National anarchism is a fringe movement even compared to anarcho-capitalism. They have a habit of showing up uninvited to anarchist book fairs, getting run off by angry Antifascist Action affinity groups, and whining on the Internet about it.


See the main article on this topic: Anarcho-fascism‎‎

Invented one day by a Swede who didn't understand political theory, anarcho-fascism‎‎ bears no relationship to anarchism.


See the main article on this topic: Anarcho-capitalism

In spite of its name, anarcho-capitalism is not related to the other anarchist movements more than the abolishing of the state. It is an ideology which primarily advocates a laissez-faire free market free of state interference, and abolition of the state, replacing it with voluntary agreements (contracts) between consenting parties. Anarchism traditionally means not simply the abolition of the state but also all hierarchies, which are viewed as inherently oppressive. Since capitalism is hierarchical, few if any leftist-anarchists view anarcho-capitalism as compatible with anarchism.[22] [23] However, ancaps simply view anarchism as the abolition of the state, so they view capitalism (and other hierarchies for that matter) and anarchism as compatible.

The term "anarcho-capitalist" is slowly being appropriated by the far-right, following in the ideas of thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe (who figure that having a king is compatible with anarchism, the "king" as someone who contractually owns all land in a given area). The far-right demographic within the anarcho-capitalist diaspora apply Hoppe's theories on anarcho-capitalism supported by complex webs of contractual agreements to propose all-White Ethnostates free of "degenerate" behaviour (very pro-freedom).

Anarchist organizations[edit]

Those who make no effort to understand anarchism generally suppose that the very term "anarchist organization" posits a hierarchical structure which is anathema to the egalitarian virtues of the anarchist worldview. This is not the case. Anarchists believe that human beings can organize themselves along non-hierarchical lines. Anarchists are not against organization, but rather oppose hierarchy, and do not advocate the 'lawlessness' and disintegration of society which the term 'anarchy' conjures. Anarchist organizations strive for a maximal degree of direct democracy and the accountability of officers to the rank and file.

North America[edit]



United States[edit]



  • Rojava (or North Syria Federation) is a region of Syria mostly controlled by Kurds and allied fighters. It could reasonably be considered an anarchist region; it incorporates several elements of anarchism including egalitarianism, decentralization, and self-determination. However, there are certain things about Rojava that some say would disqualify it, namely that it has an army of 50,000 troops alongside compulsory military service, a state governance structure, and good relations/direct military cooperation with other governments. But even if it isn't anarchist, it's still libertarian socialist, a broader political umbrella that includes anarchism among other philosophies/systems.


South America[edit]


Other links[edit]

See also[edit]

  • Anarchy
  • Libertarianism, a term originally used by anarcho-communists that was coined by Joseph Dejacque, to distinguish anarcho-communism from tendencies like Mutualism[24]. Now used by radical classical liberals and supporters of laissez-faire capitalism. The former use is now ironically seen as an oxymoron by them, just as anarchists feel about such "right"-libertarian ideologies.
  • Mobocracy
  • Socialism


  1. Also known as 'exactly the same system we already have', if you consider countries to be communities.


  2. Craig, Edward, ed (2005). The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISBN 978-0-415-32495-3. 
  3. Revolutionary Ukraine, The Nestor Makhno Archive
  4. The Catalan anarchist revolutionaries were immortalized by George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
  5. "Anarcho-syndicalism"
  6. Biography of Mikhail Bakunin
  7. "What is Property" from the Marxist Internet Archive
  8. "A look at mutualism" - Mark Stoval
  10. Gould, Stephen Jay: "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot", Natural History 106, June 1997, p. 12-21
  11. Consider Wikipedia's category of prominent anarcho-syndicalists, most of which were born after the civil war and died sometime after the second world war
  12. McElroy, Wendy: XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, St. Martin's Press, 1997
  13. PBS American Experience, People & Events: Ben Reitman (1879-1942)
  14. Bookchin, Murray and Foreman, Dave: Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman, South End Press, 1991
  15. Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich: The German Ideology, 1846
  16. Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, translated by Hugh Tomlinson, The Athlone Press, 1983, pp. 153–154
  22. Anarchy 101
  23. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists?
  24. Flogger of woman and absolute serf of man, Proudhon Magnan, you use your words for a lash. Like a slave-driver you seem delighted to disrobe your beautiful victims (on paper) and flagellate them with invectives. Moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian, you want free exchange of cotton and candles and you seek to protect man against woman in the exchange of affectional human passion. You cry against the great barons of capital, and you would rebuild a proud barony of man on vassal-woman. Logician with misfit eyeglasses, you are unable to read the lessons of the present or the past; you can discern nothing that is elevated or at a distance or in the perspective of the future.