Chart of Anarchist schools of thought

[ContrarianLemming]

I did this in like five minutes so feel free to criticize, this is only a prototype.
There was another thread here asking for a sort of "tree" of anarchist and marxist schols of thought but there was none online and someone pointed to this as an ideao f what the OP was going for: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2338479886
obviously this chart is awful, i disagree with most of it, it makes no sense in parts, but the idea is clever so I made my own anarchist schools of thought chart
how can I improve upon it? Am i missing anything?
Those schools of thought that are "between" individualist and social anarchism come in both varieties in my view.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think you should've included Anarcho-Capitalism even if it is right up in the corner.

[Zanthorus]

I don't think you should've included Anarcho-Capitalism even if it is right up in the corner.

As much as I hate to admit it, all though they would not be considered "anarchists" by the classical anarchists and indeed their form of "anarchism" is actually a form of statism since it would involve a group of elites ordering society at the expense of the general populus although co-ordinated through the market and corporations, they consider themselves to be "anarchists" and fit into that label if we accept the weberian/liberal definition of the state as a monopoly on the use of aggression.

It's also not necessarily true that their ideology is ahistorical or unlinked to the anarchist movement proper. Rothbard got some of his ideas from the individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker who were heavily involved in the US labour movement at the time and can trace their roots back to Proudhon who was also a big influence on Bakunin and some of the members of the first international.

On the other hand Rothbard was quite scathing toward Tucker and Spooner's anti-capitalism so it's probably correct to put ancap as isolated from other schools of anarchism.

Although thinking about it even then Rothbard would only really be considered an "anarchist" in his early years. Later on he was quite happy to support racialists like David Duke against the liberal consensus. I also think crypto-feudalists like Hoppe don't really count, neither do guys like Walter Block who support "slave contracts" as justifiable.

So it should probably be narrowed down to specify just Left-Rothbardians and socially left-leaning ancaps in general...

Yeah you'd probably be better off scrapping ancap.

[revolution inaction]

As much as I hate to admit it, all though they would not be considered "anarchists" by the classical anarchists and indeed their form of "anarchism" is actually a form of statism since it would involve a group of elites ordering society at the expense of the general populus although co-ordinated through the market and corporations, they consider themselves to be "anarchists" and fit into that label if we accept the weberian/liberal definition of the state as a monopoly on the use of aggression.
No, not really because anarchists are opposed to hierarchy not just the state, anarcho-capitalists are not.

[Zanthorus]

No, not really because anarchists are opposed to hierarchy not just the state, anarcho-capitalists are not.

Well strictly speaking anarchists are opposed to everything which they consider an archon. Anarcho-capitalists believe that the only archons are political archons and that if we get rid of the state and aggression against property in general then that will be the end of coercion. I believe this to be false but since their goal is to eliminate what they consider unjust authority then they are in some sense "anarchists".

Social anarchists take a broader view of archons which views them as existing under "anarcho"-capitalism as well in the form of structures like the corporation as well as the capitalist class in general and the free-market which is used by that class as a mechanism to enforce it's class power against the general population and the working-class in particular.

I don't know what kind of idiot is against "hierarchy" as a general principle. Do you oppose delegation of tasks via democratic mandate? I certainly wouldn't want to do all the tasks that management does. I would hope "anarchists" would not object to me or my co-workers delegating tasks requiring specialist knowledge to someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You forgot about insurrectionary anarchism, which is a pretty big omission considering it's influence on anarchist history, particularly in the 1880's.

I would also agree about scrapping anarcho-capitalism. It isn't anarchism as people on this board understand it.

Other than that it's a good effort, though. :)

[Os Cangaceiros]

As much as I hate to admit it, all though they would not be considered "anarchists" by the classical anarchists and indeed their form of "anarchism" is actually a form of statism since it would involve a group of elites ordering society at the expense of the general populus although co-ordinated through the market and corporations, they consider themselves to be "anarchists" and fit into that label if we accept the weberian/liberal definition of the state as a monopoly on the use of aggression.

I think that the Weberian view of the state is a little bit simplistic, honestly. But Rothbard did identity with his analysis:


The state is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.

Like I said, though, I think that explanation only goes so far insofar as an explanation as to the origins and mechinations of the state as an institution. I think that Marx fills in some of the gaps, but doesn't draw some of the logical conclusions about the state in doing so.

(Good point about the early individualists like Tucker and Spooner, though.)

[ZombieGrits]

You forgot about insurrectionary anarchism, which is a pretty big omission considering it's influence on anarchist history, particularly in the 1880's.

Well, is insurrectionary anarchism really a true ideological division? I mean among the anarchists that support insurrection, do they all share a single philosophy, or are there ancaps, ancoms, syndicalists, etc. within the insurrectionaries?

I didn't pose this as a question to sound condescending, I'm just not much of a scholar when it comes to anarchism :p

[Zanthorus]

I think that the Weberian view of the state is a little bit simplistic, honestly. But Rothbard did identity with his analysis:


The state is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.

Like I said, though, I think that explanation only goes so far insofar as an explanation as to the origins and mechinations of the state as an institution. I think that Marx fills in some of the gaps, but doesn't draw some of the logical conclusions about the state in doing so.


Yeah I agree. I think Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler provide the clearest definition of a state:


In our view, hierarchical social orders are better understood not as modes of production, but as modes of power. Every mode of power, whether based on slavery, feudalism or capitalization, has its own particular configuration. Each of these configurations obviously depends on production, narrowly under - stood. But production as such is merely part of the story of power. Beyond providing the material preconditions for social life, its significance for understanding the hierarchical structure of society lies not in its efficiency or inefficiency per se, but in the way that efficiency or inefficiency bears on power.

We propose to think of the mode of power of a society as the ‘state’ of that society.

[...]

In contemporary capitalism, the key organizational bodies of the state are corporations and government organs. These are the concrete incarnations of the capitalist mode of power, and although separate they are deeply interrelated. First, both bodies are conditioned by the same nomos of capitalized earnings and its associated rituals. Regardless of whether their departments overlap or exist at arm’s length, regardless of whether their personnel are separate or share a revolving door, and regardless of whether they cooperate or bicker, they are both part and parcel of the same architecture of mechanized social power. Second, they presuppose each other: there are no capitalist corporations without a capitalist government, and there is no capitalist government without corporate or proto-corporate organizations. And, third, by incessantly seeking to redistribute capitalized earnings, whether at cross purposes or in unison, corporations and governments end up shaping and reshaping the very patterns of power that define capitalism. In the final analysis, there are no profit expectations without state prisons: at the zenith of its capitalist power, nineteenth-century Britain had more political prisoners than Tsarist Russia, just as the United States today boasts the world’s largest inmate population.

We call this Leibnitzian-like space the state of capital.

My only addition would be to stress the state as an institution wielded by classes that constitute a minority within society. So the mode of power of social anarchism would not constitute a state in any real sense.

This is still an issue up for debate within the social sciences though and most people's definition of "state" is chosen partly to suit their own political tendency so it seems wrong to fault anarcho-capitalism for having a fuzzy idea of what a state is.


(Good point about the early individualists like Tucker and Spooner, though.)


I would like to add to my earlier points on this that despite the Moss-Tucker debate elsewhere there was relative co-operation between social anarchists and individualist anarchists at the time. For example Voltairine de Cleyre wrote an essay defending Emma Goldman while she was still an individualist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, is insurrectionary anarchism really a true ideological division? I mean among the anarchists that support insurrection, do they all share a single philosophy, or are there ancaps, ancoms, syndicalists, etc. within the insurrectionaries?

Well, the traditional insurrectionists (the Galleanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Galleani)) had a very distinct philosophy as far as what they viewed successful tactics to be. If Platformism is on there (which isn't a anarchist school as much as an anarchist tactic), I think that IA should be on there, too.

Insurrectionary anarchism has kind of changed today, though, from what I've read of modern insurrecto writings. It seems to be more influenced by post-modernism.

[revolution inaction]

Well strictly speaking anarchists are opposed to everything which they consider an archon. Anarcho-capitalists believe that the only archons are political archons and that if we get rid of the state and aggression against property in general then that will be the end of coercion. I believe this to be false but since their goal is to eliminate what they consider unjust authority then they are in some sense "anarchists".

all kinds of people intend to eliminat "unjust authority" that doesn't make them anarchist, i'm sure all the leninisnts would claim that there system would/did eliminate unjust authority.
Also use english, theres more to anarchism than the definition of some greek word.



Social anarchists take a broader view of archons which views them as existing under "anarcho"-capitalism as well in the form of structures like the corporation as well as the capitalist class in general and the free-market which is used by that class as a mechanism to enforce it's class power against the general population and the working-class in particular.

this isn't just a matter of opinion, the anarcho capitalists are wrong and we don' need to take any notice of what they think.
I mean you wouldn't take creationists seriously if they started talking about creations science would you?




I don't know what kind of idiot is against "hierarchy" as a general principle. Do you oppose delegation of tasks via democratic mandate? I certainly wouldn't want to do all the tasks that management does. I would hope "anarchists" would not object to me or my co-workers delegating tasks requiring specialist knowledge to someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

that wasn't what i meant and you know it.

[ContrarianLemming]

I was going to Insurrectionary anarchism but i really wasn't sure where to put it, It isn't quite social anarchism, it doesn't really belong to either group, any suggestions? maybe put it outside social and individualist, like anarcho capitalism is?
the same goes for post left anarchism and post anarchism.
by adding anarcho capitalism in the small corner like that was more of a joke then anything else, a slight nod to our feelings on it.

[Zanthorus]

this isn't just a matter of opinion, the anarcho capitalists are wrong and we don' need to take any notice of what they think.
I mean you wouldn't take creationists seriously if they started talking about creations science would you?

I would and have actually debated creationists properly, which is how I know creationism is bull. Even then I'm still open to hearing convincing evidence in favour. If I explicitly denied a perfectly reasoned argument I think I'd be a bit of an idiot.

You suppose that there is some kind of self-evident, a priori truth which is clear to any rational person. Yet this is clearly false, just look at all the ideological divisions in the world.

I think Feuerbach was right when he said:


Is it at all possible that a species realizes itself in one individual, art as such in one artist, and philosophy as such in one philosopher? And yet this is the main question; for what use to me are all the proofs that this particular person is the messiah when I do not believe at all that any messiah ever will, could, or must appear. Hence, if this question is not raised, it is quietly taken for granted that there must and does exist an aesthetic or speculative Dalai Lama, an aesthetic or speculative transubstantiation, and an aesthetic or speculative Day of Judgment. It is just this presupposition, however, that contradicts reason. “Only all men taken together, “says Goethe, “cognize nature, and only all men taken together live human nature.” How profound – and what is more – how true!

- Towards a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

[StalinFanboy]

Insurrectionary anarchism isn't a platform or ideology. All anarchists are insurrectionary, unless they believe the state will whither away, or that it's possible to build some ridiculous dual-power shit.

Insurrection just means attack.

[syndicat]

but "insurrectionary anarchsm," nonetheless, refers to a particular viewpoint, which is differentiated by a number of things. for one thing, the opposition to ongoing, formal organization. there is also a general failure to consider the process of class formation, of how consciousness develops in the class from passivity and conservative tendencies thru the development of the capacity to run things themselves, the class strength, and the aspiration to run things themselves. even tho anarcho-syndicalists have participated in insurrections, anarcho-syndicalism and "insurrectionary anarchism" are poles apart.

[syndicat]

one of the problems in charting the differentiations among the libertarian left is that there is a lack of organizational lineages with well defined lines...in the way there is for the Marxist left.

i prefer to think of the labels as "identities", not really tendencies. for example, in my organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance, we have people who would say they are "platformists" and people who don't identify that way, we have people who identify as "anarcho-communists" (including some non-platformist ACs) and people who do not so identify, we also have a few members who have been influenced by participatory economics/participatory society ideas. nowadays the organization officially says it is "a social anarchist organization in the syndicalist tradition". so anarcho- or libertarian syndicalism is a commonality. altho we use "social anarchist" there are some members (like me) who prefer "libertarian socialist."

Nonetheless, despite different preferences for political identity, the organization has a well-worked out political statement (3000 words) which people must agree to to belong. We're not an anything goes kind of outfit. Nor do we have subgroups who have separate platforms. We've generally prefered to rely on a concrete specification of our politics rather than rely on ideological rhetoric or buzzwords.

So this experience suggests to me that the ideological identities or labels do not necessarily have a lot of depth to them. Maybe preference for label has to do with things like who you first read who you liked or how you got motivated in this kind of politics.

[ContrarianLemming]

one of the problems in charting the differentiations among the libertarian left is that there is a lack of organizational lineages with well defined lines...in the way there is for the Marxist left.

i prefer to think of the labels as "identities", not really tendencies. for example, in my organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance, we have people who would say they are "platformists" and people who don't identify that way, we have people who identify as "anarcho-communists" (including some non-platformist ACs) and people who do not so identify, we also have a few members who have been influenced by participatory economics/participatory society ideas. nowadays the organization officially says it is "a social anarchist organization in the syndicalist tradition". so anarcho- or libertarian syndicalism is a commonality. altho we use "social anarchist" there are some members (like me) who prefer "libertarian socialist."

Nonetheless, despite different preferences for political identity, the organization has a well-worked out political statement (3000 words) which people must agree to to belong. We're not an anything goes kind of outfit. Nor do we have subgroups who have separate platforms. We've generally prefered to rely on a concrete specification of our politics rather than rely on ideological rhetoric or buzzwords.

So this experience suggests to me that the ideological identities or labels do not necessarily have a lot of depth to them. Maybe preference for label has to do with things like who you first read who you liked or how you got motivated in this kind of politics.

This can easily be seen by how little difference there actually is between the 3 main social anarchist schools, the difference in strategy between ancom and ancol (collectivist) is non existent, their only difference based around money, which is not actually that important in a non hierarchal society, while syndicalism doesn't even go that far and has a somewhat minor difference in stragegy, so minor (participation in non anarchist unions etc) that it's barely worth debating. I call myself an anarcho syndicalist over ancol or ancol for several reasons, the only one i actually care about is the negetive connotations of the word "communist" and how the word "collective" reminds me of the Borg and forced conformity. I do have proper reasons to call myself a syndicalist over all others, but their to minor to even mention.

That said, anarchism is a broad tradition and such overlaping is not always the case, hence the diagram which I really like, who doesn't like visual explanations?