Historical Examples of Anarchism

[PoliticalNightmare]

What are all the historic examples of anarchism? I'd like to be pointed toward articles, preferable unbiased, neutral, historical resources.

Cheers.

[Stephen Colbert]

Catalonia in the 1930's under Franco. I am no expert by any means in the subject but there are volumes of literature on the topic, the most culturally relevant being Orwell's work, "Homage to Catalonia".

Also: Zapatista Mexico. There's a documentary called "A Place in Chiapas" that you should watch. That is more of a contemporary example of anti-capitalist anti-globalist post-modern revolutions however, and less on the anarcho-collectivist ideals that subcomandante marcos espouses.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I think Wikipedias list is quiete good, exept that people who participated in some of the examples wouldnt call themselves for anarchists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

[ed miliband]

There aren't really any... Yes, we can point to the Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, the Ukranian Free Teritory and a number of other relatively small-scale experiments, but the aim of anarchism isn't small-scale experiments that last for weeks, months or a few years if they are lucky - anarchism is internationalist by its very nature. Whenever people ask for "historic examples of anarchism" I always think of "anarcho"-capitalists trying to claim that Iceland or Ireland (I think they say both) were "anarcho"-capitalist 500 odd years ago.

[Widerstand]

KRONSTADT AND PETROGRAD!

enjoy your thread.

But really, there aren't any. There are only examples of communities with semi-anarchist qualities.

[Soseloshvili]

The above posters are right, there's no real historical examples of Anarchism. This is because of the very nature of Anarchism, due to its hatred of organization and statism, there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for the highly organized, highly equiped army of the Capitalist state to be overthrown completely by an ad hoc majority of workers armed with whatever they can find, completely unorganized (on a large scale), untrained (for the most part) and undisciplined. Though it isn't impossible (it seemed to work in Chiapas for a while, it's still hard to tell as the revolution in Chiapas is ongoing) it's just something that's hard to pull off. Revolutions aren't easy.

However. There are historical examples of what Marx called "primitive Communism", essentially what Communism in its final stages (or Anarchism in its entirety) is supposed to ressemble, but that were born not of class struggle but of natural development into a collective society. Basically it's everything Communists and Anarchists envision without Industrialization.

The best example of this is the Iroquois Six Nations in what is now the Great Lakes region on the U.S.A.-Canada border (The Iroquois are the world's oldest democracy, having a voting process, collective rule and even rights for women by the 1100s). The iroquois had a thoroughly "Anarchist" society based upon collective organization, collective agriculture, hunting and, to some degree, primitive production.

[Property Is Robbery]

Early Christian communes were egalitarian and similar to how Anarcho-Communism would work, i.e. gift economy etc.

Also the Diggers Movement during the English revolutionary was egalitarian.

my citation is The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff, Chapter 10

[revolution inaction]

The above posters are right, there's no real historical examples of Anarchism. This is because of the very nature of Anarchism, due to its hatred of organization and statism, there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for the highly organized, highly equiped army of the Capitalist state to be overthrown completely by an ad hoc majority of workers armed with whatever they can find, completely unorganized (on a large scale), untrained (for the most part) and undisciplined. Though it isn't impossible (it seemed to work in Chiapas for a while, it's still hard to tell as the revolution in Chiapas is ongoing) it's just something that's hard to pull off. Revolutions aren't easy.
you're an idiot

[syndicat]

is because of the very nature of Anarchism, due to its hatred of organization and statism, there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for the highly organized, highly equiped army of the Capitalist state to be overthrown completely by an ad hoc majority of workers armed with whatever they can find, completely unorganized (on a large scale), untrained (for the most part) and undisciplined.

there are individual anarchists who may be "anti-organizational" but this was not the major view in the history of anarchism as a socialist tendency. they favor organization based on direct democracy rather than state hierarchies and party bosses. why suppose that the opposition to the state is an "undisciplined" and purely "ad hoc" and "untrained" force? No anarchist advocates that. The militia in Spain was trained, was disciplined and was definitely well organized, and was backed up by, controlled by, and supplied by a very large union federation.

[Revolution starts with U]

Anybody who claims Iceland as an anarchist society just shows how little they know/care what anarchy is. A feudal society in a state of constant warfare is not anarchist.

[scarletghoul]

As has been said before, there's never been a truly Anarchist society, that is, a society with no hierarchy whatsoever.

But there have been territories under the control of Anarchists and operated according to Anarchist ideas. The main modern Anarchist-controlled territories were parts of Ukraine in the Russian civil war, Shinmin (in Korea/Manchuria) in the late 20s, and Spain 36 -39 (mostly catalonia). Chiapas is also sometimes included. In my opinion all of these territories did have a workers' state of sorts even if they didn't define it as such. Many Anarchists also claim the Paris Commune of 1871 as an anarchist territory, though Marxists claim it as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[chegitz guevara]

I think Wikipedias list is quiete good, exept that people who participated in some of the examples wouldnt call themselves for anarchists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
I'm surprised that article hasn't been flagged for neutrality and accuracy. Wow. :blink:

[Soseloshvili]

you're an idiot

Or, you could, you know, make an attempt to argue with me. Instead of just saying all of 3 words.


there are individual anarchists who may be "anti-organizational" but this was not the major view in the history of anarchism as a socialist tendency. they favor organization based on direct democracy rather than state hierarchies and party bosses. why suppose that the opposition to the state is an "undisciplined" and purely "ad hoc" and "untrained" force? No anarchist advocates that. The militia in Spain was trained, was disciplined and was definitely well organized, and was backed up by, controlled by, and supplied by a very large union federation.

You're not exactly correct in that sense, have you ever read Homage to Catalonia? In that book, Orwell writes of how before going into battle, all members of POUM were given only 1 day of training, and since they had no access to firearms the only thing they were actually taught is how to march as an army.

It wasn't disciplined, Orwell wrote how in times of battle his rifle was often stolen by younger members of the militia, and that there was no disciplinary action.

That the militia was supplied is also incorrect. The militia's weaponry was mainly rusted rifles dated anywhere from the 1910s to, in Orwell's case, the 1880s. Many of the troops had little ammo, and the ammo they had was of bad quality, except the few that were stolen from the enemy. They were in constant lack of supply of essentials like food and clothing.

There has never been a trained Anarchist fighting force. And yes, it is ad hoc. In fact, most revolutionary armies are. The only reason this may differ for Communism or others types of "Statist" revolutions is because sometimes revolutionary armies are organized in the traditional military sense (or in the case of Russia or the Great French Revolution, the traditional army itself was the revolutionary army). Since Anarchists oppose this heriarchy, it is always an ad hoc fighting force.

Also, note that I never said it was impossible. I just said, that's how it is. An ad hoc army can overthrow Capitalism. As Che said;
In War and Peace, Tolstoy remarks that military strategy assumes that the larger the army, the better. However only in passing do they mention a certain "X". This "X" is none other than the will of the troops to fight and die for what they believe in. Whether military geniuses or men of normal intelligence, men armed with clubs or machine guns firing 30 rounds a second, it is these men who will win.

[syndicat]

You're not exactly correct in that sense, have you ever read Homage to Catalonia?

a book about the POUM militia, formed by a Leninist party. moreover, Orwell had little direct experience or knowledge of anarchosyndicalism in Spain or its militia system.



In that book, Orwell writes of how before going into battle, all members of POUM were given only 1 day of training, and since they had no access to firearms the only thing they were actually taught is how to march as an army.

that was the POUM. anyway, it is true there was little opportunity for training initially, except how to use a rifle, say.but the key militia leaders and organizers, such as Garcia Oliver and Durruti, developed proposals and ideas about training, such as their proposal in August 1936 for a new school for this purpose. also, there was the "on the job training" from the experience of actual fighting.



It wasn't disciplined, Orwell wrote how in times of battle his rifle was often stolen by younger members of the militia, and that there was no disciplinary action.

one example in a militia run by a Leninist party. on the other hand, if you read oral histories, you'll find that, for example, Cipriano Mera, a CNT building worker who headed a large militia force, was a strict disciplinarian.



That the militia was supplied is also incorrect. The militia's weaponry was mainly rusted rifles dated anywhere from the 1910s to, in Orwell's case, the 1880s. Many of the troops had little ammo, and the ammo they had was of bad quality, except the few that were stolen from the enemy. They were in constant lack of supply of essentials like food and clothing.


But they did get supplies...clothes, food, ammo, etc. This only happened because the CNT workers seized 200 chemical and metal working plants and converted them to production of supplies for the militia. On the other hand, when the CNT demanded that some of the Spanish gold be used to supply the CNT militias with weapons, this was denied after the gold was shipped to Russia, as it was Soviet policy to not supply the anarchist-controlled units. in Sept 1936 Durruti led a delegation to Madrid to insist on gold to help build up the arms industry in Catalonia and he was promised resources. but then the CNT was stabbed in the back by the decision to ship 70 percent of the gold to Russia.

so, what this shows is: (1) there was a very large scale systematic and well organized effort to supply the militia, and (2) it was sabotaged due to Communist influence.

[Soseloshvili]

a book about the POUM militia, formed by a Leninist party. moreover, Orwell had little direct experience or knowledge of anarchosyndicalism in Spain or its militia system.

Erm. Orwell hated Leninists and Communists, more specifically Stalinists. He openly declared himself a Democratic Socialist and aligned himself with the Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.

I think you have no idea what your talking about, considering you've never read the book. Orwell dedicated entire chapters to the political situation in Catalonia, of which he understood extensively. They were written from a very educated stance.


that was the POUM. anyway, it is true there was little opportunity for training initially, except how to use a rifle, say.but the key militia leaders and organizers, such as Garcia Oliver and Durruti, developed proposals and ideas about training, such as their proposal in August 1936 for a new school for this purpose. also, there was the "on the job training" from the experience of actual fighting.

the POUM was the militia. If you're referring to the Friends of Durruti organized Guerrilla force that appeared later in the war, in 1936, than yes, there was some *minor* training that they underwent, but the majority of fighters in the Civil War were POUM, not directly linked with the Friends of Durruti organization.

I just told you, they weren't taught how to use a rifle. And this wouldn't have changed later in the war. Orwell comments on how they didn't train with guns because they didn't have extra guns for training. All of the best weapons were being horded by the Republicans in Madrid, the militia got what they got and sent every scrap up of it up to the front.

Orwell wrote of these "schools". Orwell went to what was called a military training school, but what was really little more than a barn where they kept you while you waited for your mismatched uniform, gun and ammo.


one example in a militia run by a Leninist party. on the other hand, if you read oral histories, you'll find that, for example, Cipriano Mera, a CNT building worker who headed a large militia force, was a strict disciplinarian.

And if you read Orwell's account, you'll find the exact opposite occured in his group. The fact is that the militia was a group composed of small groups of men each with a "commander" who generally ran themselves. Discipline varied. However they certainly were never taught it before battle.


But they did get supplies...clothes, food, ammo, etc. This only happened because the CNT workers seized 200 chemical and metal working plants and converted them to production of supplies for the militia. On the other hand, when the CNT demanded that some of the Spanish gold be used to supply the CNT militias with weapons, this was denied after the gold was shipped to Russia, as it was Soviet policy to not supply the anarchist-controlled units. in Sept 1936 Durruti led a delegation to Madrid to insist on gold to help build up the arms industry in Catalonia and he was promised resources. but then the CNT was stabbed in the back by the decision to ship 70 percent of the gold to Russia.

so, what this shows is: (1) there was a very large scale systematic and well organized effort to supply the militia, and (2) it was sabotaged due to Communist influence.

In Catalonia, union controlled ruled during the civil war period. This is why the labour necessary to produce things needed for the Anarchists was available. However, that the home front was organized in no way means that the frontline was organized. It wasn't.

What little the CNT had resources to produce, it put into producing uniforms and ammo, and instead of making their own guns scavenged them from wherever they could. The militia fought with German, Italian, French and Antique Spanish rifles, basically whatever they could come accross.

[syndicat]

I think you have no idea what your talking about, considering you've never read the book.

i've read the book multiple times.


the POUM was the militia. If you're referring to the Friends of Durruti organized Guerrilla force that appeared later in the war, in 1936, than yes, there was some *minor* training that they underwent, but the majority of fighters in the Civil War were POUM, not directly linked with the Friends of Durruti organization.



now, you don't know what you're talkng about. the militias were armies. in Catalonia, the largest was the Confederal Militia, run by the CNT's National Defense Committee. there were smaller party milities, controlled by the various political parties...PSUC (Stalinists), POUM, ERC (liberal Catalan nationalists).

The Friends of Durruti Group were a political group, an affiliate of the FAI. They never formed any militia.

your statment that "the majority of fighers in the civil war were POUM" is ridiculous. there were about 100,000 fighters in the militias. the POUM militia on the Aragon front (where Orwell fought) had maybe 2,000+ members, and i think it existed only on the Aragon front. on the Aragon front, Durruti's division alone had 14,000. (Durruti was an elected commander of a CNT militia division.) the POUM were not a major force in the Spanish revolution. they had about 9,000 members in their party. (their union, FOUS, had 70,000 members.) the FAI had 150,000 and the CNT anarcho-syndicalist federation had 2.5 million members. the Communist Party grew from about 30,000 members to about 250,000.


What little the CNT had resources to produce, it put into producing uniforms and ammo, and instead of making their own guns scavenged them from wherever they could. The militia fought with German, Italian, French and Antique Spanish rifles, basically whatever they could come accross.

care to give any source for your claim? the CNT also converted the Hispano-Suiza auto factory to the manufacture of armored cars. they also made grenades. they proposed to set up factories making all kinds of weapons, but as I pointed out, the promised money for this was never provided.

[revolution inaction]

Or, you could, you know, make an attempt to argue with me. Instead of just saying all of 3 words.



you clearly know absolutely nothing about anarchism or the spanish civil war.
Read this http://www.anarchistfaq.org/ and find some thing about the spanish ciil war to theres a lot of articles on libcom.org and i'm sure people can recomend books and websites, and please don't make any statements about either until you have read them

[Soseloshvili]

i've read the book multiple times.

Then why did you refer to Orwell as a Leninist? He openly states he hates them in that book


now, you don't know what you're talkng about. the militias were armies. in Catalonia, the largest was the Confederal Militia, run by the CNT's National Defense Committee. there were smaller party milities, controlled by the various political parties...PSUC (Stalinists), POUM, ERC (liberal Catalan nationalists).

I just said that in Catalonia, the militia was the army. The militia's were composed of young men who received little or no training, and were equiped with ancient firearms.

The main army on the frontlines, at least in Catalonia, was POUM. the CNT was a worker's union, and supplied much of the labour during the war in Catalonia. the Durruti Column was stronger in other provinces, like Aragon and even in Madrid.

Since we are talking about the Spanish Revolution, which was prevalent mainly in Catalonia alone, only Catalonia applies.


The Friends of Durruti Group were a political group, an affiliate of the FAI. They never formed any militia.

Excuse me, the Durruti Column. A temporary mental failing on my part.


your statment that "the majority of fighers in the civil war were POUM" is completely silly. there were about 100,000 fighters in the militias. the POUM militia had maybe 2,000+ members, and existed only on the Aragon front. on the Aragon front, Durruti's division alone had 14,000. (Durruti was an elected commander of a CNT militia division.) the POUM were not a major force in the Spanish revolution. they had about 9,000 members in their party. the FAI had 150,000 and the CNT anarcho-syndicalist federation had 2.5 million members.

They were a major force in the late Spanish Revolution in Catalonia, which is the only part that was really affected. The initial revolution wasn't the work of one particular party, but instead just workers collaborating.

You misunderstand. CNT-FAI were no entirely militia groups. They were labour unions. Yes, their members without a doubt fought in the civil war. But to say the majority of them did would be wrong.

Like I said above, Durruti's organization wasn't that strong in Catalonia. The main group on the Catalonian front was POUM. The Aragon front (I'm basing this off of Orwell's encounter with a detachment from Aragon) was indeed mainly Anarchist, though they were predominately self-organized.


care to give any source for your claim? the CNT also converted the Hispano-Suiza auto factory to the manufacture of armored cars. they also made grenades. they proposed to set up factories making all kinds of weapons, but as I pointed out, the promised money for this was never provided.

Fine, if you wish, I'll go about this. First on the weapons and uniforms:


On our third morning in Alcubierre the rifles arrived. A sergeant with a coarse dark-yellow face was handling them out in the mule-stable. I got a shock of dismay when I say the thing they gave me. It was a German Mauser dated 1896 - more than forty years old! It was rusty, the bolt was stiff, the wooden barrel-gaurd was split; one glance down the muzzle showed that it was corroded and past praying for. Most of the rifles were equally bad, some of them even worse....


....there was a complete lack of war materials of every description. It needs an effort to realize how madly the militias were armed at this time. Any public school OTC in England is far more like a modern army than we were. The badness of our weapons was so astonishing that it is worth recording in detail.

For this secotr of the front the entire artillery consisted of four trench-mortars with fifteen rounds for each gun.... There were machine guns at the rate of approximately one to fifty men.... There were 3 types of rifle in use. The first was the long Mauser. These were seldom less than 20 years old, their sights were about as much use as a broken speedometer, and in most of them the rifling was hoplessless corroded.... Then there was the short Mauser, or mousqueton, really a cavalry weapon.... they were almost useless. They were made out of reassembled parts, no bolt belonged to its rifle, and three-quarters of them could be counted to jam after five shots.... Then there were also a few Winchester rifles.... they were wildly innacurate, and as their cartridges had no clips they could only be fired one shot at a time. Ammunition was so scarce that most men entering the line was only issued 50 rounds, most of it exceedingly bad. The Spanish-made cartridges were all refills and would jam even the best rifles.

We had no tin hats, no bayonets, hardly any revolvers or pistols, and not more than one bomb between five or ten men....

We had no maps of charts.... we had no range-finders, no telescopes, no periscopes, no field-glasses.... no flairs of Very lights, no wire-cuttters, no armourers' tools, hardly any cleaning materials.... moreover, there were no lanterns or electric torches.

My point, by the way, was that they never manufactured their own rifles.



you clearly know absolutely nothing about anarchism or the spanish civil war.
Read this http://www.anarchistfaq.org/ and find some thing about the spanish ciil war to theres a lot of articles on libcom.org and i'm sure people can recomend books and websites, and please don't make any statements about either until you have read them

I read this a while before: http://libcom.org/library/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval (http://libcom.org/library/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval)

That and Homage to Catalonia, of course.

Am I "qualified" enough now?

Are you ready to make an educated argument, or are you going to maintain your three word "retaliation".

[syndicat]

I just said that in Catalonia, the militia was the army. The militia's were composed of young men who received little or no training, and were equiped with ancient firearms.

They were equipped with the arms they had seized from the Spanish army. thus they had the same weapons as the army they were fighting. the CNT seized the main army arms depot at San Andreu on July 19, at the time of the army coup, and it had 30,000 rifles. the 1896 model Mauser was the standard rifle of the Spanish army. this was also the standard rifle of the Germany army in both World War 1 and World War 2. according to one military historian, the Spanish version was superior to the German version (had a higher velocity of the bullet as it exited the rifle).



The main army on the frontlines, at least in Catalonia, was POUM.

first of all, there was no frontline in Catalonia. the front where Orwell fought was in Aragon. and on that front there were only about 2,000+ members of the POUM militia, and a similar number in the Karl Marx Division (the army of the PSUC). but the CNT Confederal Militia was by far the largest force. They had 14,000 men in their militia in that region...a majority of all the militia members on the Aragon front when Orwell was there. and that was only part of their militia which fought on all fronts.

your claim about the POUM militia shows your ignorance.

a good book on the civil war itself is "The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor. a good source of interviews with people who were involved at the time is "Blood of Spain." A standard account of anarchosyndicalism in the revolution and civil war is "Anarchists in the Spanish revolution" by Jose Peirats. i would suggest you do some reading. "Homage to Catalonia" is not sufficient for an understanding of the civil war, the militias or the anarchosyndicalist movement.

in "Blood of Spain" there is an interview with a member of the CNT regional committee in Aragon who quotes Durruti as referring to the 14,000 men in his column. that's where I got that figure from.

here's some stuff by Stuart Christie which talks about the organization of the militias:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/scRevSpain/intro.html



the CNT was a worker's union, and supplied much of the labour during the war in Catalonia. the Durruti Column was stronger in other provinces, like Aragon and even in Madrid.

again, you show you don't know what you're talking about. the CNT had many militia divisions. They had tens of thousands of militia members. The Durruti Column was only one division on the Aragon front. It did not exist in other provinces because the CNT Confederal Militia had divisions in many places.



Since we are talking about the Spanish Revolution, which was prevalent mainly in Catalonia alone, only Catalonia applies.


the revolution took place throughout the anti-fascist zone, tho it was strongest in Catalonia. but Catalonia was only part of the anti-fascist territory. It had a population of 2.5 million...about 10 percent of the population of Spain at the time. Malaga in Andalucia, Murcia, Valencia, the central region where Madrid is, Asturias, Santander, and the Basque country were also part of the antifascist zone. In the central region for example there were over 750 collectivized communities formed when farm worker unions seized farm land in that area.

because the civil war was occurring throughout these areas, Catalonia is not the only place that is relevant when talking about the organization of the fighting forces.


Then why did you refer to Orwell as a Leninist? He openly states he hates them in that book


Orwell only became more anti-Leninist with time. at the time he went to Spain he was sympathetic to the Communist Party. he said he'd originally thought he'd join the brigades organized by the Communists. POUM itself was a Leninist party. Orwell's "anti-Leninism" was directed at the official Communist movement, but this was only after he came back from Spain. his experience in Spain was part of why he came to oppose the official Moscow-line Communist movement. but the POUM were Leninists who were at odds with official Communism.

[revolution inaction]

I read this a while before: http://libcom.org/library/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval (http://libcom.org/library/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval)

That and Homage to Catalonia, of course.

Am I "qualified" enough now?

Are you ready to make an educated argument, or are you going to maintain your three word "retaliation".

from your posts i can see you have learned next to nothing, read more, and listen to syndicat, they know much better than you.