My confusion with the various types of Anarchy

[antistatist]

So I have recently taken a large interest in Left Anarchy but while researching the various types of anarchism I ran into much confusion. There are multiple different types of anarchism that all seem to stand with something different. Could someone please help me understand the difference between Anarcho-Communism, Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and Collectivist Anarchy?

Just a basic definition of each one and theorists of each ideology would be helpful. Also, where did Goldman stand on all this? I know this all seems like an elementary thing to ask, but I am new to the cause.

[Blake's Baby]

Goldman was an anarchist-communist. She considered herself politically to stand in the same tradition as Kropotkin, and allied hersself politically with Alexander Berkman.

I don't know anything about mutualism, I'm not sure it exists except in the minds of some American 'anarchists' who are soft on capitalism. It's descended from Proudhon's original take on 'anarchist' socialism, and seems to revolve around artisanal production. As such, it probably makes little sense in a post-Fordist world.

'Collectivist' anarchism doesn't really exist any more. Most of the 'collectivists' became anarchist-communists in the 1880s, as I understand it.

So in general there are two anarchist traditions that are alive and well in the real world - anarchist- (or 'anarcho-') communism, and anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarchist-communism in general starts from a class analysis that is in most respects pretty similar to marxism, and posits that the working class needs to take control of the means of the production and smash the state, worldwide, through revolution. The transformation to a federation of free communes can then start immediately.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the idea that workers can seize the means of production and transform society directly through the changing of the economic basis of society. They see unions ('syndicates' in French) as being the means for the working class to organise

Some (not all) anarchist-communists regard anarcho-syndicalism as a tactic; anarcho-syndicalists however generally do not.

Mutualism: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Anarchist-Communism: Peter (Piotr) Kropotkin; Alexander Berkman: Emma Goldman; Guy Aldred
Anarcho-syndicalism: Rudolf Rocker; Grigory Maximov (or Maximoff); the IWW (not technically anarcho-syndicalist); the CNT in Spain
Anarcho-collectivism: Mikhail Bakunin

There are also the Individualists, if you want to. Some of them considered themselves socialists, some didn't, most of them were American (it's got something to do with the Frontier and the Pioneer mentality I think): Max Stirner; Benjamin Tucker; Josiah Warren

[Tim Cornelis]

Mutualism:

Mutualism and individialist anarchism is based on worker ownership of enterprises who compete in a market regulated by an agro-industrial federation (regulated by means of limited cooperation as opposed to coercion). It advocates people's exchange banks with next to zero interest (credit unions basically). The idea that mutualism is based on artisan and small-scale production is a myth permated by many Marxists. It's simply market socialism without state.

Theorists: Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker (all socialists)

Anarcho-Collectivism:

Advocates remuneration according to contribution and is market abolitionist.

Theorists: Bakunin

Communist Anarchism:

Advocates distribution according to needs.

Theorists: Kropotkin

Anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic, which to my knowledge is also accepted by anarcho-syndicalists themsleves.

[Sasha]

No mention of insurrectionism? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism
And I guess one should also mention platformism as a important tactical route: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism

[Искра]

Anarcho-communist federations can be platformist, synthethist and "class struggle". To be a member of first one you have to agree on everything with organisation, to be a member of second you just have to have "Anarchy!" t-shirt and to be a member of third you have to be anarchist who is not against class struggle and who want to create class free society (i.e. you can't be mutualist or individualist).

Anarcho-syndicalists are anarcho-communists as anarcho-syndicalism is only a tactics of anarchist communists.

When it comes to insurrectionism it is also a tactics, but it can be practiced by various anarchists types.

[Caj]

Just to correct something in the first two posts, it's actually unclear whether or not collectivist anarchism ever existed as something distinct from communist anarchism. The difference that one often hears is that collectivism advocated a remuneration system, while communism advocates money-lessness. However, the collectivist anarchists Guillaume and Bakunin said that a system of "from each according to his or her ability, to each accordng to his or her needs" could be adopted if practical. Some of the anarchist communists, Malatesta for example, advocated a temporary remuneration system because scarcity would be inevitable in certain regions immediately following the revolution.

[Искра]

Collectivist anarchism is an anarchist try to not to accept Marx's critique of capitalism. They have failed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are also the Individualists, if you want to. Some of them considered themselves socialists, some didn't, most of them were American (it's got something to do with the Frontier and the Pioneer mentality I think): Max Stirner; Benjamin Tucker; Josiah Warren

I'm impressed that you and Goti know about the American individualists, not too many people outside the US (or even inside the US, really) know about them, or at least not that I've come across on this site. They're not especially relevant to modern day anarchism but I think they're interesting historical curiosities...I think it's interesting that a big topic of theirs (Warren, Ingalls, Henry George etc) was land reform. I'm sure one could write a very long and boring Marxist analysis of how the American experience played into that.

[Caj]

Collectivist anarchism is an anarchist try to not to accept Marx's critique of capitalism. They have failed.

The collectivists did accept Marx's critique of capitalism. It was the early anarchist communists, who became alienated from the workers movement after the fall of the international, that abandoned Marxian materialism in favor of utopianism and idealism.