Sadiq Gill: The Politics of Anarchy

The word “anarchy” has its origins in ancient Greek (like so many other words). It stems from the root word arcon (archon), meaning ruler, with the prefix (an) added to mean “against” or “without.” So, literally, anarcon (anarchon) means against/without rulers. It is a wonderfully descriptive etymology, and helpful for understanding the basic principles of anarchical belief, a system defined by limited (or nonexistent) government, self rule, and lack of private property.

The First Modern Anarchists

While the principles behind the anarchist movement in some sense have their roots in the Stoic philosophies of ancient Greece, the tenants of modern anarchy perhaps first outlined by late 18th century sociologist
William Goldwin (who did not himself profess to be an anarchist at the time, but only because the term was not yet used as functionally as it is today) in his “Enquiry concerning Political Justice,” wherein he states, as a basic principle:

“Government, as it was forced upon mankind by their vices, so has it commonly been the creature of their ignorance and mistake.

Government was intended to suppress injustice, but it offers new occasions and temptations for the commission of it.

By concentrating the force of the community, it gives occasion to wild projects of calamity, to oppression, despotism, war and conquest.”

 

In the nineteenth century Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, in his book “What is Property?” and famous essay “What is Government?” also railed against the intrinsic evils of government and private property (and was also the first to actually use the word “anarchy” in its modern sense). To thinkers such as these, the ownership of any property is, in essence, theft from the community, and the very existence of government itself is the root of many, if not all, of society's problems.

 

Truth and Stereotypes

The most common misconceptions people often have toward anarchists is that of groups of rebellious kids breaking the law, wearing black, and having patches of the anarchy symbol safety pinned to their clothes (and sometimes carving them into their own body), and acting out against what they consider to be the evils of authority in general. Riots, demonstrations, school violence... all are (sometimes correctly) associated with anarchy. While much of this surely is done under the loosely defined guise of anarchy, these actions are certainly not what was originally defined by these intelligent, arguably misguided, thinkers.

In fact, one of the basic anarchic beliefs is that the world would naturally become a much better place by adopting those theories of anarchy. By Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's reckoning, should government cease to exist, replaced instead by self-rule of each individual person, the basic laws of humanity and the intrinsic goodness of humankind would take over, and humanity would begin a steady ascension toward a utopia.

Forms of Anarchy

Some anarchist theories, specifically those of Proudhon, while sounding as if verging on Marxist, are not based in communism, but are rather considered to be a form of “mutualism.” Proudhon was actually opposed to Communism, believing that there was still too much order involved; too much authoritarian control taking away the freedom of the individual. Still, the basic Socialist aspects remain: working individually, trading goods and services for other goods and other services based off whatever value is considered fair and whatever the current “going rate” may be.

In fact, when put this way, anarchy even has traces (faint as they may be) of the most basic form of capitalism (except without wealth or “greed”), though surely all similarities end here.

Anarchy is, by its nature, very hard to define. There are many other types of anarchical systems and many other anarchist leaders throughout history who have had things to say about the system. There are full-fledged Anarcho-Communists (and many subgroups therein) and there are even some Anarcho-Capitalists out there (conflicted as their beliefs may be). And then there are just those who hate being told what to do and want to cause as much damage to people and things as they possibly can, in the name of creating a system with no government, law or order. Some anarchists even kill presidents (referring, of course, to Leon Czolgosz, anarchist murderer of William McKinley).

One final note on the subject of anarchy: William Goldwyn, the modern father of anarchy, is actually the father of another famous writer: Mary Shelley, horror author extraordinaire and creator of Frankenstien. Surely, it is not difficult to find some form of anarchic message in this classic story.

References:
“Anarchist Timeline.”
Goldwin, William. “Inquiry concerning Political Justice.”
“An Anarchist FAQ.” Infoshop.org.

Sadiq Gill: Civil-military relations

A historical perspective of how the power struggle in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan transformed the social fabric in these majority-Muslim societies.

* * *

Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are not only large Muslim countries located in different continents, they also share striking similarities in their political developments during the past seven decades. An understanding of these developments might help us in drawing a broader picture of civil-military relationships and how they have transformed the social fabric in these majority-Muslim societies. One is fascinated by the almost similar ebb and flow of political struggle the three countries appear to have travelled through.

Turkey has been a bit ahead and if the lonely death and funeral of the 98-year old former general, coup-maker and self-appointed president, Kenan Evren, is any guide, Egypt and Pakistan might also sooner or later head in the same direction. In 2012, General Evren was tried for his role in the 1980 coup and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2014 by a court in Ankara. He was also demoted to the lowest rank of a private. When he died in May 2015, only his close relatives and some military personnel attended his funeral because he was treated as a criminal usurper and not as former commander of the army and the head of state. Political parties sent no representatives to the funeral and a number of people protested during the religious service in the mosque’s courtyard.

The chroniclers of fin-de-siècle politics have called Turkey the “sick man of Europe”. At the turn of the century, the Ottoman Empire was breathing its last and then the First World War hammered the proverbial last nail in its coffin. At the end of the war, despite some valiant military feats by Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) and his soldiers, the Allied forces had almost forced Turkey to its knees and were bent upon punishing it for its support to Germany during the Great War.

Gradually Kemal Atatürk emerged as the redeemer of his people and with the help of his fighters not only managed to regain some of the lost territories but also ultimately dissolved the Ottoman Empire and put the country on the road to a secular and progressive future. He knew very well that to take his society forward the country had to be extracted from the morass of backwardness.

He became the first president of modern Turkey in October 1923 and gave his country a new constitution in 1924. For the next 15 years he tried to remove the last vestiges of a medieval mindset from his people; struggled against religious dominance in society and promulgated a civil code modeled on the one used in Switzerland. He shut down all religious courts and to eliminate crimes he enforced laws borrowed from Italy. In 1934, he granted full political rights to women and replaced old Turkish script with the Latin one.

 In Turkey, the army used Greece as a permanent threat and in Egypt and Pakistan, Israel and India served the same purpose. In each country, the generals became self-appointed custodians of national interest. 

When Atatürk died in 1938, his old comrade İsmet İnönü became president who intelligently steered clear of WWII, kept his country neutral and only in the last stage joined the Allies. In 1946, he abolished the one-party rule and introduced a multi-party system in which his party won the first elections and he remained president till 1950. In the next elections the opposition party won and showed him the door. He was magnanimous in his defeat and, establishing democratic traditions, stepped down to hand over power to the Democratic Party of Adnan Mederes and Cêlal Bayar who became prime minister and president respectively.

That’s how Turkey became probably the first country in the Muslim world that witnessed a democratic transfer of power from one political party to another. The credit for this goes entirely to İsmet İnönü and not to the army that immediately started efforts to unseat the newly-elected civilian government. Similar attempts were later witnessed in both Egypt and Pakistan.

After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, for almost quarter of a century the Turkish army held sway over almost all aspects of Turkish society and, as a true reflection of the military psyche, barely tolerated any dissent. After 1950s, when the Democratic Party tried to deviate from some of the secular principles enshrined in the constitution the army resisted and finally in 1960, General Cemal Gürsel overthrew the elected civilian government and arrested both the president and the prime minister.

In Egypt, the army had already taken over in 1952 under the leadership of General Naguib who was removed by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954. He continued with one-party rule till his death in 1970. One common feature between the Turkish and the Egyptian armies during that period was their claim to be secular and opposed to religious extremism but if we look closely we find that it is the unquestioned army supremacy that engenders religious extremism.

In Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser tried to establish a modern state on more or less a similar pattern and had also emerged as a well-respected leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. While the armies in Turkey and Pakistan were ready to side with the United States in 1950s and 60s, Egypt initially kept a distance from the USA but eventually followed in the footsteps of the Turkish and Pakistani armies.

In Turkey, the army used Greece as a permanent threat and in Egypt and Pakistan, Israel and India served the same purpose. In each country, the generals became self-appointed custodians of national interest crushing the democratic aspirations of people and propagating the perception that only they were the true guarantors of security.

Just as in Turkey, 1950s in Pakistan marked an experimental period for democracy and multi-party system. In Turkey the first civilian president, Cêlal Bayar, and Prime Minister Adnan Mederes, angered the army by taking some bold steps without their consent.

In Pakistan, the army took over directly for the first time in 1958. Prior to that there were leaders such as AK Fazlul Haq, HS Suhrawardy, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Ghaus Bhukhsh Bizinjo, GM Sayed, and Mian Iftikharuddin who could have steered the country on a democratic route, had they not been targeted and humiliated by the representatives of civil and military bureaucracy e.g. Ghulam Mohammad, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan. But just as in Turkey and Egypt, in Pakistan the democratic path was abandoned altogether or realigned to suit the security establishment.

Nasser, Ayub, and Gürsel consolidated the military control in their respective countries and used the same mantra against democracy i.e. it promotes anarchy, threatens national integrity, and hampers development. In addition, it was claimed that the army brings everyone on the ‘same page’ to safeguard the country against unscrupulous elements.

In 1960, General Gürsel not only toppled a democratically elected government but also paved the way for the death sentences to both the president and the prime minister i.e. Cêlal Bayar and Adnan Mederes. Bayar was later on spared thanks to his old age and his sentence was commuted to life-imprisonment but Menderes was hanged. Nearly 20 years after this hanging, when in Pakistan the military government of General Zia was about to hang former prime minister ZA Bhutto, the then prime minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, had reportedly remarked that Turkey was still paying the price for hanging its leader and he did not want Pakistan to repeat the mistake.

The Turkish army ostensibly restored democracy in 1961 but General Gürsel got himself elected as president. In a similar fashion, the military government in Pakistan established a civilian government in 1962 but General Ayub Khan followed in the footsteps of General Gürsel and became an ‘elected’ president.

Almost the entire decade of 1960s saw Nasser, Ayub, and Gürsel entrenched in their yearning for an ordered polity. Only Nasser among them enjoyed popular support till his death in 1970; while Generals Ayub and Gürsel could not present even a semblance of popular support or harmony that they claimed to have ushered in after the supposed failure of the elected civilian rulers. In Turkey Süleyman Demirel and Bülent Ecevit, and in Pakistan Mujibur Rahman and ZA Bhutto emerged as leaders espousing popular aspirations.

In 1970-71, the three countries saw events that had far-reaching implications. Nasser died in 1970 leaving behind a legacy different from those of his contemporaries in Pakistan and Turkey. Nasser had uprooted the kingdom in Egypt with his comrade General Naguib in 1952; then removed Naguib in 1954, first becoming prime minister and then giving a one-party constitution to assume the charge of president in 1956. Though General Naguib lived till 1984, his political role had finished 30 years earlier. When Ayub and Gürsel had offered their services to the US, Nasser had adopted an anti-imperialist posture and nationalised the Suez Canal inviting the wrath of Britain, France and Israel.

Gürsel had died in 1966 leaving Turkey in a mess again. This is no more a secret that from 1966 to 1970 the CIA was behind the unrest in Turkey and masterminding terrorist attacks to blame the leftist parties. Demirel was a centre-right politician but was not an extremist, still the army was not happy with him. In March 1971, when General Yahya Khan was about to launch his military operation against the majority party in East Pakistan, the Turkish army was writing a threatening letter to Demirel accusing him of incompetence and inability to control the law and order situation. The Turkish army had openly hinted at another coup repeating the same accusations against the civilian government that “it was destroying the country” and that politician were unable to come to the ‘same page’.

Almost the same situation was in Pakistan where the army did not want to hand over power to the elected representatives of the people because the politicians were ‘traitors’ and trying to disintegrate the country, hence they could not be entrusted power to rule on their own.

Anwar Sadat took over in Egypt after the death of Nasser in 1970 and continued with one-party rule under military supremacy. He ruled for over 10 years, fought a war against Israel and ultimately signed a peace deal brokered by the US President Carter at Camp David. Religious parties were enraged, especially Ikhwanul Muslimeen that attacked and killed him during an army parade in 1981.

Sadiq Gill - “On its own, no military can deal with political problems”

Columnist and security analyst Ejaz Haider analyses the role of the military in shaping the contours of state policy and direction.

The News on Sunday (TNS): You have always held state as your unit of analysis. In Pakistan’s context, the state has been understood in terms of ‘security state’ or ‘deep state’. Howsoever one may define it, the fact remains that in today’s Pakistan, state is not the only entity that has monopoly over violence. Is it time for the state to redefine itself.
Ejaz Haider (EH): Yes, I have used, and still do, state as the unit of analysis. But I do it with the full knowledge and appreciation of the fact that state is a deeply problematic concept and it has been problematised. What is it; where can one situate it; what is its relation to society that it seeks to govern; is it about the traditional notion of power, defined as ‘power over’, or the more inclusive, though less-accepted concept of ‘power with’; is it nothing more than the people or does it acquire a life of its own; do we need to ‘bring the state back’ or push it away; is the relationship between state and society always conflictual or should it be cooperative. The list of such questions is long. It is important also to challenge the accepted epistemological notions regarding state and its role, especially because we know that it is an imagined entity.
And yet, I employ it as the basic unit of analysis precisely for the reason contained in the second part of your question — i.e., “…the fact remains that in today’s Pakistan, state is not the only entity that has monopoly over violence”. And when you follow it up with, “Is it time for the state to redefine itself”, I assume that you believe that the loss of state’s monopoly of violence is not a positive development, that such loss has not redounded to the advantage either of the state or society. At the same time, the follow-up question’s not-so-hidden assumption is whether there is any possibility for state-society relations to improve, which is a legitimate concern.
I’ll say that one, though not the only reason, the state of Pakistan has seen an erosion of its monopoly of violence is because of rising tensions between itself (state) and society. Mending that relationship is, in fact, crucial for state to reacquire what is legitimately its.
Every collection requires an organising principle. Even anarchists, were they to sit down to decide on a political course of action, would need to elect a chair. Once you do that, you create a hierarchy and hierarchies, like it or not, begin to lead to exactly the same structures that an anarchist would like to pull down. That’s the paradox. And it must be understood.
Golding did an experiment with schoolchildren. He marooned them on an island in his dystopian 1954 work, Lord of the Flies. Within days we see the emergence of power structures and the associated “evils”. So, the question is, if an organising principle is important and if it is accepted that every such principle will end up creating what it originally seeks to destroy, then does it make much sense to uproot that organising principle and create a vacuum rather than using it as the unit of analysis even as one continues to hold its power in check?
My answer is scattered in hundreds of article I have written over several years. I will critique, criticise, challenge the functioning of the principle but I find it fallacious to huff and puff and bring the house down and then have to work again to construct another one, much the same way.
TNS: Military is believed to be a major player in agenda setting. Apart from external threats, it is also guarding against internal weaknesses because the political class and the democratic system are believed to be too weak or corrupt or inept. Do you think the military has the capacity and capability to take on this huge charge and deliver too?
EH: The military is a major player in setting the agenda but it is also stretched and stressed. The irony is that what we, including the military, are passing through, is, for the most part, the doing of the military. I do realise that it is not always useful to hark back to the original sin but that said, it is important to keep things in perspective. The military has continued to weigh in on issues that should best be left to the civilian principals. Its argument for doing so is operational rather than strategic. To that extent, given the immediacy of the circumstances, one can be empathetic. Something needs to be done and the military is efficient enough to do it so let’s let it do it. The problem is that we then begin to conflate the operational and the immediate with the strategic and the normative. That is deeply flawed.
While there are institutional interests involved, there is also the factor, less talked about, of military’s frustration with civilian inefficiency. There is a kernel of truth in it but the argument is not very savvy. The politicians are a fractious lot, for sure but then that’s what politics is about. Equally, it is the politicians that are deft with aggregating conflicting and often contradictory interests. The military’s managerial efficiency runs contrary to political haggling. The two entities could not be more different. The problem is that problem-solving is not the same thing as optimising results. So, even when the military seeks to work diligently, it ‘satisfices’, like all organisations. This is why it is important for it to remain subservient to the overall directions given by the civilian governments and to act in concert with them. The military is the most potent coercive tool in state’s arsenal. It must, therefore, be used sparingly and in ways which result in optimisation. On its own, no military, however efficient, can deal with political problems.
TNS: After the APS attack in Peshawar, some extraordinary steps were announced to fight the enemy, e.g. military courts. You had argued against the military courts calling them “knee-jerk measures”. Considering that incidents of terrorism have not stopped, do you still hold on to your view?
EH: I was and remain opposed to military courts. There are many reasons for my opposition, which I have listed in my writings. But just to recap some, the issue of poor prosecution, ostensibly the reason for setting up military courts, is not about what a judge does or doesn’t do. In a trial, the judge is as good or bad as the prosecution is. If that is how it works then unless the military can also provide from among its ranks thousands of prosecutors — which it can’t — it doesn’t matter if you put someone in uniform in the judge’s chair instead of the black robes. Also, higher courts have tended to overturn verdicts by ATCs because the anti-terrorism courts tend to overlook the fine print of law. There is also the issue of deterrence. If we want to prosecute and sentence to death terrorists, then it is legitimate to ask the question of why the over hundred death-row prisoners that have been hanged to death by now have such high percentage of those who were involved in murders, even if they were sentenced by ATCs. Why have we stopped executing hardcore terrorists. Why did the Interior Ministry put out a notification that it was lifting the moratorium on death sentence overall without informing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or consulting with it. I do not believe in the absolutism of those who are opposed to the death sentence per se, though I respect their views and I think they have some very strong arguments. But equally I find it abhorrent that others should take pleasure in hanging people by the neck till they die, as if taking someone’s life is a mere trifle, which it is not.
I realise that there is a sunset clause for military courts. But I believe that too many of us conceded to the 21st Amendment too soon and too easily. The Amendment is an act now but that should not stop us from continuing to debate the issue.
TNS: Some people suggest the state is correcting its course. How satisfied are you with the National Action Plan both as a short-term counter-terrorism strategy and as course correction in the long term?
EH: The NAP, as general guidelines go, is a fair document. It lists problem areas which many of us have been identifying for a long time. There is also a sense in the government that course correction is important. The scepticism is about implementing the NAP. Some of that is justified. My own sense is that implementing mechanisms must target strategic areas which can also have spin-off benefits in areas that are not targeted directly. That is always the challenge and the opportunity.
TNS: The reaction on social media after Sabeen Mahmud’s murder and the hinting of involvement of one particular agency shows the army has a serious image problem. Is it aware of this problem and is it doing something about it?
EH: The army is aware of the problem but while we tend to focus on the problem on army’s side, we ignore, to our own peril, the problem on the side of the people. By no stretch of the imagination can anyone accuse any person or entity without proof. Yet, that’s exactly what happens when something like this occurs. I think while the army needs to look into the problem on it side, the people need to look at their knee-jerk reactions and non-sequiturs also. Unfortunately, often, these illogical reactions emanate from very educated people.
TNS: In one of your earlier interviews, you had argued that counter terrorism in urban areas is not the job of army but the police. What do you think of the Rangers and army’s attempts to bring peace to Karachi?
EH: The apex committee dealing with Karachi brings together the civil-military leadership and reps from all law enforcement agencies. That coordination is called for. That said, the most effective agency dealing with urban CT operations has to be the police. I have written a lot about this basic fact. My argument doesn’t go against Rangers or the army. Combined efforts are important. But the lead agency must be the police. As for how to make the police effective, that’s another topic.

Sadiq Gill - What is Anarchy?

This, according to Wikipedia:

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of persons or single person which does not recognize authority.^[1] It originally meant leaderlessness or lawlessness, but in 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy, anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations.

Contents

• 1 Etymology
• 2 Anarchy and political philosophy
  • 2.1 Kant on anarchy
  • 2.2 Anarchism
• 3 Anarchy and anthropology
• 4 Examples of state-collapse anarchy
  • 4.1 English Civil War
  • 4.2 French Revolution
  • 4.3 Jamaica 1720
  • 4.4 Anarchy from the Russian Civil War
  • 4.5 Spain 1936
  • 4.6 Albania 1997
  • 4.7 Somalia 1991–2006
• 5 Lists of ungoverned communities
  • 5.1 Ungoverned communities
  • 5.2 Anarchist communities
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 External links

Etymology

The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders."^[2]

Anarchy and political philosophy

Kant on anarchy

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated anarchy in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic.^[3][4]
As summary Kant named four kinds of government:

1. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
2. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
3. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
4. Force with freedom and law (republic).

Anarchism

Main article: Anarchism

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral,^[5][6] or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} Proponents of anarchism, i.e. anarchists, advocate stateless societies based on what are sometimes defined as non-hierarchical organizations,^[7][13][14] and at other times defined as voluntary associations.^[15][16]
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.^[17] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.^[6] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.^[18][19] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,^[20][21] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. "To see this, of course, we must expound the moral outlook underlying anarchism. To do this we must first make an important distinction between two general options in anarchist theory [...] The two are what we may call, respectively, the socialist versus the free-market, or capitalist, versions."^[22] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists^[23][24] or egoists.^[25][26]
Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon^[27] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents^[28] and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations.^[29][30] Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),^[31][32] while others have supported the use of militant measures, including revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.^[33]
Since the 1890s, the term libertarianism has been used as a synonym for anarchism^[34][35] and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States. At this time, classical liberals in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians, and it has since become necessary to distinguish their individualist and capitalist philosophy from socialist anarchism. Thus, the former is often referred to as right-wing libertarianism, or simply right-libertarianism, whereas the latter is described by the terms libertarian socialism, socialist libertarianism, left-libertarianism, and left-anarchism.^[36][37] Right-libertarians are divided into minarchists and anarchists, with the latter often described as libertarian anarchists.^[38][39] Outside the United States, libertarianism generally retains its association with left-wing anarchism.^[40]

Anarchy and anthropology

See also: Anarcho-primitivism, Acephalous society, Anthropology and Primitive communism

Some anarchist anthropologists, such as David Graeber and Pierre Clastres, consider societies such as those of the Bushmen, Tiv and the Piaroa to be anarchies in the sense that they explicitly reject the idea of centralized political authority.^[41]
Other anthropologists, such as Marshall Sahlins and Richard Borshay Lee, have repudiated the idea of hunter-gatherer societies being a source of scarcity and brutalization; describing them as "affluent societies".^[42]
The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker writes:

Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the sense of violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's still-romantic climate.^[43]

Some anarcho-primitivists believe that this concept is used to justify the values of modern industrial society and move individuals further from their natural habitat and natural needs.^[44][45] John Zerzan has noted the existence of tribal societies with less violence than "advanced" societies.^[46] Zerzan and Theodore Kaczynski have talked about other forms of violence against the individual in advanced societies, generally expressed by the term "social anomie", that result from the system of monopolized security.^[47] These authors do not dismiss the fact that humanity is changing while adapting to its different social realities,^[48] but consider the situation anomalous. The two results are (1) that we either disappear or (2) become something very different from what we have come to value in our nature. It has been suggested that this shift towards civilization, through domestication, has caused an increase in diseases, labor, and psychological disorders.^[49][50][51] In contrast, Pierre Clastres maintains that violence in primitive societies is a natural way for each community to maintain its political independence, while dismissing the state as a natural outcome of the evolution of human societies.^[52]

Examples of state-collapse anarchy

See also: Failed states

Mainland Europe experienced near-anarchy in the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)

English Civil War

Main article: English Civil War

Anarchy was one of the issues at the Putney Debates of 1647:

Thomas Rainsborough: I shall now be a little more free and open with you than I was before. I wish we were all true-hearted, and that we did all carry ourselves with integrity. If I did mistrust you I would not use such asseverations. I think it doth go on mistrust, and things are thought too readily matters of reflection, that were never intended. For my part, as I think, you forgot something that was in my speech, and you do not only yourselves believe that some men believe that the government is never correct, but you hate all men that believe that. And, sir, to say because a man pleads that every man hath a voice by right of nature, that therefore it destroys by the same argument all property -- this is to forget the Law of God. That there’s a property, the Law of God says it; else why hath God made that law, Thou shalt not steal? I am a poor man, therefore I must be oppressed: if I have no interest in the kingdom, I must suffer by all their laws be they right or wrong. Nay thus: a gentleman lives in a country and hath three or four lordships, as some men have (God knows how they got them); and when a Parliament is called he must be a Parliament-man; and it may be he sees some poor men, they live near this man, he can crush them -- I have known an invasion to make sure he hath turned the poor men out of doors; and I would fain know whether the potency of rich men do not this, and so keep them under the greatest tyranny that was ever thought of in the world. And therefore I think that to that it is fully answered: God hath set down that thing as to propriety with this law of his, Thou shalt not steal. And for my part I am against any such thought, and, as for yourselves, I wish you would not make the world believe that we are for anarchy.

Oliver Cromwell: I know nothing but this, that they that are the most yielding have the greatest wisdom; but really, sir, this is not right as it should be. No man says that you have a mind to anarchy, but that the consequence of this rule tends to anarchy, must end in anarchy; for where is there any bound or limit set if you take away this limit , that men that have no interest but the interest of breathing shall have no voice in elections? Therefore I am confident on 't, we should not be so hot one with another.^[53]

As people began to theorize about the English Civil War, "anarchy" came to be more sharply defined, albeit from differing political perspectives:

• 1651 – Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) describes the natural condition of mankind as a war of all against all, where man lives a brutish existence. "For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner."^[54] Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this state of nature: competition, diffidence and glory, "The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation". His first law of nature is that "every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war". In the state of nature, "every man has a right to every thing, even to then go for one another's body" but the second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, "that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself". This is the beginning of contracts/covenants; performing of which is the third law of nature. "Injustice," therefore, is failure to perform in a covenant; all else is just.
• 1656 – James Harrington (The Commonwealth of Oceana) uses the term to describe a situation where the people use force to impose a government on an economic base composed of either solitary land ownership (absolute monarchy), or land in the ownership of a few (mixed monarchy). He distinguishes it from commonwealth, the situation when both land ownership and governance shared by the population at large, seeing it as a temporary situation arising from an imbalance between the form of government and the form of property relations.

French Revolution

Main articles: French Revolution and Reign of Terror

Heads of Aristocrats, on spikes

Thomas Carlyle, Scottish essayist of the Victorian era known foremost for his widely influential work of history, The French Revolution, wrote that the French Revolution was a war against both aristocracy and anarchy:

Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? Let there be Order, were it under the Soldier's Sword; let there be Peace, that the bounty of the Heavens be not spilt; that what of Wisdom they do send us bring fruit in its season!-- It remains to be seen how the quellers of Sansculottism were themselves quelled, and sacred right of Insurrection was blown away by gunpowder: wherewith this singular eventful History called French Revolution ends.^[55]

Armand II, duke of Aiguillon came before the National Assembly in 1789 and shared his views on the anarchy:

I may be permitted here to express my personal opinion. I shall no doubt not be accused of not loving liberty, but I know that not all movements of peoples lead to liberty. But I know that great anarchy quickly leads to great exhaustion and that despotism, which is a kind of rest, has almost always been the necessary result of great anarchy. It is therefore much more important than we think to end the disorder under which we suffer. If we can achieve this only through the use of force by authorities, then it would be thoughtless to keep refraining from using such force.^[56]

Armand II was later exiled because he was viewed as being opposed to the revolution's violent tactics.
Professor Chris Bossche commented on the role of anarchy in the revolution:

In The French Revolution, the narrative of increasing anarchy undermined the narrative in which the revolutionaries were striving to create a new social order by writing a constitution.^[57]

Jamaica 1720

Sir Nicholas Lawes, Governor of Jamaica, wrote to John Robinson, the Bishop of London, in 1720:

"As to the Englishmen that came as mechanics hither, very young and have now acquired good estates in Sugar Plantations and Indigo& co., of course they know no better than what maxims they learn in the Country. To be now short & plain Your Lordship will see that they have no maxims of Church and State but what are absolutely anarchical."

In the letter Lawes goes on to complain that these "estated men now are like Jonah's gourd" and details the humble origins of the "creolians" largely lacking an education and flouting the rules of church and state. In particular, he cites their refusal to abide by the Deficiency Act, which required slave owners to procure from England one white person for every 40 enslaved Africans, thereby hoping to expand their own estates and inhibit further English/Irish immigration. Lawes describes the government as being "anarchical, but nearest to any form of Aristocracy". "Must the King's good subjects at home who are as capable to begin plantations, as their Fathers, and themselves were, be excluded from their Liberty of settling Plantations in this noble Island, for ever and the King and Nation at home be deprived of so much riches, to make a few upstart Gentlemen Princes?"^[58]

Anarchy from the Russian Civil War

During the Russian Civil War - which initially started as a confrontation between the Communists and Monarchists - on the territory of today's Ukraine, a new force emerged, namely the Anarchist Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno. The Ukrainian Anarchist during the Russian Civil War (also called the "Black Army") organized the Free Territory of Ukraine, an anarchist society, committed to resisting state authority, whether capitalist or communist.^[59][60] This project was cut short by the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Makhno was described by anarchist theorist Emma Goldman as "an extraordinary figure" leading a revolutionary peasants' movement.^[61] During 1918, most of Ukraine was controlled by the forces of the Central Powers, which were unpopular among the people. In March 1918, the young anarchist Makhno's forces and allied anarchist and guerrilla groups won victories against German, Austrian, and Ukrainian nationalist (the army of Symon Petlura) forces, and units of the White Army, capturing a lot of German and Austro-Hungarian arms. These victories over much larger enemy forces established Makhno's reputation as a military tactician; he became known as Batko (‘Father’) to his admirers.^[62]

Nestor Makhno (1918), the leader of the Anarchist Free Territory in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War.

At this point, the emphasis on military campaigns that Makhno had adopted in the previous year shifted to political concerns. The first Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups, under the name of Nabat ("the Alarm Drum"), issued five main principles: rejection of all political parties, rejection of all forms of dictatorships (including the dictatorship of the proletariat, viewed by Makhnovists and many anarchists of the day as a term synonymous with the dictatorship of the Bolshevik communist party), negation of any concept of a central state, rejection of a so-called "transitional period" necessitating a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, and self-management of all workers through free local workers' councils (soviets). While the Bolsheviks argued that their concept of dictatorship of the proletariat meant precisely "rule by workers' councils", the Makhnovist platform opposed the "temporary" Bolshevik measure of "party dictatorship". The Nabat was by no means a puppet of Mahkno and his supporters, from time to time criticizing the Black Army and its conduct in the war.
In 1918, after recruiting large numbers of Ukrainian peasants, as well as numbers of Jews, anarchists, naletchki, and recruits arriving from other countries, Makhno formed the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, otherwise known as the Anarchist Black Army. At its formation, the Black Army consisted of about 15,000 armed troops, including infantry and cavalry (both regular and irregular) brigades; artillery detachments were incorporated into each regiment. From November 1918 to June 1919, using the Black Army to secure its hold on power, the Makhnovists attempted to create an anarchist society in Ukraine, administered at the local level by autonomous peasants' and workers' councils.

The agricultural part of these villages was composed of peasants, someone understood at the same time peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of his members. All, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... Working program was established in meetings where all participated. They knew then exactly what they had to make.

—Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine

New relationships and values were generated by this new social paradigm, which led Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education was organized on Francisco Ferrer's principles, and the economy was based upon free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crop and cattle to manufactured products, according to the science proposed by Peter Kropotkin.^{[citation needed]}
Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions" and called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".^[63] The Bolsheviks accused the Makhnovists of imposing a formal government over the area they controlled, and also said that Makhnovists used forced conscription, committed summary executions, and had two military and counter-intelligence forces: the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del (patterned after the Cheka and the GRU).^[64] However, later historians have dismissed these claims as fraudulent propaganda.^[65]
The Bolsheviks claimed that it would be impossible for a small, agricultural society to organize into an anarchist society so quickly. However, Eastern Ukraine had a large amount of coal mines, and was one of the most industrialised parts of the Russian Empire.

Spain 1936

Further information: Anarchism in Spain

In 1919, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), the Spanish confederation of anarcho-syndicalist labor unions, had grown to 1 million members, and encountered many fights with the police and the fascists in Spain. On July 18, 1936, General Franco led the army to launch their fight against the government, but instead of an easy victory they faced significant obstacles.^[66] They were met with a big resistance from the people, and the rebels were supported by military and the police. With the government in shambles, the workers and peasants took over the government of Spain and joined together to create a revolutionary militia to fight the fascists. The workers and peasants were fighting to start a revolution, not to help save their government. Spain’s society was transposed by a social revolution. Every business was re-organized to have a company with no bosses; surprisingly profits increased by over half. While Stalin wanted to send arms but only on one condition: The party must be given government positions and the militias be “re-organized.” On May 2, 1937, the CNT issued a warning:

The guarantee of the revolution is the proletariat in arms. To attempt to disarm the people is to place oneself on the wrong side of the barricades. No councillor or police commissioner, no matter who he is, can order the disarming of the workers, who are fighting fascism with more self-sacrifice than all the politicians in the rear, whose incapacity and impotence everybody knows. Do not, on any account, allow yourselves to be disarmed!^[66]

On the next day after the warning was issued the CNT’s central exchange was attacked and the militias prepared to quit, in front of Barcelona. With this became a power struggle, and confusion which lead the workers to cease fire and lay down their weapons. The “re-organized” Republican Army tried one last attempt to gain control, with over 70,000 casualties, and many people fleeing to France, General Franco’s army entered Barcelona on January 26, 1939 to end the revolution.^[66]

Albania 1997

Main article: 1997 rebellion in Albania

In 1997, Albania fell into a state of anarchy, mainly due to the heavy losses of money caused by the collapse of pyramid firms. As a result of the societal collapse, heavily-armed criminals roamed freely with near total impunity. There were often 3-4 gangs per city, especially in the south, where the police did not have sufficient resources to deal with gang-related crime.

Somalia 1991–2006

Main article: History of Somalia (1991–2006)

Map of Somalia showing the major self-declared states and areas of factional control in 2006.

Following the outbreak of the civil war in Somalia and the ensuing collapse of the central government, residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution; either secular, traditional or Islamic law, with a provision for appeal of all sentences. The legal structure in the country was thus divided along three lines: civil law, religious law and customary law (xeer).^[67]
While Somalia's formal judicial system was largely destroyed after the fall of the Siad Barre regime, it was later gradually rebuilt and administered under different regional governments, such as the autonomous Puntland and Somaliland macro-regions. In the case of the Transitional National Government and its successor the Transitional Federal Government, new interim judicial structures were formed through various international conferences.
Despite some significant political differences between them, all of these administrations shared similar legal structures, much of which were predicated on the judicial systems of previous Somali administrations. These similarities in civil law included: a) a charter which affirms the primacy of Muslim shari'a or religious law, although in practice shari'a is applied mainly to matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and civil issues. The charter assured the independence of the judiciary, which in turn was protected by a judicial committee; b) a three-tier judicial system including a supreme court, a court of appeals, and courts of first instance (either divided between district and regional courts, or a single court per region); and c) the laws of the civilian government which were in effect prior to the military coup d'état that saw the Barre regime into power remain in forced until the laws are amended.^[68]

Lists of ungoverned communities

Ungoverned communities

The entrance of Freetown Christiania, a Danish neighborhood autonomous from local government controls.

• Zomia, Southeast Asian highlands beyond control of governments
• Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262 CE)
• Ireland for 2000 years prior to Cromwell's invasion^{[citation needed]}
• Republic of Cospaia^{[citation needed]} (1440-1826)
• Anarchy in the United States (17th century)
• The Diggers (England, 1649–1651)
• Libertatia (late 17th century)
• Neutral Moresnet (June 26, 1816 – June 28, 1919)^{[citation needed]}
• Kibbutz, a community movement in Israel initially influenced by anarchist philosophy (Palestine, 1909–1948)
• Kowloon Walled City was a largely ungoverned squatter settlement from the mid 1940s until the early 1970s
• Drop City, the first rural hippie commune (Colorado 1965–1977)
• Comunidad de Población en Resistencia (CPR), indigenous movement (Guatemala, 1988–)
• Slab City, squatted RV desert community (California 1965-)
• The 27 Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (January 1, 1994 – present)
• Abahlali baseMjondolo, a South African social movement (2005–)

Anarchist communities

Main article: List of anarchist communities

Anarchists have been involved in a wide variety of communities. While there are only a few instances of mass society "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions, there are also examples of intentional communities founded by anarchists.

Intentional communities

• Utopia, Ohio (1847)
• Whiteway Colony (1898)
• Life and Labor Commune (1921)
• Freetown Christiania (September 26, 1971)
• Trumbullplex (1993)

Mass societies

• Free Territory (Ukraine, November 1918 – 1921)
• Anarchist Catalonia (July 21, 1936 – May 1939)
• Autonomous Shinmin Region (1929–1932)

See also

• Anomie
• Outline of anarchism
• Unorganization
• List of anarchist organizations

Anarchism portal Politics portal Social and political philosophy portal Society portal Sociology portal

References

1. 
   

"Decentralism: Where It Came From-Where Is It Going?". Amazon.com. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

"anarchy, n.". OED Online. December 2012. Oxford University Press. Accessed January 17, 2013.

Kant, Immanuel (1798). "Grundzüge der Schilderung des Charakters der Menschengattung". In Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. AA: VII, s.330.

Louden, Robert B., ed. (2006). Kant: Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Cambridge University Press. p. 235.

Malatesta, Errico. "Towards Anarchism". MAN! (Los Angeles: International Group of San Francisco). OCLC 3930443. Agrell, Siri (2007-05-14). "Working for The Man". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2008-04-14. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-29. "Anarchism". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 14. 2005. Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable. The following sources cite anarchism as a political philosophy: Mclaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 59. ISBN 0-7546-6196-2. Johnston, R. (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 0-631-20561-6.

Slevin, Carl. "Anarchism." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003.

"The IAF - IFA fights for : the abolition of all forms of authority whether economical, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual.""Principles of The International of Anarchist Federations"

"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.

Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker defined anarchism as opposition to authority as follows "They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, — follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism... Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of Karl Marx." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty.

Ward, Colin (1966). "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization". Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2010.

Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it." (pg. 9)...Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State."

Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.

"That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist." Peter Kropotkin. Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal

"anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy — hierarchy being the institutionalisation of authority within a society." "B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" in An Anarchist FAQ

"ANARCHISM, a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man’s natural social tendencies." George Woodcock. "Anarchism" at The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions." Peter Kropotkin. "Anarchism" from the Encyclopaedia Britannica

Sylvan, Richard (1995). "Anarchism". In Goodwin, Robert E. and Pettit. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Philip. Blackwell Publishing. p. 231.

Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.

Kropotkin, Peter (2002). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. Courier Dover Publications. p. 5. ISBN 0-486-41955-X.R.B. Fowler (1972). "The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought". Western Political Quarterly (University of Utah) 25 (4): 738–752. doi:10.2307/446800. JSTOR 446800.

Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. xi. ISBN 1-56000-132-1. Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today

Joseph Kahn (2000). "Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement". The New York Times (5 August).Colin Moynihan (2007). "Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway". New York Times (16 April).

Tormey, Simon (2004). Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld Publications. pp. 118–119.

Post-left anarcho-communist Bob Black after analysing insurrectionary anarcho-communist Luigi Galleani's view on anarcho-communism went as far as saying that "communism is the final fulfillment of individualism.... The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both.... Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of 'emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual'.... You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a 'method of individualization'. It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity."Bob Black. Nightmares of Reason.

"Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved - and how enslaved!...Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand - that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand." Max Baginski. "Stirner: The Ego and His Own" on Mother Earth. Vol. 2. No. 3 MAY, 1907

"This stance puts him squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition and, unsurprisingly, (Benjamin) Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "Anarchistic socialism." "An Anarchist FAQby Various Authors

"Because revolution is the fire of our will and a need of our solitary minds; it is an obligation of the libertarian aristocracy. To create new ethical values. To create new aesthetic values. To communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth." Renzo Novatore. Toward the Creative Nothing

Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press, 2002, p. 191.

Catalan historian Xavier Diez reports that the Spanish individualist anarchist press was widely read by members of anarcho-communist groups and by members of the anarcho-syndicalist trade union CNT. There were also the cases of prominent individualist anarchists such as Federico Urales and Miguel Gimenez Igualada who were members of the CNT and J. Elizalde who was a founding member and first secretary of the Iberian Anarchist Federation. Xavier Diez. El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6

Within the synthesist anarchist organization, the Fédération Anarchiste, there existed an individualist anarchist tendency alongside anarcho-communist and anarchosyndicalist currents. Individualist anarchists participating inside the Fédération Anarchiste included Charles-Auguste Bontemps, Georges Vincey and André Arru. "Pensée et action des anarchistes en France : 1950-1970" by Cédric GUÉRIN

In Italy in 1945, during the Founding Congress of the Italian Anarchist Federation, there was a group of individualist anarchists led by Cesare Zaccaria who was an important anarchist of the time.Cesare Zaccaria (19 August 1897-October 1961) by Pier Carlo Masini and Paul Sharkey

""Resiting the Nation State, the pacifist and anarchist tradition" by Geoffrey Ostergaard". Ppu.org.uk. 1945-08-06. Retrieved 2010-09-20.

George Woodcock. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962)

Fowler, R.B. "The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought." The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4. (December 1972), pp. 743–744.

Nettlau, Max (1996). A Short History of Anarchism. Freedom Press. p. 162. ISBN 0-900384-89-1.

Daniel Guérin. Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. "At the end of the century in France, Sebastien Faure took up a word originated in 1858 by one Joseph Déjacque to make it the title of a journal, Le Libertaire. Today the terms 'anarchist' and 'libertarian' have become interchangeable."

Perlin, Terry M. (1979). Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Publishers. p. 40. ISBN 0-87855-097-6.

Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero (2004). Language and Politics. AK Press. p. 739.

Morris, Christopher (1992). An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. p. 61. (Using "libertarian anarchism" synonymously with "individualist anarchism" when referring to individualist anarchism that supports a market society).

Burton, Daniel C. Libertarian anarchism (PDF). Libertarian Alliance.

• Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press 2004 p. 62
• Goodway, David. Anarchists Seed Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. 2006, p. 4
• MacDonald, Dwight & Wreszin, Michael. Interviews with Dwight Macdonald. University Press of Mississippi, 2003. p. 82
• Bufe, Charles. The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations. See Sharp Press, 1992. p. iv
• Gay, Kathlyn. Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. ABC-CLIO / University of Michigan, 2006, p. 126
• Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004. (Uses the terms interchangeably, such as on page 10)
• Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183.
• Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press, 2001, page 9.

Graeber, David (2004). Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (PDF). Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. ISBN 0-9728196-4-9.

Sahlins, Marshall (2003). Stone Age Economics. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32010-0.

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, pages 330-331.

"Seven Lies About Civilization, Ran Prieur". Greenanarchy.org. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

Industrial Society and Its Future, Theodore Kaczynski

Zerzan, John (2002). Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization. Feral House. ISBN 0-922915-75-X. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help);

Zerzan, John (1994). Future Primitive: And Other Essays. Autonomedia. ISBN 1-57027-000-7. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help);

Industrial Society and Its Future, Theodore Kaczynski

Freud, Sigmund (2005). Civilization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-05995-2. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help);

Shepard, Paul (1996). Traces of an Omnivore. Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-431-6. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help);

"The Consequences of Domestication and Sedentism by Emily Schultz, et al". Primitivism.com. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

Clastres, Pierre (1994). Archeology of a kind of Violence. Semiotext(e). ISBN 0-936756-95-0. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help);

"The Putney Debates, The Forum at the Online Library of Liberty". Source: Sir William Clarke, Puritanism and Liberty, being the Army Debates (1647-9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents, selected and edited with an Introduction A.S.P. Woodhouse, foreword by A.D. Lindsay (University of Chicago Press, 1951).]

"Chapter XIII". Oregonstate.edu. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

Thomas Carlyle. The French Revolution.

"Duke d'Aiguillon". Justice.gc.ca. 2007-11-14. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

"Revolution in Search of Authority". Victorianweb.org. 2001-10-26. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

Jamaica: Description of the Principal Persons there (about 1720, Sir Nicholas Lawes, Governor) in Caribbeana Vol. III (1911), edited by Vere Langford Oliver

Yekelchyk 2007, p 80.

Charles Townshend, John Bourne, Jeremy Black (1997). The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-820427-2.

Emma Goldman (2003). My Disillusionment in Russia. Courier Dover Publications. p. 61. ISBN 0-486-43270-X.

Edward R. Kantowicz (1999). The Rage of Nations. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 173. ISBN 0-8028-4455-3.

Declaration Of The Revolutionary Insurgent Army Of The Ukraine (Makhnovist). Peter Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918-1921), 1923. Black & Red, 1974

Footman, David. Civil War In Russia Frederick A.Praeger 1961, p287

Guerin, Daniel. Anarchism: Theory and Practice

"Spain's Revolutionary Anarchist Movement". Flag.blackened.net. Retrieved 2012-01-30.

Central Intelligence Agency (2011). "Somalia". The World Factbook. Langley, Virginia: Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2011-10-05.

68. Dr Andre Le Sage (2005-06-01). "Stateless Justice in Somalia" (PDF). Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. Retrieved 2009-06-26.

External links

• The dictionary definition of anarchy at Wiktionary
• Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays
• On the Steppes of Central Asia, by Matt Stone. Online version of book, hosted by Anarchism.net.
• Who Needs Government? Pirates, Collapsed States, and the Possibility of Anarchy, August 2007 issue of Cato Unbound focusing on Somali anarchy.
• "Historical Examples of Anarchy without Chaos", a list of essays hosted by royhalliday.home.mingspring.com.
• "www.anarchyisorder.org, online @n@rchive" Principles, propositions & discussions for Land and Freedom
• Brandon's Anarchy Page, classic essays and modern discussions. Online since 1994.
• Humanity Surprised It Still Hasn’t Figured Out A Better Alternative To Letting Power-Hungry Assholes Decide Everything (2014-06-25), The Onion
• Anarchism Collection From the Rare Book and Special Collections Division at the Library of Congress