Influential figures

- in the anarchist movement and development of anarchist concepts

Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin

Kropotkin was many things: revolutionary, naturalist, sociologist, theorist. But one thing much more than all this, he was one of the most important anarchists of the 19th and 20th centuries and the central theorist of anarchist communism. As the son of a noble family, he grew up in the Russian Empire in well-protected circumstances and, after being trained in the corps of pages, was transferred to Siberia in order to lay the foundation for his natural and sociological research there. There he also came into contact with Proudhon's theories and decided against a promising career in science and the Russian upper class. Persecuted, expelled and imprisoned in Russia, Switzerland and France, he fought especially in the Jura together with the watchmakers there as part of the Jura Federation. In England he finally wrote a large part of his works and developed both the theories of mutual aid and anarcho-communism.At the end of his life he returned to Russia in 1917 and was enthusiastic about the developments of the October Revolution. Nonetheless, he was a major critic of the authoritarian policies of the developing Soviet state. He left us not only an extensive theoretical work, but also an unshakable positive view of both our natural prehistory and the possibility of a future solidary and truly humane society!

Errico Malatesta

Malatesta was one of the most important anarchist figures of the 19th and 20th centuries and a key figure in the construction of Italian and South American anarchism. During his time in Italy, he built up an anarchist Italian national federation with his comrades from the groups previously organized in the 1st International and took part in numerous uprisings and revolts Italy. Despite the growing size of the federation and the multiple uprisings, the social revolution failed to materialize and a rupture occurred between the parliamentary wing and the social-revolutionary wing.Due to the growing repression of the Italian and the other states, he had to change his place of residence again and again; from Egypt to Switzerland and via Romania to Paris. He was in Argentina, fled to Malta and the USA and lived in London for a long time. Always hounded by state persecution, expulsion and revolutionary work. He also returned to Italy several times and founded, among other things, the anarchist daily newspaper "Umanita Nova" which he publishes (with a circulation of up to 50,000 copies). Furthermore, even in his twilight years, he was an advocate of anarchist principles in debates, such as his consistently internationalist and class-struggle position against anarchist advocates of war in World War I. Despite the bans and surveillance in fascist Italy, he remained one of the most important critics and representatives of the anarchist movement to the end.

Nestor Makhno

Makhno was a farmer's son from Huliaipole in Ukraine, who rose to become one of the important figures of an anarchist popular movement in Ukraine between 1917 and 1921 during the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution. Makhno was influenced by the ideas of the anarchist theorists and activists Bakunin and Kropotkin. Inspired by these anarchist principles, Makhno set out to challenge the emerging Bolshevik power in Ukraine, seeking to establish a society rooted in voluntary associations and self-governance. Makhno demonstrated remarkable military skills and strategic brilliance during the Russian Civil War. The Black Army's successes in several battles against both the Bolsheviks and the Whites bolstered Makhno's reputation as a capable commander. These military achievements garnered support from those who saw him as a competent commander in the face of external threats. Nestor Makhno was revered as a heroic figure and visionary by the members of the Free Territory movement, who saw him as a symbol of resistance against oppressive regimes.Nestor Makhno, along with several other anarchists, played a central role in the development of platformism. Makhno's significant contributions to the creation of the platformism positioned him as one of its key authors. His ideas emphasized the importance of adopting a shared framework, tactical unity, and collective responsibility within anarchist organizations. Today his writings are seen as a valuable framework that encourages organizational discipline, strategic focus, and a shared commitment to anarchist principles.

Emma Goldman

Emma Goldman also known as "Red Emma" was an influential anarcha-feminist activist known for her passionate advocacy of free speech, women's rights, and labor rights. Throughout her life, Goldman faced persecution, imprisonment, and even deportation due to her radical views and activism. While Goldman supported the Soviet Russian Revolution at its outset, she soon became critical of the authoritarian and oppressive turn it took under Bolshevik rule.Many of Emma Goldman's ideas can be found in "Anarchism and Other Essays" which serve as a rich resource for understanding her philosophies and beliefs. It delves into her views on topics such as anarchism, feminism, and social revolution. Her uncompromising stance and fiery speeches made her a prominent figure in the fight for social justice and individual freedom. Her legacy continues to inspire generations of activists challenging oppressive systems. Her speeches and writings rallied those dismantling hierarchies and empowering marginalized communities. Her dedication to freedom and justice remains a guiding principle.

Murray Bookchin

Bookchin was a prominent figure in the 20th-century libertarian socialist movement, known for his influential contributions to social ecology and libertarian municipalism. His anarchist ideas and theories heavily influenced eco-anarchism and environmental activism in general. His journey began in the Communist Party, but he became disenchanted with its hierarchical structure and failure to address ecological concerns. This led him to develop social ecology, an philosophical theory highlighting the interconnectedness of social and ecological issues. At the core of Bookchin's thought was the concept of hierarchy and domination as the root causes of social and environmental injustice. He argued that dismantling all forms of hierarchy was essential for a truly free and egalitarian society, including economic, political, and social systems.One of Bookchin's key anarchist ideas was, advocating for directly democratic grassroots assemblies in local communities with a confederation ensuring cooperation and solidarity while maintaining local autonomy. Bookchin strongly criticized individualist/egoist anarchism for its embrace of "lifestylism". As an ardent environmentalist he emphasized the need for ecological balance and promoted sustainable practices in harmony with nature, including agriculture. His writings like "The Ecology of Freedom" revived interest in anarchism, inspiring a new generation of activists. Bookchin's ideas continue to inspire movements focused on social justice, environmentalism, and grassroots democracy.

Subcomandante Marcos

Subcomandante Marcos, a pseudonym used by Rafael Guillén representing a collective voice, this
pseudonym embodies the spirit of the libertarian socialist "Zapatista movement," advocating for indigenous rights and autonomy while challenging oppressive hierarchies and championing social justice. Rooted in the struggle of Rafael Guillén, known as Subcomandante Marcos, the Zapatistas stand united, emphasizing that the name symbolizes the aspirations of an entire movement. Rafael Guillén, himself is a Mexican revolutionary and spokesperson of the Zapatista and military strategist of the EZLN.The Zapatistas struggle for indigenous rights and social justice resonated with anarchists worldwide. Their political philosophy of Neozapatismo is promoting concepts like decentralization, autonomy and opposition to hierarchy, while not explicitly anarchist, neozapatismo is aligned with core anarchist principles. While Subcomandante Marcos stepped down from his visible spokesperson role in 2006, the Zapatista movement has continued to promote their vision of a more just and equitable society, emphasizing grassroots democracy and indigenous rights. Even with Subcomandante Marcos identity unveiled as Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente, Marcos' persona as a representative of the Zapatista movement remains a iconic symbols of resistance and hope for marginalized communities globally.

This is obviously just a short list of a few notable examples of the incredible amount of anarchists theorists and revolutionaries.

Anarchist Currents

Different anarchist currents are not mutually exclusive or in stark opposition, in fact, the opposite is true since they often either partially or fully overlap. Some anarchist ideologies differ mainly in tactics, while others have certain priorities or focus on issues that might otherwise be overlooked.

Anarcho-Communism / Anarchism, Communism

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Platformism

Anarcha-Feminism/Anarcha-Queer

Eco-Anarchism

Note: Variable depending on environmental philosophy.

Anarcho-Mutualism

Individualist-Anarchism

Note: Anarcho-Individualism is generally a broad category, making it hard to make sweeping statements about the ideology that include all of its interpretations.

Failed Co-option

"Anarcho"-Capitalism, Radical Propertarianism

Anarcho-capitalism is not recognized as true anarchism by all other anarchist currents and rejected from actual anarchist spaces, and for good reason. This recent phenomena of Anarcho-Capitalism being a more radical version of "right-libertarianism" is a complete contradiction. They belive in "pure unbridled capitalism", while Anarchism seeks to dismantle oppressive systems and challenge unjust hierarchies. It envisions a society built on mutual aid, autonomy, and the absence of oppressive and coercive authority. Anarcho-capitalism, embraces these oppressive structures that anarchists oppose. Murray Bookchin accuratly rejected their label of anarchist or even libertarian and categorized them as what they are, "Propertarianis." While these propertarianis reject the state, they ignore the inevitable hierarchical power structures inherent to capitalism like concentration of wealth and power. These propertarianis focus on "voluntary exchanges" but overlook the coercion in capitalism, leading to dystopian outcomes like extreme wealth disparity and complete corporate control. It would be inevitable that corporations and private entities act as de facto governments, exerting control over those dependent on them for employment, housing, and basic necessities. These propertarianis would argue that its "voluntary" but nothing can be voluntary about the option between effectively selling yourself into slavery or starving to death. It's a distorted version of anarchism that upholds the status quo and exacerbates existing inequalities. Essentially its a reactionary attempt to co-opt leftist terminology and the idea that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists is just as absurd as the idea that the Nazis were socialists merely because they had "socialist" in their name.

Specific Concepts

more specific anarchist concepts & faq

The Anarchist Definition of the State
The state is a top down hierarchical institution that inherently perpetuates minority class rule, which maintains its power both by a monopoly of violence and through the transmission and reproduction of statist power relationships throughout society, & Kropotkin, for example, writes that the state “not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration and a concentration of many functions in the life of societies in the hands of a few... A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing is developed to subject some classes to the domination of other classes.” The state is therefore “the perfect example of a hierarchical institution, developed over centuries to subject all individuals and all of their possible groupings to the central will. The State is necessarily hierarchical & authoritarian - or it ceases to be the State.”Rejection of Seizing the State as a Tool for Social Revolution
1.The State is Counter-Revolutionary
This anarchists analysis and understanding of the state is different from the common state socialist understanding, who tend to view the state as nothing but a tool used by the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat that if seized can be used to liberate the workers by creating a worker's state and oppressing the bourgeoisie. Tho this is a false premise, there is no such thing as a "worker's state" as the state itself, is inherently predicated upon diminishing the direct control of the people, the state does and will always do what it was designed to do, obstruct revolution to secure the positions of power for the bureaucrat, who as a member of a structure above society has different relations to power. Meaning, the state exists to undermine worker control and separate the workers from direct control while elevating a bureaucrat ruling class. Thus, the statist understanding of the state is not just false, but also extremely harmful to any genuine revolutionary action.Statist leftists tend to argue in response that although these representatives/bureaucrats would form a minority, they would still be workers and so not constitute a distinct political ruling class. Bakunin replied to this argument by insisting that such individuals are “former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people, will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole worker's world from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people.” Those who hold power are inclined to misuse it for their own benefit, often at the expense of others freedom and well-being. We as anarchists should be very critical of any and all hierarchical systems, since they create unequal distribution of power and are inherently exploitative and oppressive.With this in mind, the state inherently perpetuates class structures thus cannot achieve a "stateless, classless society." A great analogy used by Rudolf Rocker is "Just as the functions of the bodily organs of plants and animals cannot be arbitrarily altered, so that, for example, one cannot at will hear with his eyes and see with his ears, so also one cannot at pleasure transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only be what it is: the defender of mass exploitation and social privileges, the creator of privileged classes and castes and of new monopolies. Who fails to recognise this function of the state does not understand the real nature of the present social order at all, and is incapable of pointing out to humanity new outlooks for its social evolution."2.Means and Ends
The connection between means and ends is essential in pursuing the vision of a stateless, classless and horizontal society. To quote Bookchin:-"There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal." Human beings engage in activities that transform themselves and the world around them. The means used to achieve our goals must align with the desired end state. If revolutionaries use inappropriate means, they may inadvertently create a society different from their original intentions. Revolutionaries therefore have to use means that are constituted by forms of practice that will actually transform individuals into the kinds of people who will be able to and want to create a stateless, classless, horizontal society. If revolutionaries make the mistake of using the wrong or inappropriate means, then they will produce people who will create a different society to the one they initially intended.To quote Malatesta:
"It is not enough to desire something; if one really wants it, adequate means must be used to secure it. And these means are not arbitrary, but instead cannot but be conditioned by the ends we aspire to and by the circumstances in which the struggle takes place, for if we ignore the choice of means we would achieve other ends, possibly diametrically opposed to those we aspire to, and this would be the obvious and inevitable consequence of our choice of means. Whoever sets out on the highroad and takes a wrong turning does not go where he intends to go but where the road leads him."Many Anarchists argue that the state, like all social structures, is constituted by forms of human activity and so participating in the state produces and reproduces particular kinds of people and particular kinds of social relations. This occurs irrespective of the intentions or goals of people because what matters is the nature of the social structure they are participating in and the forms of activity this social structure is constituted by and reproduced through. Socialists who enter the state “have placed themselves in determinate conditions that in turn determine them.” - Reculus.
Those who wield state power will therefore engage in forms of human activity that will over time transform them into oppressors of the working class who are concerned with reproducing and expanding their power over other people. Anarchists held that this process of socialists being transformed into oppressors would occur both to socialists who are elected into the currently existing capitalist state and also to socialists who attempt to seize the existing state via a coup and transform it into a "workers state".3.Corruption and "Benevolent Rulers"
Many statists tend to completely dismiss the anarchist analysis of "Means and Ends" and some claim that a some kind of benevolent socialist leader truly representing the workers can be placed in power and the real problem is keeping corrupt actors out of the state. Anarchists recognize that the underlying cause of corruption is the hierarchical system itself. Hierarchy is fundamentally very fragile to the entry of corrupt actors into the system, even if a "selfless benevolent leader" would lead the state, it's always going to fall apart on a long enough timeline, once people who don't have the interest of the masses enter positions of executive Authority. Anarchists recognize that "getting the right people in positions of power" is a fool's errand since the very structure itself conditions the people that are within it to become corrupt actors once you enter the system you have outsized influence on how political power is distributed in society, so anytime someone enters a position of power that doesn't have the interests of the masses in mind, which is to say the majority of time, they exert that executive Authority either for their own interests or for the interests of a small interest group. This means that even if you got people into positions of power previously who had these "benevolent perspectives" once these enemies get into positions of power they can turn back that progress very rapidly which essentially neutralizes whatever sort of progress that had taken place previously. This is inevitably going to happen since systems of hierarchy are inherently built to benefit power hoarders. Hierarchical power structures are inherently built with this flaw there's no way to correct it out. This hierarchy is essentially always going to reward those who concentrate more and more power. All hierarchical systems have a tendency to devolve into these systems where power hoarders are at very top and gain more and more concentrated power which is more and more unquestioned and more and more unaccountable to the people below them.Perpetuation of the State
The power of the state is what allows those people to act in their self-interest. Therefore, it is in the interest of all people that currently operate the state, to perpetuate the power of the state. With this in mind, each time the power of the state is threatened, those who operate the state will have a tendency to obstruct that threat. But every power structure that exists, is competition for the state. Thus, the state stands at odds with any structure which may threaten its control over society. The masses, however, have an inherent power in their numbers and in their primary function as the laborers that make society run. So, the state will always have an institutional tendency to view the masses as a threat to the unitary power of the state. And, therefore, the state will always seek to control and suppress the latent power of the masses, except when it serves the interests of the state.Closing Words
Tho many of these observations and predictions have already been made by anarchist theorists like Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin and many others and history has shown this to be true time and time again. Authoritarian theorists often completely ignore those factors and tend to wave them off with haphazard and easily disprovable arguments.

Individual Autonomy and Accountability
Anarchism values bodily autonomy as essential to its ideals, ensuring individuals can act freely as long as their actions impact only themselves and do not coerce/oppress others. Anarchism creates absolute freedom of self-expression, love, and identity, allowing individuals to define their own lives without coercion. This principle also supports the full legalization of all drugs, the allowance of sport fighting, the recognition of both suicide and assisted suicide as civil rights, etc. though we should implement systems to mitigate potential negative repercussions.Conversely, when individuals make decisions that affect others, they are held accountable for the outcomes, whether acting as an individual or part of another democratic body. This principle fundamentally undermines the justification for capitalism, as private ownership of workplaces inherently impacts others involuntarily, relying on coercion and thus violating individual autonomy. Similarly, property rights are redefined: This also extends to the topic of property rights: individuals may own personal belongings, but they may not own anything which is communally operated. People would be free to treat their own bodies as they wish, but must bear responsibility when their actions impact others.

A Community Resolution to "Violent Crime" / Attacks in an Anarchist Society
This might be one of the most common questions people confront anarchists with and its usually asked by people unaware that under our current capitalist system we don't have an actual solution to deal with this problem. Anarchists recognize that the most important part is Prevention for that we need to acknowledge that the primary driving force behind most crime is poverty. If we address the obvious economic inequality by switching to a system based on distribution by need, we are ensuring that everyone's material needs are met, through that we can significantly reduce the incidence of crime to a minuscule point. We need to create a society based on cooperation and community rather than competition to seriously address these problems. However, it's important to acknowledge that some crimes might still occur due to mental health issues or emotional responses, etc. and it isnt a question to just be ignored it should instead be addressed on a commune level.So what about an actively violent situation, one way a libertarian socialist commune could handle a situation where a individual poses an active threat to others, is that commune anarchist militias, directly subordinate to, part off and so accountable to the local commune, can help to de-escalate the situation and prevent the person from inflicting harm. Tho physical detainment should only be seen as an acceptable measure if they are a active threat to the people around them. These cases would be handled at the community level, with a focus on the people affected and their needs and the larger community. A community based approach where most people know and understand each other would ensure a careful and considerate way of handling these situations. The approach here would ideally focus on transformative justice and rehabilitation, rather than punitive measures driven by revenge and punishment. Transformative justice first popularized by Queer, Black, Indigenous, and otherwise marginalized communities because they were unable to rely on the police and the courts to obtain justice after being victimized by interpersonal harm (such as hate crimes, sexual assaults, and domestic violence), it prioritizes the importance of relationships with oneself, one's community, and one's environment. A similar approach of rejecting retributive punishment can be seen used more and more in Rojava (a libertarian socialist region in north-east Syria) and how they utilize "restorative justice" sets a good example.Statist critics of community militias often make flawed comparisons and arguments around police forces and authority. This comparison is quite baseless, as in an horizontal anarchist society, militias would be directly accountable to the community for self-defense purposes and not have any special privileges, they are part off and so accountable to the community. They are fundamentally different from enforcers with special rights standing above the people serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. They only exist as a form of community defense ensuring that no one's freedom as an individual is forcefully taken away thru coercion.

On Anarchist Popular Assemblies, Council Society & Direct Democracy
Popular assemblies, community councils and communal direct democracy offer an Anarchist approach to self-organization and decision-making that actually empowers the people, resolves conflicts peacefully and ensures responsive decision-making.Direct participation in the decision-making process of a community enhances peoples understanding of civic participation and the impact they can have on shaping our communities. These popular assemblies foster open dialogue and peaceful conflict resolution by promoting the exchange of ideas, compromise, and negotiation. This approach leads to decisions that are broadly supported, reducing division within the community while effectively addressing local projects and issues. The decision-making on local issues and projects also leads to more responsible and thoughtful choices, as the community is directly influenced by the consequences of their actions because of the proximity to the outcomes.These councils should prioritize reaching as broad a consensus as possible. When utilizing direct democracy, decisions must reflect the collective will rather than merely a majority opinion. This means actively striving for solutions that accommodate as many perspectives as possible. There are different possible ideas/conceptions of modified direct democracy out there that could be useful in reaching as high of a consensus as possible.

This specific proposal of how modified direct democracy could theoretically be organized comes from After the Revolution written by Daniel Baryon.

First, a resolution is presented by an individual in the democratic body. Following this, there is a discussion period about the resolution. After this discussion has concluded, the voters all place their first votes as a temperature check and the results are tallied. If the first vote comes to a 90% majority, the measure is passed and planning will begin.

If not, those who voted against the measure are asked to qualify their concerns into deal-breakers or non-deal-breakers. Those who have said that their grievances are not deal-breakers put their complaints into one of several categories and each category of complaint elects a delegate to plead their case.After these delegates have each plead their case, voters are asked to weigh in on their agreement with the grievance and those with the grievance offer amendments that, if instituted, would garner their support. These friendly amendments are then voted on and a temperature check is taken to re-assess the status of consensus. If majority has now reached 90%, the motion is passed and planning will begin.If not, those who said that their grievance was a complete deal-breaker are asked to categorize their complaints and elect delegates to plead their case. Voters are then asked to weigh in on their agreement with these grievances and more amendments are gathered. If, after all amendments have been passed, turned down, or sustained, the majority has now reached 2/3, the motion is passed and planning will begin.

After passage, the minority enters into a contention process during the planning phase of the resolution, such that they might still have some recourse before the resolution is fully implemented. If, during this contention phase, the majority drops below 50%, the resolution is tabled or dismissed.

However, if the minority can’t reach a simple majority during planning and implementation, the resolution is carried forward. The body now elects a delegate or numerous delegates to carry out the implementation of the measure under the strict mandate of what was contained in it.