Anarchism

Anarchism, Mama's favourite.

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Individualist Anarchism	Since time immemorial, Man has felt the yoke of domination around his neck. Feudal barons, absolute monarchs, and modern parliamentarians have all had their turns placing their grim irons around the bodies and souls of their subjects, restricting them to such meagre existences that they can no longer even dream to be free of their shackles. Even among so-called revolutionaries, the miserable slide back towards slavery at the behest of State is a concession that far too many make. What good is revolution if the base unit of society — the individual — is still shackled? To break those chains requires a commitment found not in the fight for an abstract idea, such as party or nation, but for man's most intimately known thing: himself. Most closely associated with the works of Max Stirner, and hence the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, Individualist Anarchism finds its most potent expression not in the trite pamphlets of the unions nor the honeyed words of the parties, but in the actions of heroic individuals, each determined to push back the encroaching miasma of the State. As such, while many other ideologies have essential issues and political doctrines that they rally behind, the core principles of the individualist can be embodied in manifold ways. While not fully rejecting traditional social organisations — the power of the masses does not escape them, for better and for worse — they are simply a means to an end, a tool to wield in the destruction of the state, and then, as the revolution gains hegemony, it must be destroyed in turn; each of these successive layers that choke the individual must be discarded with the utmost militancy. From the followers of Stirner, to illegalists like Jules Bonnot, and the market anarchists of the Boston School, each person finds their own path to liberty, birthed from their own soul, and they seek, with great vigour, to achieve it — by any means necessary.	Christian Christensen Helsinki Veteran's Association Alisa Rosenbaum Orestes Ristori*
Mystical Anarchism	Many agitators proclaim that revolution and social progress must go deeper than the political sphere in order to effect lasting change. Some delve into the cultural and social minutia, arguing over the best policies and dynamics. A few Promethean souls however, plunge into the domain of the soul. Mystical Anarchism preaches that spiritual revolution is just as critical, if not more so, than the social one. It is the vehicle by which the collective soul of mankind can be truly emancipated. By tearing down the antiquated structures of the past and liberating the masses from heedless servitude to institutions and ideas that corral the human spirit, an ultimate liberation is possible. What might be described as "orthodox" Mystical Anarchism is formed from a synthesis of mainstream anarchist theory, while its praxis and mystic philosophy is produced by Symbolist groups, including such figures as Dmitry Merezhkovsky and Georgy Chulkov in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Others claim far earlier sources of inspiration, such as the medieval writings of Marguerite Porete, and even ancient gnostic works. It has since spread further afield, coalescing with similar conclusions across the globe, consolidating it into something greater. Mystical Anarchists can be broadly identified apart from their anarchist cousins by several factors, the first of which is a spiritual broadmindedness, uncompromising moral values quite often of a vaguely Christian character, though some veer off this road in favour of more occult or oriental pursuits. Secondly, a faculty of mystical perception, an ability to recognise spiritual aspects in one's environment and in metaphorical texts. Finally, a profound urge towards the ultimate principle of the Universe. Indeed it can be said that fundamentally, the emancipation of society is but a means to an end. The "new man" must be liberated internally also, unleashed from bondage to the world as it appears. Some Mystical Anarchists connect this worldview with the Christian Apocalypse, whilst others are of a more esoteric persuasion, and some blend of the two. Individual liberty itself is to be surpassed in favour of a "supra-individualism", a transcendental oneness, for all men share in the Divine - a mystical transformation, self-realization in its truest sense. The way forward is clear. The revolution must be twofold, or it is nothing.	Jack Parsons
National Anarchism	Anarchism has rarely made a pleasant bedfellow of nationalism. Much like their socialist cousins, the historical anarchist perspective is that nationalism is an obstacle to the brotherhood of men, the accelerant of militarism, and perhaps goes hand in hand with the formation of the modern state itself. For the majority of the cause, this is uncontroversial. Curiosities existed — the future anarchist luminary Mikhail Bakunin spent the revolutions of 1848 as an ideologue who would not be entirely out of line with the League of Fiume, advocating for a mass cooperative uprising of nationalist movements to destroy the great empires of Europe. Yet like it did for so many other schools, the Great War and its aftermath upset the old balance. Mirroring some socialist parties supporting the war effort of their homelands, a number of prominent anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin and Jean Grave publicly favoured an Entente victory over the Central Powers, which they saw as an obstacle to revolution. While not a formal unity of ideologies, it demonstrated how anarchist principles could interact with national interest. More vivid was the Futurist doyen Marinetti's erstwhile alliances with Italian anarchists, which he advocated based on a shared desire to destroy bourgeois politics and morality. Perhaps it was opportunism and provocation, but was it entirely contradictory? National Anarchism, to cover the wide array of movements grouped under it, can be described glibly as anarchism stripped of its humanist precepts - anti-state, but patriotic, even ultranationalist. A number of their organizations have gained increased cachet by harnessing strident right-wing critique of the postwar order. For some, the government as they know it is an obstacle to the elitist or heroic national ideal they stand for, and it must be decentralized into more autonomous units. Others seek the destruction of the country altogether and its disintegration into homogenous communes reflecting more primordial identities. One thing is for certain: when the centre falls, the people's hands will be freed to do what is right and necessary.	Hristo Botev Nykyfor Hryhoriv*
Social Anarchism'	The end goal of the communist project as outlined by most theorists is a society without classes, money, or state. In short, one might argue, anarchism. As one might imagine, this has been a bone of contention on the political left for the better part of a century. From the early years of trying to create an international socialist movement, the socialists and the anarchists found themselves at odds over the methods for reaching that final utopia. What can be termed Social Anarchism today began with — if not past egalitarian movements such as the Diggers — Mikhail Bakunin's "collectivist anarchists," a grouping that stridently opposed Karl Marx's road to communism as authoritarian and riven with half-measures. The dictatorship of the proletariat, he argued, was the means by which a worse tyranny than a Tsar would arise. He would not be the last to stake a position for the libertarian left. Where Bakunin advocated collectivized means of production, anarcho-communism went further in advocating for all that was produced to be held for the common use, all the better for man to pursue his flourishing. Others would cross-pollinate with syndicalism, seeing the unions as the preferred unit of self-governance. For some, officially joining a party or movement was missing the point of the cause, and the masses could be inspired to liberate themselves through bold acts of revolutionary violence. Whether serving as a conscience for the political left regarding the use of state power, or being the romantic image of the revolutionary, the Social Anarchist remains a presence on the border of political possibility. The ongoing crisis of modernity, while it has produced mass movements in service of dictatorship, has also turned more and more people against the state and market that have failed them. And of course, while the aftermath of the Great War seemed to grant the state socialists their laurels, the old debate is far from settled. If Marx himself could grow sceptical of revolutionary centralization of power after the Paris Commune, history should have many more lessons to teach.	Kim Chwa-chin Scarlat Callimachi Itō Noe
Statelessness	Statelessness is a loaded word where anarchism is concerned — but then again, so is anarchy itself. The end goal of the anarchist project, after all, features the abolition of the state or overall hierarchy and its replacement with some other voluntary order. Its oldest definition, however, is the pure absence of government, something described as more of a condition to lapse into than an aspirational political goal. Nonetheless, there are three non-state conditions that are collected under the label of Revolutionary Anarchism for lack of better classification. The first represents conditions of collapsed public order. While bureaucratic and increasingly centralized states have risen to dominate the bulk of the world, the fear still remains that all of this can be swept away into the Hobbesian "war of all against all." Due to disaster or war, a territory now lacks a discernible political authority beyond what people can reach at arm's length. Second, far away from capital cities and colonial outposts, there are polities that have never truly been administered as conventional states. While authority may exist on the basis of strength, seniority, or spiritual significance, the clan, tribe, or band tends to lack the same concrete borders as conventional states. They may even be a migratory or nomadic people that shrugs at lines on a map. Finally, Statelessness may result from the total realization of anarchist principles. In this case, presumably, society has returned to highly localized units without an overarching body to coordinate them. Whether this is a liberatory road forward, or a return to Rousseau's free state of nature, depends on whose dream it is.	Tuareg Statelessness* Anarchy
Stratocratic Anarchism	The historical record is replete with visionaries seeking alternatives to unjustified hierarchy and exploitation. They amass followers in the name of the betterment of man's conditions, of personal liberty, and sometimes separate themselves from wider civilization to live autonomously according to their values. The historical record is also replete with examples of these visionaries being suppressed by the organized armies of the state, capable of leveraging military production and coordination as a force multiplier against the masses. In the face of the incinerating pressure inherent in conducting a revolution against entrenched authority, a new form of organization occasionally emerges: that of Stratocratic Anarchism. While there are arguably quasi-military organizations in the past that might serve as an inspiration, such as groups practicing social banditry, the conflicts at the end of the Great War provided examples of how revolutions may be conducted. In the Russian Civil War, one of the prominent revolutionary military leaders was Nestor Makhno, a committed anarchist. Before his desperate alliance with the socialists, and before the retreat into the Caucasus, he helmed an army of insurgents that alternately protected and governed a network of communes in Ukraine. The morality of their means was debated for years to come, and yet… Stratocratic Anarchism, then, is the answer to the question of how the movement expects to protect itself and its gains. It is the revolutionary élan of libertarian struggle welded to the vessel of military structure. The order of the day varies from location to location, whether the army is a democratic body, or how mobilization of the population occurs, but the results can prove surprisingly effective on the battlefield. Of course, it is nothing if not controversial among fellow anarchists — even if military discipline is necessary for victory, can it be trusted to relax after the guns fall silent? In a world where the forces arrayed against true freedom have grown more vicious, however, let no one say the anarchists have not risen to the challenge.	Buenaventura Durruti* Vasily Chapayev