James Herod

Key Features of Anarchy





An exhaustive clarification of the basic tenets of anarchy as developed by many anarchist thinkers and activists.



A Definition of Anarchy.  A decentralized world full of directly democratic, self-governing, cooperative communities connected together through horizontal networks based on free association and mutual aid, without capitalism (or imperialism, or fascism), states, religion, classes, money, or markets, and with the elimination of all forms of discrimination based on gender, sex, race, age, ability, ethnicity, intelligence, native language, place of birth, physical appearance, or any other personal attribute.

Cooperative Labor.  As opposed to commodified labor, labor that is bought and sold, that is, wage-slavery. Wage-slavery is a foundational pillar of capitalism. Its elimination, through cooperative labor, will mean that persons will no longer have to have a job in order to live. In this way, capitalism can be destroyed.

A commodity-free social order.  The commodification of everything is a good definition of capitalism, that is, claiming that something is owned and can thus be bought and sold, and turned into a source of profit. Anarchy dispenses with property rights and patents, and the buying and selling of things, because everything is socially produced, and therefore it is nonsense to say that anyone owns something. In this way, we can destroy capitalism.

Calculation in Kind. As it turned out, there is no way to establish the value of something. It all depends on who wants it and how intensely. This varies from person to person, cohort to cohort, community to community, nation to nation. It cannot be universalized, generalized. So monetary prices are arbitrary, and thus meaningless. Without prices you cannot have markets. [1] Anarchy dispenses with both, and relies instead on calculation in kind. [2] We tally up what we have in surplus and what we need, and then use this data to facilitate mutual aid, gift giving, and nonmonetary trading, that is, trading in kind. And with money gone, [3] usury will be gone too (interest bearing loans). Usury has been a scourge on humankind for thousands of years. [4] We could start attacking usury right now. It is obscene that anyone can make money off money, by charging interest on loans.

Treaties.  All supra local assembly projects will be organized by means of negotiated treaties. These are based on trust, promises, [5]  as are nearly all international treaties at present. This is a way of keeping power and decision making on the local level. The procedures for treaty negotiation are well known. [6]  Business contracts, under capitalism, are basically treaties, although they are enforced by the military might of the state. Anarchist treaties (contracts) [7] will stick, as long as they are mutually beneficial to all the negotiating parties. And if they are not, then they shouldn't exist anyway.

Secularism. As opposed to superstition, myth, and mysticism. The recent upsurge in religious fundamentalisms – Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu– is not due to any innate human need, but to the enormous insecurities and anxieties imposed by ruling classes, as has been the case since class societies first emerged. A social order free from a ruling class, as would be the case under anarchy, would see religion fade away. [8]

Atheism.  The founders of classical social anarchism had a fierce hatred of religion, as being incompatible with anarchism. They were staunch atheists, asserting that this was the appropriate belief for anarchy. I believe they were right. Sadly, though, this focus has diminished in recent decades. Anarchists should resume the attack on religion. [9]

No Patriarchy.  Anarchy will finally put an end to the oppression of women by men. Patriarchy has existed at least since the emergence of the first states, and perhaps even before. The oppression of women cannot be eradicated in any ruling class society (especially under capitalism), unless it were a matriarchy. As far as I know, a matriarchy has never existed, or if it did, it didn't last long. Under anarchy, women will have equal access to all the resources need to live. They will have equal say in all the assemblies. Child birthing will be assigned the priority it deserves. Under such conditions, any residual prejudices men may harbor against women could be slowly undermined. A strict taboo on violence against women could be communally enforced.

The Liberation of Children from Adult Oppression.  This is a unique, special feature of anarchy. Anarchists have been searching for and experimenting with ways to raise children in non-authoritarian ways. [10] No other social philosophy attempts to do this, although there have been a few limited initiatives among some progressive educators.

Free Association. Implicit is the freedom not to associate. Join or not join. Stay or leave. No compulsory participation. Voluntary association. Freedom of association. No mandatory schooling or military service, for example. It also means, of course, the freedom to assemble. [11]

Expanded, Cooperative Households.  As far as I know, households have so far not been included in anarchist strategy, not even in the Spanish Revolution, which was limited to village and workplace councils. We've had only anarcho-syndicalism (a focus on workplaces) and anarcho-communism (a focus on community). I cribbed the idea from Immanuel Wallerstein, who included households as an essential element of his analysis of capitalism. [12] Since we spend a good portion of our time in our homes, we should treat them in the same way as we do our activities outside in the community and in our projects. That is, they must be democratically organized, and we should also expand them, to around 200 people, in manor-like residential structures. This will be hard to do because for the past several centuries capitalist architecture has been destroying community and trapping billions in single family houses or in apartments in high rise buildings. It didn't have to be this way. Decades ago anarchists showed how to build new towns which would foster neighborhoods, and integrate work, living, recreational, food, and social service spaces. [13] We could begin now, however, by connecting several houses or apartments together to create a common kitchen and dining room, recreation room, child care facilities, workshops, a meeting room, and so forth. Also, some useful ideas might be gleaned from the contemporary co-housing movement. [14]

Direct Democracy.  As opposed to rule by representatives, delegates, spokespersons, or officers. We have to say "direct democracy" to distinguish it from "representative democracy." Direct democracy refers to decisions made via face-to-face discussions in local assemblies. [15] In the United States, the New England Town Hall meetings are good examples. Direct democracy should not be confused with referendums, a recent corruption of the concept. We could shift to direct democracy right now, in many arenas, if we only wanted to and had the idea to. When we set up voluntary associations, we don't have to elect presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries, and treasurers to run the organization. We could keep decision making in a general assembly. Small towns could easily shift to direct democracy instead of representative government. No one is stopping them. Kropotkin wrote a critique of representative government in 1885. It's like he wrote it yesterday for us. [16] Of course, getting direct democracy in our nations, and globally, is a horse of another color. That would require revolution.

Deliberative Assemblies. As the place for decision making, in face-to-face discussion, as opposed to polling isolated individuals. In anarchy, such assemblies will be commonplace in all projects, households, neighborhoods, and all voluntary associations. Assemblies (councils, meetings) have been a feature of most revolts and revolutions in Europe. For example, they appeared in Paris (1792), the Paris Commune (1871), Russia (1905, 1917), Germany (1919), Spain (1936), Hungary (1956), Paris (1968), Portugal (1974), and Poland (1980), In recent years they have appeared in Chiapas, Mexico (1994), Bolivia (2000), Algeria (2001), Argentine (2001), Oaxaca, Mexico (2006), Greece (2008), Egypt (2011), New York City (Wall Street 2011), and Spain (2015) [17]. Assemblies have been popping up everywhere. We need to grasp this tendency and amplify it, by forming assemblies in our homes, at our jobs, in our neighborhoods, and in all the other organizations that we belong to. [18]

Cooperative, democratic control of all human projects. An expansion of the concept of "workers' control" to include all joint projects – hospitals, orchestras, sport teams, schools, households, factories, offices, farms, research facilities, neighborhoods, and so forth. That is, the strategy of seizing just the "means of production" is inadequate. We have to take all decision making away from the ruling class and locate it in our autonomous communities.  This is especially true now because the capitalists have turned the entire society into the means of production, into a social factory. The wages for housework campaign called attention to this, to cite just one case. [19] "Workers' Control" (i.e., anarcho-syndicalism, workers' councils) was a factor in most of the revolutions in the 20th century in Europe. Nowhere did it succeed in defeating capitalists. Anarchist strategy must be expanded, by establishing "councils" not only at workplaces, but also in our neighborhoods / communities, households, and all voluntary associations. We could try to persuade small, family-owned businesses to switch to cooperatively owned and operated enterprises. No one is stopping them. This could be done now.

Decision making procedures in assemblies.  Simple majority rule will not be practiced (half + 1). Even for minor procedural votes, a two-thirds majority is preferred. The normal practice will be to try to get the largest possible majority for any given issue. This means discussion, and the thorough consideration of all objections. But this will not be called 'consensus' decision making because it is not (consensus means unanimity). One-person blocks (a no vote) will not be permitted to scuttle a proposal. If 2-5 persons vote no, then the majority will have to decide, on a case by case basis, whether to abandon the proposal or not, depending on the nature of the issue and on the intensity of the opposition, realizing that it has no power to impose its will on a minority. But minorities also must realize that it is a rare case where they can simply pack up and leave.  Stand-asides (or abstentions) means that they are against the proposal but will nevertheless go along with it and help to implement it.

Making Decisions Amongst Assemblies. A flawed organizational structure has characterized many leftist projects, wherein supposedly autonomous local chapters are nevertheless subordinate to decisions taken at annual general assemblies of everyone, or else at assemblies of delegates. This is incompatible with direct democracy. The key problem in building a horizontal, nonhierarchical social order based on participatory, direct democracy has never been how to do this on the local level in one town meeting, workers council, or village assembly, but how to make decisions across such assemblies. I think the solution to this is to set up a system for negotiating agreements across assemblies. I spelled this out in my essay "Making Decisions Amongst Assemblies."

Mutual Aid. This concept has been diminished and adulterated in recent years to mean only volunteer charity work, usually in times of crisis. Originally it meant an entirely different way of arranging our social lives, based on cooperation, gift giving, and trading in kind, along the lines described in this essay. One way we could advance this practice right now would be to establish community storehouses where people could put in things they don't need and take out things they do need. [20]

No Debt, No Rent.  With the elimination of all rulers, capitalists, wage-slavery, and money, it will be possible to rid ourselves of these two onerous ruling class practices – rent, and debt. The current clamor by a few progressive economists for periodic debt jubilees (cancellation of debt) falls far short of what is needed. With the establishment of egalitarian, cooperative social arrangements, socially produced wealth can be equitably shared. We will be able to meet our needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, health care, transportation, and so forth, socially, without buying anything with money, or borrowing, or renting. This is another reason for abolishing states, by the way, because, as citizens, we are permanently in debt to the state by being compelled to pay taxes. Getting free from debt is one of the great merits of anarchy.

Direct Action.  Meaning, don't petition the authorities to get something done, take action to do it ourselves. Don't try to get the government to change its laws. Take action to abrogate them. Some examples of direct action are: blocking pipe line construction; stopping weapons from being shipped; tearing down fences installed to keep protestors out or kettled in; cop watches; negotiating global treaties independent of states; disrupting stock markets; occupying buildings; establishing storehouses to facilitate mutual aid and gift giving; creating local currencies; setting up assemblies everywhere to take decision making away from the ruling class; organizing a tax resistance campaign; supporting independent media, opposing destructive corporate and state initiatives in our communities. Study the references cited below for a broader understanding of this practice. [21]

Non Vanguardism.  We cannot get to anarchy by seizing the state. Vanguardism, meaning, in this context, any group, party, organization, or movement which seeks to do so. We have to bypass the state (as Bakunin insisted), and invent strategies to do that (as described herein, and in my book, Getting Free). This is what split Marx and Bakunin (Marxists vs Anarchists) in 1872. Marx wanted to use the state to destroy capitalism and get to communism, a two-stage strategy. The two statist strategies on the left for destroying capitalism, Leninism (capture the state militarily) and Social Democracy (capture the state through elections) are proven failures through more than a century of trials. They cannot light the way forward.

Intersubjectivity.  Humans have both a biological and a cultural nature. Both make us interdependent with others, with each other. We are intersubjective creatures. Language is intersubjective. Culture itself is intersubjective. Truth is intersubjective. This means that as persons we are not and cannot be (even if we wanted to) autonomous (free from others). Similarly, the concept of "society" is just an abstraction. There is no such entity, out there, outside us, above us, separate from us intersubjective beings, who associate in various ways. It is incorrect, therefore, to define anarchy as an aggregate of autonomous individuals. It is the ruling class which divides us into elites and masses, with the masses being composed of isolated individuals. Fanatic individualism is especially characteristic of a bourgeois social order. Just as is the idea that "society" (the state, the nation, the collective) takes priority over the individual. Consequently, freedom cannot be an attribute of an individual but only of a social order. It is a social achievement.

Humans as animals who are part of nature.  Christianity admonishes us humans to subdue the earth. Capitalists view nature as a commodity to be bought and sold for a profit. Yet, as has become glaringly clear recently, if we destroy nature we are committing suicide. This is surely one of the most imperative motives for defeating capitalists. Our very survival as a species is at stake. We must preserve a healthy natural world in which to live. We must all become ecologists. This would be possible with anarchy, but not with capitalism.

Honesty.  Ruling classes lie, to protect their wealth and power. They always have. Mendacity, through five hundred years of capitalist rule, has gone ballistic. It has spread and spread, increased, exponentially. It is ubiquitous. It permeates, corrupts, and soils the entire culture. We are never free from their endless lies. Their mendacity is, for me, perhaps the most hateful thing about capitalists. With security for all finally achieved, under anarchy, and egalitarian classlessness, there would be no incentive to lie, steal, or murder.

Anti-Foundationalism.  Which is an epistemology for anarchy. [22] It has always been the ruling class which has claimed to speak for everyone, asserting that its knowledge is objective, universal, and describes what really exists. But as soon as everyone's voice can be heard, in egalitarian anarchy, it becomes obvious that all we can ever have are majority and minority opinions about what really exists and what is true, good, or beautiful, with everyone claiming that their opinions are based on reason and evidence. So disagreement is inevitable, natural, essential, and healthy. It must be treasured. Anarchy recognizes this and builds a social order reflecting it, with its assemblies and democratic control of all activities and projects. Thus, freedom of speech must absolutely be defended and preserved.

No National Borders. That is, the 193 nations, into which the world is currently organized, must be dismantled. Freedom to travel. No passports. No citizens. Citizens are the officially registered members of a state. They cannot leave the state without the state's permission. The nation-state system is an integral part of capitalism. Capitalists and state bureaucrats are joined at the hip. Capitalism cannot be destroyed without also destroying states. States have armies, police, and prisons. They claim a monopoly of violence within their territories, and say it is legitimate, defining all other violence as criminal. States support capitalists in numerous ways, like defending property rights, regulating the market, suppressing opposition, defending monopolies, subsidizing certain industries like agriculture and petroleum, and making the world safe for capitalist corporations, to name only a few.

Abolition of War.  With the eradication of states, with their armies, navies, and air forces, and with the achievement of a more egalitarian classless society, it should be possible to put an end to war, perhaps with the aid of non-aggression pacts.

Decentralization.  What this means basically is that power is dispersed, and remains on the local level. Capitalists have recently decentralized production quite a bit, but that is in the context of a global capitalist framework.

Horizontalism. As opposed to hierarchy, or vertical organization. This term seems to have been adopted recently, in Argentina, to describe anarchist strategies. It is a good one. [23]

Networks. As opposed to federation or confederation, which are based on representation, not direct democracy. [24]

Self-Governing Local Communities. As opposed to communities governed by cities, states, nations, or global institutions.

Self-Sufficiency. As far as possible, for individuals, communities, regions.

Anti-authoritarianism.  However, anarchy is much more than just opposition to illegitimate authority. It is a plan for organizing the entirety of social life, as explained herein.

Egalitarianism. As opposed to inequality. With the defeat of capitalists, and the eradication of the ruling class, it will be possible to achieve egalitarian social relations, because there will be no way for anyone to accumulate wealth and power to use to oppress others. The source of inequality has always derived from a social order comprised of rulers and the ruled.

Agroecology. As opposed to industrial agriculture, which is based on herbicides, insecticides, artificial fertilizers, and monocultures. A return to organic, sustainable, ecologically sound agriculture is essential for human survival, by restoring soil health, improving the nutritional value of food, helping to reduce global warming, and fostering food security. This transformation would be possible under anarchy, whereas it is not under capitalism. [25]

Learning.  Learning will be reintegrated with life. Schools, with their classes, grades, credits, degrees, and years-long attendance, will be abolished.  Instead, anarchists will use a whole array of procedures and practices to free up learning, diversify it, make it more enjoyable and efficient, and make it continuous from birth to death. [26]

Health Care.  But for capitalists, we could create health care free from the destructive influence of Big Pharma, Big Ag, the processed food industry, and money mongering insurance companies. We could focus on preventive care, nutrition, and orthomolecular medicine.

Transformative and Restorative Justice. As opposed to prisons and police, which will be abolished. [27]

Liberation. As opposed to enslavement, colonialization, manipulation, indoctrination, deception, and oppression.

Free, unfettered science.  That is, science that is freed from influence by the ruling class, via its priorities, laws, corporations, money, and control. [28]

Picking the Right Enemy.  It is not civilization, as primitivists claim. It is not white people, as some claim. It is not Europeans, or the West, as others claim. It is the capitalist ruling class, for the past five hundred years of the capitalist era. Before that it was the ruling classes in the early states, classical empires, and feudalism. It is necessary to properly identify the true cause of the unnecessary miseries which have been afflicting humankind.

Anarchy vs What?  The two main ruling class ideologies cannot light the way forward any more than Leninism or Social Democracy can. Liberalism, which was the dominant capitalist ideology beginning with the French Revolution, was blown out of the social arena by the global revolutions of 1968. It is now moribund, and has nothing to offer. Conservatism has disintegrated too, and has devolved into far right fanaticism and fascism. It is defunct. That leaves Anarchism as the only living, vibrant, relevant social philosophy to guide us into the future.

Answering Right-Wing Libertarianism.  We have to say "right-wing" because originally libertarianism was a left wing term. It is probably the dominant ideology in USAmerica, although it might be eclipsed by Christian fundamentalism. Anarchism disagrees with it in two fundamental ways: it is not anti-capitalism, and it is not anti-state. Anarchism is against both. These faux libertarians actually love and need the state to protect their property, free enterprise, and the free market. They just object to it doing anything else. [29]

Justifying the mapping out of the kind of social order we want.  The century-old ban, coming mostly from Marxists, but now from postmodernists and some others, on describing in some detail what we want to replace capitalism with, has severely handicapped the anti-capitalist movement. Unless we can present a plausible alternative to capitalism, in concrete terms, we will never be able to attract the majority of ordinary people to anarchism. They will not be able to see how better off they would be.

Anarchy and Identity.  The scourge of identity politics has completely derailed the anti-capitalist struggle for the last fifty years, at least in the United States, by elevating identity and burying class. The ruling class has loved this and has endorsed it. It has been enabled by the left itself, including many anarchists. It has not improved the chosen identities by much, but it has certainly given capitalists a long reprieve.

Anarchism and Marxism.  Marxists have been denigrating and marginalizing anarchists for the past 150 years, to their everlasting shame. This has imposed a horrendous impediment to our struggle for liberation. But anarchists who refuse to study Marx and Marxism are horribly mistaken also. Marx wanted to destroy capitalism, just like anarchists do, but he was mistaken about how to do it. Regardless, Marxists have been studying capitalism for nearly two centuries, much more thoroughly than anarchists have. It would be impossible to understand the world we live in without their work. Yet Marxism is inadequate as regards constructing a liberated social order. For that we need anarchism.

Prospects for achieving anarchy.  It certainly seems impossible at present. Capitalists are currently in the process of moving into a fifth cycle of capital accumulation with greatly expanded production and trade and with a renewed and intensified focus on "development." [30] This will most likely kill the earth. There are only a few glimmers of hope that this can be stopped. For one thing, it is increasingly difficult for anyone not to connect the dots, from all this destruction and misery, to the activities of capitalists. For another, we may be witnessing a global disillusionment with state governments for their failure to do anything to help ordinary people, or to deal with the incredible crises we face.  For yet another, the destruction we are beginning to experience due to global warming may lead to demands for fundamental change. Also, if the fifth cycle is based, as it seems to be so far, on more genuine national sovereignty, this may decenter the world a bit and open up more avenues of escape, and more freedom to experiment. There are already, after all, many anarchist-inspired projects and movements arising all over the world. Beyond this, though, it is still very hard to see how the enormously rich and powerful global capitalist ruling class can be unseated, and its states dismantled. But we have to at least keep that option alive, and keep pressing for it to get on the historical agenda.

Once this vision of how we could live is fully in mind, it is soul crushing to see how horrible the contemporary world looks compared to what could be.



Suggested Reading

Kropotkin, Peter, Conquest of Bread [1892] Oakland: AK Press, 2008, 241 pages.

Bakunin, Michael, Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1972, 405 pages.

Malatesta, Errico, The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, California, AK Press, 2014, 530 pages.

Goldman, Emma, Red Emma Speaks [1972] Humanities Press, 3rd edition, 1996, 464 pages.

De Cleyre, Voltairine, Written in Red: Collected Writings. Freethinker Library, 2009, 505 pages.

Parsons, Lucy, Freedom, Equality, Solidarity: Writings and Speeches, 1878-1937. Chicago: Charles Kerr, 2004, 183 pages.

Ward, Colin, Anarchy in Action. Allen and Unwin, 1973, 157 pages.

Gelderloos, Peter, Anarchy Works. Ardent Press, 2010, 279 pages.

Woodcock, George, Anarchy or Chaos. Willimantic, Connecticut: Lysander Spooner, 1992, 124 pages.

Bookchin, Murray, Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future. Boston: South End Press, 1990 222 pages.

Milstein, Cindy, Deciding for Ourselves: The Promise of Direct Democracy. Chico, California: AK Press, 2020, 29 pages.

Kinna, Ruth, The Government of No One: The Theory and Practice of Anarchism. Pelican Books, 2020, 432 pages.

Morris, Brian, A Defence of Anarchist Communism. London: Freedom Press, 2022, 142 pages.

Graham, Robert, We Do Not Fear Anarchy, We Invoke It: The First International and the Origins of the Anarchist Movement. Oakland: AK Press, 2015, 319 pages.

Herod, James, Anarchy: An Introductory Bibliography in English. Boston: Lantern Library, 2019, 139 pages.



I have provided references for some of the items listed in the essay. I just list author and title because with a google search you can easily find them.

[1]  For a critique of markets, see David McNally, Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism, and the Marxist Critique. London: Verso, 1993, 262 pages; David McNally, Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires, and Global Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011, 296 pages; Maximilien Rubel and John Crump, editors, Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997, 187 pages.

[2]  Otto Neurath, Economic Writings: Selections 1904-1945. See chapters 9, 11, 12, 13, 14.

[3]  Actually, the issue of getting rid of money has not yet been satisfactorily addressed. I'm still hoping to get a preliminary essay on this topic next year. In the meantime, for those who are interested, here are four books that can help you get into the issue. David Graeber, Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value; Anitra Nelson and Frans Timmerman, editors, Life Without Money: Building Fair and Sustainable Economies; Anitra Nelson, Beyond Money: A Post-Capitalist Strategy; and The Friends of 4 million young workers, A World Without Money: Communism.

[4]  Robert van de Weyer, Against Usury; Zippy, Usury.

[5]  Carole Pateman, The Problem of Political Obligation; Hanoch Sheiman, Promises and Agreements: Philosophical Essays; Magda Egoumemides, Philosophical Anarchism and Political Obligation.

[6]  Detleve Vagts, The Treaty-Making Process: A Guide for Outsiders. Online: <https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol17/iss1/7/>

[7]  Robert Graham, "The Anarchist Contract," pages 69-80 in Howard J. Ehrlich, editor, Reinventing Anarchy Again; and Robert Graham, "The Role of Contract in Anarchist Ideology," pages 153-175 in David Goodway, editor, For Anarchism.

[8]  Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism; Jennifer Michael Hecht, Doubt: A History.

[9]  Julian Baggini, Atheism; Peter Angeles, editor, Critiques of God; Michael Onfray, Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, Islam; Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion; John Dewey, A Common Faith; Ernst Block, Atheism in Christianity; Erich Fromm, You Shall Be As Gods; Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian; Dimitrios Roussopoulos, Faith in Faithlessness: An Anthology of Atheism; Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist; Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great; Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God; Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell; Sam Harris, The End of Faith; Corliss Lamont, The Illusion of Immortality; Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis; Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God; Andrew Petto, Scientists Confront Creationism; Michael Parenti, God and His Demons; Bob Avakian, Away With All Gods.

[10]  Wendy Ayotte, As Soon as You're Born, They Make You Feel Small: Self-determination for children; Anarchist Parenting (from the Anarchist FAQ); Little People's Liberation (a magazine from the '70s if you can find it). Carla Bergman, editor, Trust Kids!: Stories on Youth Autonomy and Confronting Adult Supremacy; Akilah S. Richards, Raising Free People; Paul Adams, Children's Rights: Toward the Liberation of the Child; Emily Kenyon, editor, Let Them Be Free: An Unschooling Reader; No! Against Adult Supremacy: An Anthology, Stinney Distro, 2016, 318 pages.

[11]  Free association. Here are two discussions of the idea. "Free association (communism and anarchism)." <https://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CxP-Free_association_Communism_Anarchism.htm>; "Freedom of Association," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-association/>

[12]  Joan Smith and Immanuel Wallerstein, et.al., Creating and Transforming Households.

[13]  Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the 20th Century; Paul Goodman, Communitas.

[14]  Kathryn McCamant, and Charles Durrett, Cohousing.

[15About direct democracy. Sadly, we still don't have, as far as I know, a big, thorough, scholarly defense of direct democracy, using both theoretical and historical resources. In the meantime, here are some references that help flesh out the concept a bit. Anthony Arblaster, Democracy; Cornelius Castoriadis, Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy; Takis Fotopoulos, Towards an Inclusive Democracy (parts 2 and 3); Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory; George Benello, The Case for Participatory Democracy; Cindy Milstein, Democracy is Direct; Cindy Milstein, Deciding for Ourselves: The Promise of Direct Democracy; James Herod, Notes for building a movement for direct democracy (2 pages); James Herod, Getting Free: Creating an Association of democratic autonomous neighborhoods.

[16]  Peter Kropotkin, Representative Government (ch. 13 in Words of a Rebel)

[17Albert Soboul, The Sans-Culottes (French Revolution); Andrew Zonneweld, The Commune – Paris –1871; Oscar Anweiler, The Soviets (Russia, 1905, 1917); Martin Comack, Wild Socialism (Germany); Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives (Spain); Andy Anderson, Hungary 1956; Phil Mailer, Portugal (1974-75); Henri Simon, Poland 1980-1982; Benjamin Dangl, The Price of Fire (Bolivia); Nancy Davies, The People Decide (Oaxaca); A.G. Schwarz, We Are an Image of the Future (Greece); Kate Khatib, We Are Many (Occupy Wall Street).

[18]  See also, Francesco Polletta, Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements. And on a different level, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Assembly; and Judith Butler, Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly.

[19]  Ellen Malos, editor, The Politics of Housework; Silvia Federici, The New York Wages for Housework Committee 1972-1977

[20 Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid; Iain McKay, Mutual Aid: An introduction and evaluation; Ruth Kinna, Mutual Aid: Kropotkin's Theory of Human Capacity; Dean Spade, Mutual Aid; Rebecca Solnit, Paradise Built in Hell.

[21]  Harald Beyer-Arnesen, Direct Action: Towards an understanding of a concept; Mitchel Cohen, What Is Direct Action?; Voltairine De Cleyre, Direct Action; Emile Pouget, Direct Action; Salvatore Salerno, Direct Action and Sabotage: Three Classic IWW Pamphlets; David Graeber, Direct Action; Iain McKay, What is Direct Action?, Section J.2 in the Anarchist FAQ.

[22]  Tom Rockmore and Beth Singer, Anti-Foundationalism: Old and New.

[23]  Marina A. Sitrin, Everyday Revolutions: Horizontalism and Autonomy in Argentina.

[24Manuel Castells, The Rise of Network Society; Michel Bauwens, Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto.

[25]  Stephen R. Gliessman, Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Vandana Shiva, Who Really Feeds the World? The failures of agribusiness and the promise of agroecology.

[26There is a substantial anarchist and libertarian literature about education. Also, earlier progressive educators have many good things to say. Here are some references: Paul Avrich, The Modern School Movement; Judith Suissa, Anarchism and Education; Joel Spring, A Primer of Libertarian Education; Colin Ward, Talking Schools; Francisco Ferrer, Anarchist Education and the Modern School; Robert Haworth, editor, Anarchist Pedagogies; Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Matt Hern, Everywhere All the Time: A New Deschooling Reader; Grace Llewellyn, The Teenage Liberation Handbook; Jonathan Kozol, Free Schools; Chris Mercogliano, Making it up as we Go Along: The Story of the Albany Free School; John Dewey; Democracy and Education; Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind; Alexander Neill, Summerhill; James Herod, Schooling (in This & That).

[27]  Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us: Abolitionist organizing and transformative justice; Ruth Morris, Stories of Transformative Justice; Adrienne Maree Brown, We Will Not Cancel Us: And other dreams of transformative justice.

[28]  Paul Feyerabend, Science in a Free Society. Rita Arditti, Pat Brennan, Steve Cavrak, Science and Liberation; Les Levidow, editor, Radical Science Essays; Sigrid Schmalzer, et.al., editors, Science for the People.

[29]  For a list of anarchist essays which criticize right-wing libertarianism, as well as a few non-anarchist critiques (books), see pages 93-94 in James Herod, Anarchy: An Introductory Bibliography in English.

[30]  Giovanni Arrighi, The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Time [1994]. London: Verso, 2010, 416 pages. This is actually a history of the four great cycles of capital accumulation.


[Home] [Top]