The Anarchist Spectrum
It is quite depressing to realise the great split within anarchist thought that has raged since the 19th century, and has in fact kept the movement at a weak and nascent level. The main point of division for the anarchist movement is in economics, though that is not to downplay the importance of other debates within anarchism: methods for example (compare Emma Goldman’s ‘propaganda of the deed’ to Leo Tolstoi’s Christian pacifist anarchism). It is simply that this topic has kept the movement divided since very early in its modern life.
“Anarcho communism/syndicalism/capitalism/etc. would be worse than maintaining the state!” – such is a common complaint from both sides of anarchism. And most regrettably, this leads to economics taking over in importance from the actual belief in dissolution of the state. Anarcho-communism turns to statist and forced collectivisation, while anarcho-capitalism turns to the ‘libertarian’ movement and takes up a fight that resembles the plight of Sisyphus; they would roll the rock up a mountain only to have it fall back down to the bottom endlessly. There is no chance the libertarian movement can ever hope to achieve its aims: to do so, they would have to repeal a huge catalogue of statist laws and they will never, I repeat, never be in a position to rid themselves of all this while the state continues to exist. They represent a noble effort, but it is a futile one.
Therefore, a spectrum has now developed within anarchism over economics. While there are many movements in anarchism which cannot be put anywhere on this spectrum due to their social nature (i.e. anarcha-feminism, anarcho-primitivism and green anarchism, though the latter is somewhat linked to anarcho-syndicalism), the vast majority of anarchists take a strong view on the economic organisation of a stateless society.
Starting at the extreme ‘left’ of the movement, we have anarcho-communism, which essentially revolves around voluntary collectivisation. This model, advocated by theorists such as Bakunin, would ultimately end coercion and would instead assume that people would see the benefits of working together for a common goal, and would put the greed and exploitation they associate with capitalism behind them. Anarcho-syndicalism would be similar to this, but would take more of a worker-friendly approach, with unions being the core of society. These unions would provide education, would work to ensure good living and working conditions for the labouring and so on. This is the variation of anarchism which has come closest to success, especially in Spain during the civil war.
To the right of that would be mutualism and libertarian socialism, which seek to promote worker’s associations and worker’s democracy in large institutions, while they remain ambivalent towards capitalism being maintained at a local, community based level. The main proponents of this route of action would include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky.
In the centre would be the indifferent anarchists (often described as ‘anarchists without adjectives’) who simply wish for the end of the state and take no real position on economics.
Finally, we move on to the right wing of anarchism with agorism (which promotes the end of the state through the development of a counter-economic state, such as a black market) and individualist anarchism. The latter can be considered both a left wing movement and a right wing one, for it advocates the labour theory of value: this went as far as the opening of ‘time stores’ and small anarcho-villages which used time-based currency. They also, however, advocated natural rights and other libertarian positions. The best examples of these would be Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau and Herbert Spencer. There is some overlap here, as many individualist anarchists also claim Proudhon as one of their own, while Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (who later on abandoned natural rights altogether and took up Stirnite egoism) can be considered left-anarchists to some extent.
Finally, there is anarcho-capitalism, which essentially took up where individualist anarchism had left off, dropped the labour theory of value and instead advocated marginal utility. Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps the branch of anarchism that focuses most on ‘organisation’ as it still advocates some form of governance through polycentric law. However, unlike in the present situation, if you don’t like a private court’s laws, you can simply switch to another which would ensure a free market in law and would, according to the capitalists, provide the best set of laws. The most famous proponents of this are Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Although sometimes considered anarchists, Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School are not inherently anarchist (the former was indeed a minarchist), and neither were Ayn Rand and her Objectivist followers, who were bitingly scathing about complete anarcho-capitalism.
Ultimately, there is no end in sight to the debate. While the left used to dominate anarchism, it now appears that with the growth of Austrian economics that the right wing of the movement is becoming more prominent. Only time will tell the ultimate conclusion.
--------------------
Feel free to comment guys. I look forward to your feedback, though please keep it constructive.