While it is not specifically limited to governmental rulers, conventionally it has only been used to criticize the rulers of the most influential body, which is generally the government of a nation. Technically it could be used against all kinds of rulers: religious, economic, social or even familial heads of household. Anarchism is not one monogamous ideology, rather it is a collection of similar ideologies.

I can attest to this question since it was asked of me when I deputized myself as a member of the House of Representatives. The non-anarchists were insisting that I had to be voted into the position so I did the vote thing and found myself in front of a bunch of people asking questions.

Well, arguably not a hell of a lot. Anarchism is an extremely personal topic and one which I don't dare to philosophize about. Some anarchists like to more closely align themselves with peace and freedom while some are all about active protest and causing mayhem. There are many sites out there where you can learn more about anarchism without the anarchist cookbook: Anarchy for Anybody: Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; it does not mean robbery, arson, etc.

Modern civilization faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanization, the deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.

An anarchist society, lacking any central coercive authority, would quickly degenerate into violent chaos."

Guerrilla gardening and its related varieties that have sprung up in various places, is nothing more than an offshoot of the old utopian idea of changing society by example." Actually, it was a specific demonstration to encourage people to get involved in collective action, to have a good time and challenge authority and the status quo.

Yes, we enjoy coming up with new ways to deploy explosives. We are also members of the Society for Creative Acronyms.

One of the most common Marxist techniques when they discuss anarchism is to contrast the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin to the revolutionary syndicalists. The argument runs along the lines that "classical" anarchism is individualistic and rejects working class organisation and power and syndicalism is a step forward from it (i.e. a step closer to Marxism). Sadly, such arguments simply show the ignorance of the author rather than any form of factual basis.

The two concepts are incompatible. Individualism holds that all individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness as they see fit. However, an individual may not pursue happiness by denying another, through the use of force, the ability to pursue his. Thus, a system of law defending individual rights is essential to the preservation of a free society. Anarchy repudiates the rule of law, and therefore repudiates individual rights.

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism. . . ." [Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles]. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and works for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting.

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see Section A.5.2).

These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands for in practice and what ideals drive it: Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty, desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most important aspect of humanity. They recognize, however, that individuality does not exist in a vacuum but is a social phenomenon.

we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without (hierarchical) authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skillful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.

Anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be grouped into broad categories, depending on the economic arrangements that they consider to be most suitable to human freedom. However, to quote Rudolf Rocker, "[i]n common with founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction. . . .

emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back to the important work done by Peter Kropotkin in arguing that the anarchist society would be based on a confederation of communities that would unite manual and brain work plus industry and argiculture [see Fields, Factories, and Workshops].

Although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism, the movement is not essentially pacifistic. However, a pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy being its major figure. Most anarchists, though, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to resist state aggression.

My early interest in social psychology made me think about how "the person" and "the setting" interact to influence behavior. Psychologists like Erich Fromm, Paul Goodman, Seymour Sarason, and Noam Chomsky have found anarchist theory useful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of competing solutions to social problems. Mainstreamers debate the virtues of government regulation versus free-market capitalism.

Anarchism is defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary as "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished." Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold.

Unlike many observers of history, anarchists see a common thread behind most of mankind's problems: the state. In the 20th-century alone, states have murdered well over 100,000,000 human beings, whether in war, concentration camps, or man-made famine. And this is merely a continuation of a seemingly endless historical pattern: almost from the beginning of recorded history, governments have existed.

This is actually a complicated question, because the term "libertarianism" itself has two very different meanings. In Europe in the 19th-century, libertarianism was a popular euphemism for left-anarchism. However, the term did not really catch on in the United States. After World War II, many American-based pro-free-market intellectuals opposed to traditional conservatism were seeking for a label to describe their position, and eventually picked "libertarianism.

If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- "advocacy of government ownership of the means of production" -- it seems that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as "advocacy of the strong restriction or abolition of private property," then the question becomes more complex. Under the second proffered definition, some anarchists are socialists, but others are not.

Again, there are a great many answers which have been offered. Some anarchists, such as the emotivist and (paradoxically) the moral anarchists have little interest in high-level moral theory. But this has been of great interest to the more intellectual sorts of anarchists. One popular argument for anarchism is that it is the only way for true socialism to exist. State-socialism is unable to actually establish human equality; instead it simply creating a new ruling class.

In reality the leaders of these movements are not devoid of ideology, they are anarchists. Anarchism is not simply a term of abuse, it comes from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning 'without government'. To anarchists the state - the institutions of government, the army, police, courts etc. - is the root cause of all that is wrong in the world. It must be destroyed and replaced not with any new form of government, but the immediate introduction of a stateless society.

The anarchist workers of the CNT played a heroic role in the struggle against fascism. In July 1936, they rose up and stormed the barracks armed with just sticks and knives and a few old hunting rifles, and beat the fascists. They set up soviets and established a workers' militia and workers' control in the factories. The CNT and the POUM (a centrist party led by ex-Trotskyists) were the only power in Barcelona. Soon the whole of Catalonia was in the hands of the workers.

Pat Stack states that one of the "key points of divergence" between anarchism and Marxism is that the former, "far from understanding the advances that capitalism represented, tended to take a wistful look back. Anarchism shares with Marxism an abhorrence of the horrors of capitalism, but yearns for what has gone before." ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] Like his other "key point" (namely the rejection of class struggle -- see last section), Stack is simply wrong.

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasize the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.

Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is based around a form of market socialism - workers cooperates exchanging the product of their labour via a system of community banks.