A-Infos (en) Anarkismo.net: The Two Main Trends in Anarchism by Wayne Price

Alternate Tendencies of Anarchism ---- There are two main trends in anarchism, which agree 
on antistatism and anticapitalism and opposition to all oppression, but disagree on 
revolution, democracy, prefigurative politics, and class struggle. -- Uri Gordon, "Anarchy 
Alive!" (2008) --- Michael Schmidt & Lucien van der Walt, "Black Flame" (2009) It has been 
stated by various theorists that there are two main trends in modern anarchism. How they 
are conceptualized varies with the writer. I will state how I see the two broad tendencies 
in the anarchist movement, using the above two books to illustrate the two trends. I will 
describe them as differing on the issues of revolution or reformism, of democracy, of what 
“prefigurative politics” mean, and of attitudes toward the working class.

Near the beginning of a recent book on anarchism by Uri Gordon (2008), an Israeli 
anarchist, the author discusses the “most prominent division” among anarchists. He starts 
with the way this was framed by David Graeber (2002) of the U.S. as between “a minority 
tendency of ‘sectarian’ or ‘capital-A anarchist groups,’” which have developed, dogmatic, 
political programs, and “a majority tendency of ‘small-a anarchists’…who ‘are the real 
locus of historical dynamism right now’” and who are much looser programmatically (Gordon 
2008; p.23-24; for my views on Graeber’s anarchism, see Price 2007). The only group 
Graeber referred to as sectarian, dogmatic, big-A, anarchist, was the Northeastern 
Federation of Anarchist-Communists (I am a member of NEFAC, but not an official spokesperson).

Gordon thinks there is “something” to Graeber’s distinction, but that it should be more 
“subtly” interpreted. First of all, “capital-A groups are hardly a minority tendency 
…[having] many thousands of members” (p. 24). This is especially true if we include the 
memberships of the anarchist-syndicalist unions in Europe and elsewhere. Contrary to 
charges of “sectarianism” and “dogmatism,” Gordon notes that most “platformists” do not 
regard Makhno’s Organizational Platform of 1926 as a sacred text but treat it as a 
beginning for discussion. (Often, calling someone “dogmatic” is a writer’s way of saying 
that someone disagrees with the writer and is stubbornly refusing to accept the writer’s 
opinion.)

Instead, Gordon sees the distinction between the two tendencies as over “political 
culture” (this is a non-ideological way of discussing differences). One trend (the 
capital-A anarchists) identifies with “the traditional political culture of the anarchist 
movement established before the Second World War” (p.25). He says that they have formal 
structures with elected officials, and that decisions are often made through votes. They 
emphasize workplace organizing, anti-war actions, and publishing their ideas. The other 
(small-a) trend does not care much about anarchist traditions, has only informal groups, 
makes decisions by consensus, and, he writes, focuses on ecology, identity politics, 
experimental community, and Eastern spirituality.

“The difference between the two anarchisms is generational—an ‘Old School’ and a ‘New 
School’” (same). Without wanting to denounce the Old School anarchists, Gordon (like 
Graeber) is plainly on the side of the New School of anarchism. (He is not always so 
nonsectarian; later in his book, he angrily denounces my views on Israel/ Palestine—which 
is not directly related to my topic here; see pp. 149—151; responded to in Price 2009).

While I think that Gordon has accurately distinguished the two main trends in current 
anarchism, I do not think that Old versus New is a useful way to understand the division. 
Many of the so-called New School views he cites can be found way back in anarchist 
history, starting with Proudhon and Stirner and others. Gordon specifically cites Gustav 
Landauer’s concepts from 1911, to illustrate his own views. Many of these ideas were 
raised by Paul Goodman and Colin Ward, among other anarchists, in the 60s and 70s. Few of 
the New School’s ideas are all that new.

The Broad Anarchist Tradition

However the distinction as such is valid. What Gordon calls the Old School and Graeber 
calls capital-A anarchism is called “the broad anarchist tradition” by Schmidt & van der 
Walt (2009) of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front in South Africa. This is the 
tradition of anarchism from Michael Bakunin to Peter Kropotkin to Emma Goldman to Nestor 
Makhno, including those who called themselves anarchist-communists and 
anarchist-syndicalists. Most people who called themselves anarchists historically were in 
this tradition.

Almost the only thing in Black Flame with which I disagree is that it regards anyone 
outside the broad anarchist tradition as not being “anarchist,” although they may be 
“libertarian.” “’Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist 
anarchism, is not a TYPE of anarchism; in our view, it is the ONLY anarchism” (Schmidt & 
van der Walt 2009; p. 19). Since Proudhon was neither for class struggle, nor revolution, 
nor communism, even he does not make the cut; he only “influenced” anarchism, similar to 
Marx. This approach is pointless. There are, and have been, a great many people who call 
themselves “anarchists” who do not fit in the mainstream of anarchism. However they are 
anti-statist and anticapitalist, while often regarding themselves as “revolutionaries.” It 
is indeed worth pointing out that they are not part of the main tradition, but is it 
useful to argue about whether or not they are really “anarchists?” That does make us look 
like sectarians and dogmatists. We should argue about the content of their beliefs (that 
they are mistaken in their politics) rather than their label.

As noted, Gordon does not deny that his so-called New School does not follow “the 
traditional political culture of the anarchist movement.” He just does not care, and may 
even find this a virtue.

Political Differences between the Two Trends: On Revolution

To get to the real differences between the two trends of anarchism, it is necessary to 
look at the serious political differences between them—not at an nonideological “culture,” 
but at actual politics.

The broad anarchist tradition (class struggle anarchist-communism or Old School anarchism 
or whatever) has always been revolutionary. That is, its members have believed that the 
ruling class is extremely unlikely to give up power without resistance, a resistance which 
will center on its state. A vast movement of the oppressed and exploited must rise up and 
smash the state and dismantle the capitalist economy and all other forms of oppression. 
These must be replaced by new forms of popular self-organization and self-management. This 
does not contradict the struggle for present-day reforms and improvements, but sets a 
strategic end-goal.

Gordon is typical of the New School anarchists (or whatever) in that he rejects such a 
revolutionary approach. Traditional anarchists, he writes, used to argue about a how to 
organize society after a revolution. “Today, in contrast, anarchist discourse lacks both 
the expectation of eventual revolutionary closure…” or interest in visions of a 
post-revolutionary society (Gordon 2008; p. 40). Further, “anarchists today do not tend to 
think of revolution—if they even use the term—as a future event but rather as a 
present-day process…” (p. 41). Instead of changing all society, which may or may not be 
possible, he writes, anarchists should promote “anarchy as culture” which may include 
large events but also “fleeting moments of nonconformism and carefree egalitarianism” 
(same). Hakim Bey’s Temporary Autonomous Zones are cited, which, he says, might include a 
“quilting bee” or “dinner party”.

Not that nonconformism and dinner parties are bad; quite the contrary. But they are not a 
strategy for popularly overturning the capitalist state. Nor does Gordon worry about this. 
“The development of non-heirarchical structures…is, for most anarchists, an end in itself” 
(p. 35). Gordon never says right out loud that his tendency has given up on revolution, 
but I cannot read this any other way.

To sound radical, Gordon and other anarchists insist that it is un-anarchist to make 
demands on the state, to try to win benefits by threatening the state or the capitalist 
class. “…A ‘politics of demand’…extends undue recognition and legitimation to state 
power…a strategy far removed from anarchism” (p. 151). Instead, anarchists are supposed to 
create a better world by directly acting differently toward each other.

But anarchists have always made demands on the state, such as to stop waging specific wars 
or to release prisoners or to provide social benefits. It is one way to demonstrate to 
nonanarchists that the state cannot be relied on but must be threatened to win gains. And 
we have made demands on capitalists, as in fighting for union recognition or better 
working conditions. Refusing to make demands on the state or on the capitalists may sound 
very radical (as if they care whether anarchists give them “recognition and 
legitimation”!) but it is a reformist cop-out, an abdication of the struggle.

Gordon emphasizes “prefigurative politics.” Both “schools” of anarchism would agree on the 
importance of building non-heirarchical institutions in the here-and-now. But to Gordon 
and his tendency what matters is the interpersonal dynamics of informal networks of 
anarchists, whether or not they are effective for further purposes.

For the broad anarchist tradition, what matters is building a democratic, popular, 
counterculture of resistance. Referring to “rent strikes and community organizing,” 
Schmidt & van der Walt (2009) say, “as part of the project of building counterpower, mass 
anarchists built dense and overlapping networks of popular, associational life. These 
included threater troupes, neighborhood committees, workers’ night-schools, and even 
popular …” (p. 181).

Gordon does not accept this conception, partly because he does not believe in democracy, 
even the most radical, participatory, version of direct democracy . Few anarchists of his 
trend are as outspoken in rejecting democracy. (Graeber [2002], for example, is for 
democracy, which he identifies with consensus.) “Anarchism…represents not the most radical 
form of democracy…” but something else (p. 70). By this Gordon first seems to mean 
consensus, but soon explains that he means leadership by a hidden elite when organizing 
the movement. “Anarchists are bound to acknowledge that this invisible, subterranean, 
indeed unaccountable use of power is not only inevitable…but also needs to be embraced, 
since it coheres with their worldview in important respects” (p.75). This is consistent 
with the worst, most undemocratic aspects of Proudhons’s and Bakunin’s thought, which most 
of anarchism had long abandoned.

In contrast, the view of revolutionary class struggle anarchists is, “anarchism would be 
nothing less than the most complete realization of democracy—democracy in the fields, 
factories, and neighborhoods, coordinated through federal structures and councils from 
below upward…” (Schmidt & van der Walt 2009; p. 70). It tends to regard use of consensus 
or voting as a practical issue, not a matter of principle.

Political Differences: On Class

To the broad anarchist tradition, the center of its politics is class based: supporting 
and rooting itself in the working class and also in the peasantry. This has also included 
support for nonclass based struggles around gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, 
war, and ecology—all issues which overlap with and interact with class. But it has seen 
the working class as having a particular power, at least potentially, for stopping the 
machinery of the system and for starting it up differently. (An excellent defense of a 
working class perspective may be found in Meiksins Wood 1998.) For this reason, the broad 
anarchist tradition of class struggle anarchism overlaps with libertarian interpretations 
of Marx.

At no point does Gordon make a class analysis of the anarchist trend he is describing, nor 
of any other topic. As he described the movement, “animal liberation,” among other issues, 
is “as prominent as workers’ struggles. In the latter area, the industrial sector and 
traditional syndicalism are being replaced by McJobs and self-organized unions of 
precarious workers” (p. 5). This bit of ignorance is almost all his version of anarchism 
has to offer millions of working people around the globe.

Bookchin and Other Differences

Some readers may wonder how my conception of the two trends of anarchism relates to the 
distinction made by Murray Bookchin (1995) between “social anarchism” and “lifestyle 
anarchism.” Leaving aside Bookchin’s vitriolic style of argument, there are some 
similarities. Bookchin’s social anarchism is also rooted in anarchist communism and is 
also for radical democracy. Many of his criticisms of what he calls lifestyle anarchism 
are appropriate for what Gordon calls New School anarchism.

But there are problems. It would be unfair to summarize Gordon’s views as merely 
“lifestylism.” He, like others, believes in being part of popular movements against 
capital and the state. He begins his book begins with his participation in the 2005 
anti-G5 demonstrations. Bookchin, on the other hand, shared all too many of the views of 
the reformist anarchists. “Bookchin…sought to erect a new ‘anarchist’ strategy—freed of 
class struggle and hostile to the organized working class…” (Schmidt & van der Walt 2009; 
p. 79). He his strategy (“libertarian municipalism”) was based on getting elected to local 
governments. This is even more reformist than that of the “little a-anarchists.” 
Eventually, Bookchin stopped calling himself an anarchist.

There is, then, one trend, of revolutionary anarchism, which builds on the broad 
historical anarchist movement, which is revolutionary in its methods and its goals, which 
is radically democratic in its means and its prefigured ends, which is centered in the 
working class but which also supports every other struggle against oppression, and which 
aims for a libertarian socialist (communist) society.

By contrast, Gordon supports a large trend in modern anarchism which I would call 
“reformist anarchism,” since it is nonrevolutionary in its methods and strategy (however 
much it might like to eventually, somehow, see a new society). It does not build on the 
major insights of traditional anarchism. It is often undemocratic, in theory at least. It 
downplays class issues or ignores them in practice. It is overtly anticapitalist and 
presumably socialist or communist, but, without a strategy for revolution to create such a 
society, this does not mean much in practice.

There are other issues between the two trends as well as within each trend, which I have 
not covered. Gordon, for example, is sympathetic to anarchist-primitivism and to 
anarchist-pacifism, but does not fully agree with either one. And, as Schmidt & van der 
Walt point out, the broad anarchist tradition includes a split between insurrectional 
anarchists and mass struggle anarchists (see chapter 3), as well as among people with all 
sorts of views on whether anarchists should organize separately (chapter 8 on 
“platformism”), whether to join unions (chapters 6 and 7), whether to defend oppressed 
nations’ self-determination (chapter 10), etc. This is why it is called the BROAD 
anarchist tradition! But the basic ideas are clear.

REFERENCES

Bookchin, Murray (1995). Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. 
San Francisco: AK Press.

Gordon, Uri (2008). Anarchy Alive! Anti-authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory. 
London/Anne Arbor MI: Pluto Press.

Graeber, David (2002). “The New Anarchists,” New Left Review 13. http:// 
newleftreview.org/A2368

Meiksins Wood, Ellen (1998). The Retreat from Class: A New “True” Socialism. London/NY: Verso.

Price, Wayne (2009). “The Palestinian Struggle and the Anarchist Dilemma; Comments on 
Gordon’s Anarchy Alive!” http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12856

Price, Wayne (2007). “Fragments of a Reformist Anarchism: A Review of David Graeber’s 
(2004) Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology.” http://www.anarkismo.net/article/4979

Schmidt, Michael, & van der Walt, Lucien (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class 
Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Vol. 1. Oakland CA: AK Press.

* written for www.Anarkismo.net

===============================
There is a discussion of this article on the Anarchist Black Cat forums at the following link:
Related Link: http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4355
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en