Different types of Anarchism?

Hey Holla Forums! I've been a Marxist for years, but recently I decided to read some Anarchist literature and peek over the fence a little. I've been having a little trouble navigating your tendencies though, and I was wondering if I could ask some anons for help. Now, as far as I can tell Anarchists seems to fall into three broad categories: 1.) Social Anarchism (AnComs and syndicalists), 2.) Insurrectionary Anarchism (post-left anarchists), and 3.) Individualist Anarchists (I honestly don't even know what this entails, but Fire Nuclei claim to be this in counter-distinction to the other two).

So, does this seem accurate or am I completely off? I realize that Social Anarchists believe in class struggle, do the others not? Would Bob Black be an Insurrectionary Anarchist or an Individualist? Do niggas on this board read Hakim Bey?
All I know about him is he's a pedo. Where does Bookchin land in this spectrum? What about AnPrims and Egoists? And Mutualists? Do Post-Left Anarchists not believe in class? Pic unrelated.

Other urls found in this thread:




Not the most nuanced response, but helpful, thanks user!

This is just gibberish.

bookchin is more of an ex-anarchist who abandoned anarchism to create a new philosophy called communalism


I've seen many Communalists claim this, but it seems to be contested so I figured it was worth asking. I've also seen Anarchists accuse it of not being different enough from Anarchism to be it's own thing, as well as some people accuse it of being "too Marxist", whatever that means. Personally, as far as I can tell it seems like it's own thing.

these somehow make my eyes hurt

not so much an ex anarchist so much as re branding his own ideology

My biggest question is just what's even the difference between Post-Left Anarchism, Insurrectionary Anarchism, and Individualist Anarchism? Pic, once again, unrelated.

My reading of Bookchin is that communalism's a synthesis of various elements of marxism, anarchist and eco-thought. I think you have to read the works of each specific tendency to get a grip on where they stand, some insurrectionary anarchists for example believe in class war through insurrection while other reject the working class as a revolutionary force.


Just read Demanding the Impossible. Its probably the best overview of anarchism you can get in one book.

Thank you for the recommendation, will do.

naw, "An Anarchist FAQ" is better


Wow, this is very comprehensive, thank you for the link fam.


The main tendencies can be separated into their ideal society and how to best achieve that. Ancoms want a communist society, Mutualists want stateless, socialist market society, Primitivists want a pre-civilized hunter-gatherer society, individualists just want to be left alone and not forced into any type of society. Syndicalists believe that the revolution can be achieved through labor unions organizing while Insurrectionists believe a set of tactics like rioting, sabotage, propaganda of the deed, and general insurrection can achieve it, while Platformists believe it can be achieved through a sorta vanguard party, essentially an organization dedicated to the same principles, tactics and methods wholeheartedly, while Pacifists believe it can only be achieved through non-violence and non-aggression.

Egoism is more of a type of philosophy than an actual tendency, they can be any type of anarchist but they believe any society or organization should be a Union of Egoists. Honestly don't have the faintest idea of what post-left anarchists actually believe, as far as I can tell it's the victim of postmodernism and lifestylism.

Close enough.

Everything with an with the exception of ancaps believe in class struggle.

Fuck you dad anarchist.


What ancom or ansyn would look like in practice.


marsucc anarchist version

No, class isn't a spook.

Thank you for the thoughtful responses, this answers a lot.


What does that even look like? Or is it pure lifestylism?

When were Transhumanists technological visionaries?

I'm ok with this.

*extends hand*

Bookchin is a step up over primitivism, I'll tell you what

what is the 'egoist milkman' meme a reference to? is that just an idea or is there someone who was actually an egoist who did the milkman profession for the good of all?

It's a reference to Stirner's attempts to sell milk


is boston anarchism the political ideology of fallout 4?

But what makes Post-Left Anarchists "post-left" if they don't reject class struggle?

read Malatesta
He was the main inspiration for the CNT-FAI revolutionary faction

Neno Vasco anarchist conception is also based

t. portuguese anarchism

They reject the ineffectual, to them, strategies and tactics of the left. They still want to abolish capital and the state, but through different means.

anarchildren are cringe as fuark

check anarcho-feminism and queer anarchism for extra points

As a Portugese myself this interests me.

So they reject Platformism and Union organizing? Is it just a difference in ideas of praxis?

Good anarchism: anarcho-communism with marxist/leftcom influences (communization)
shitty anarchism: anarchism with LARPing, individualism, liberalism and other diseases

Post-left is incoherent and edgy for the sake of edgy. They are essentially left in that they want to abolish capitalism and all that entails though.

You're welcome. I'd post the /anarcho/ reading list for you but I don't have it and 0chan is too cancerous. Pity, it had some good reads.

pure lifestylism.

Vai dormir João Martins

It's not a tactic, just an ideal goal. Many are lifestylists, but the philosophy is just concerned with the individual, instead of the society/collective/commune. Technically, there's nothing stopping an Individualist from being any other type of Anarchist.

There's a lot wrong with this chart.
1) The only actually distinct anarchist trends within there are the red branch and the blue/grey ones (which should be one branch, exclude the Boston one)
2) all anarchism is socialist, even egoism (which meshes nicely with anarcho-syndicalism)
3)remove the "Marxist" identifier on anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism - they were both opposed to it
4) mutual aid is specific to anarchist communism (and, by extension, anarcho-syndicalism) in conception and has nothing to do with anarcho-collectivism
5) Anarcho-syndicalism is a merging of anarcho-communism with aspects of anarcho-collectivism's labor-based praxis. Its praxis arose from Mikhail Bakunin's trade union activism (or rather, his codification of what arose from among anarchist activists within the unions of the First International).
6) I say that there are only 2 real branches - ecology is inherent to any anarchism which realistically addresses how to change the world to best remove any ruler over individuals.
7)Anarcho-primitivism reintroduces an abstract ruler by reducing man to poverty. It has an obsession with a "pure nature" which has never existed outside of their minds. Primitivists should just call themselves primitivists and not try to spread their autism.
8) Anarcha-feminism is a contradiction in terms as the essentialist idea underlying all feminism stands in direct contradiction to the freeing of the individual which anarchism seeks. It's no accident that feminism is now a reactionary ideology best exemplified by modern liberals
9) As alluded to above, all anarchism is individualist, as is Marxism in original conception (itself being heavily influence by Proudhon's mutualist anarchism).

Fuck off. Kropotkin's basically Dauve before his time.

That's a misunderstanding of anprim. They believe modern, technological, civilized society is harmful to human freedom and happiness, and that humans need to return to the way they lived for hundreds-of-thousands of years to be truly free and happy. Their problems are they idealize and romanticist hunter-gatherer society and say it's something it wasn't, and they have no real method of achieving their desired society.

Read Kaczynski

I thought Kaczynski was an anprim.

Individualist Anarchists don't buy into the entire "humans are social by nature" fallacy, and work their brandd of anarchism from the position that all cooperation exists for entirely utilitarian purposes therefore society/collective should never overshadow the individual. Individuality is not forged through social interaction.

More specifically an anti-technology luddite, although he does have anprim tendencies. He wrote this good essay talking about how anprims have this idealistic, liberal conception of hunter-gatherer society where everyone was equal and peaceful, and how that just wasn't true, and the importance of returning to a primeval lifestyle isn't to achieve all these liberal virtues (not that he believes there's anything wrong with them) but to achieve human freedom and autonomy.