Miguel Amorós: What is anarchism?

From a las barricadas (02/09/2024).


We share Miguel Amorós’ essay, “What is Anarchism?”, not because we are entirely in agreement with it – that has never been an exclusive criterion of selection for us -, but because of the forcefulness of the argument, because of the need not to ignore the anarchist movement’s history when trying to understand anarchism, as Amorós defends, and because of the absurdity of so expanding the limits of anarchism, that it potentially comes to include everyone and every idea opposed to “excessive” authority.

Yet his insistence on defining anarchism exclusively “as an anti-authoritarian current of revolutionary socialism, the intellectual product of the incipient class struggle typical of capitalist society in the early stages of industrialisation”, as a formerly working class revolutionary theory and practice and the need for it to remain revolutionary today (even with the waning and dissolution of the working class, at least as it existed up until WWII), cuts too deep. And it does so because what Amorós dismisses as non-revolutionary – a “bookish”, purely ideological or theoretical anarchism, which is not anarchism, for him – , begs the question of what anarchist revolution is, for the history of the movement and the broader history of social movements points in no single direction.

To endeavour to divide the real anarchists from the pretenders on the grounds of true revolutionaries versus non-revolutionaries appears to us to risk falling into another intellectual orthodoxy, the very thing that Amorós faults non-revolutionary anarchists with.


What is Anarchism?

Is it a doctrine, an ideology, a method, a branch of socialism, a line of conduct, a political theory? The answer, in principle, is easy: anarchism is what anarchists think and do, and, in general, it is those who define themselves as enemies of all authority and imposition. Those who, in various ways, many of them truly antagonistic, pursue “anarchy”, that is, a society without government, a mode of social coexistence outside of authoritarian arrangements. Anarchism would be nothing more than the way to realise this anarchy, which the geographer Élisée Reclus called “the highest expression of order”. What does it consist of? There are multiple and contradictory strategies to achieve an ideal based on a negation, of which there are several versions and which is why one could speak more appropriately of anarchisms, as for example, Tomás Ibáñez does. If we also take into account the contemporary social-historical situation, in which anarchism is no longer significant, being today barely a sign of youthful and semi-academic identity that bears little relation to more glorious past eras and which remains sheltered from any serious and objective criticism, the definitions could go on ad infinitum. Anarchism would then be a kind of sack full of disparate formulas labelled as anarchist. The doors remain open to any shift or movement, be it reformist, individualist, catholic, communist, nationalist, contemplative, mystical, conspiratorial, avant-garde, etc. On the good-natured giddiness in the libertarian milieu resulting from such diversity, we could conclude in the same way as do the author or authors of the pamphlet, “On the Poverty of Student Life“(1966), speaking about the members of the Fédération Anarchiste: “Since they tolerate each other, they would tolerate anything.” The outlook is not rosy, for in this day and age, understanding social phenomena and the ideologies that go with them depends very much on thinking about them properly, that is, from the perspective provided by historical knowledge. Even today, anarchism is not lacking in honest and competent intellectuals up to the task. However, the most common characteristic of postmodern anarchisms, those that navigate in post-truth and repudiate coherence, is the rejection of such knowledge. Moreover, according to such anarchism, the past has to be intervened in from the present, as a chest of aesthetic resources, in line with playful normativity, transgender grammar and fashionable gastronomic habits. The commitment, moreover, is ephemeral. In short, what we have , with the voluntary exception of a few syndicalist nuclei, is anarchism reduced to a book fair phenomenon. We, who are moving in the opposite direction, will try to explain this constant aspiration for a social organisation without government, then without a state, without separate authority, by referring to its origins where they are to be found, in the radical sectors of the popular revolutions of the 19th century.

In principle, we will have to overcome the mania of some anarchist ideologists, starting with Peter Kropotkin, Reclus, Rudolf Rocker and the historian Max Nettlau, to discover ancestors in every moment of history and in every place. From this point of view anarchism would not be a new idea, but something as old as humanity, perennial, eternal, inscribed in the biological being of the human species. Anarchists would therefore be Diogenes the Cynic and Zeno the Stoic, Lao Tse, Epicurus, Rabelais, Montaigne or Tolstoy. Libertarian traces would be found in the medieval communes, in the English Diggers, in the philosophical liberalism of Spencer and Locke, in the political work of John Stuart Mill and William Godwin, in any alteration of the established order… We have no objection to this, but we denounce the latent attempt in this anti-historical approach to fabricate an inter-class ideology, and to deny the workers’ movement its decisive role in the genesis of anarchist ideas. This had disastrous effects on anti-authoritarian practice. The promoters and advocates of this thesis sought to transcend social reality not through practical interventions in the socio-political sphere, but through propaganda, through an intensive mass education effort that could bring about a gradual evolution of the people’s mentality towards higher levels of consciousness. For the educationalist propagandists, especially for the more immobile and entrenched ones – take Abad de Santillan, for example – anarchism was simply “a humanist yearning”, the new name for “a basic humanist attitude and conception”, a non-specific and non-concrete doctrine, a vague ethical ideal which has always existed, which existed in every social class and which – Federica Montseny added – had found in the Iberian Peninsula the tradition, the racial temperament and the fierce love of freedom in greater abundance than anywhere else. In the prologue to a book by the statist Fidel Miró, Santillán said with calculated ambiguity that “anarchism aims at the defence, dignity and freedom of man in all circumstances, in all political systems, yesterday, today and tomorrow […] it is not linked to any type of political construction, nor does it propose a system to replace them.” It was thus not a homogeneous but a plural, hybrid project, on whose foundations, if we are to believe the suspicious Gaston Leval, who proposed to give a “scientific basis” to anarchism, reinforcing “constructive” realism in politics and economics, there was no agreement “among the most able theorists in this field” regarding its aims and strategies of realisation. (“Precisiones del Anarquismo”, 1937) The speculations of the leading lights of orthodox anarchism in Spain in 1936 all flowed into the clichés of political liberalism, which is understandable as it illustrated the extreme adaptability of their convictions to bourgeois republican principles and institutions.

Rudolf Rocker saw in anarchism the confluence of two intellectual currents propelled by the French Revolution: socialism and liberalism. Let us note that one was proletarian, the other bourgeois. However, this confluence did not constitute a fixed social system but “a clear tendency in the development of humanity which […] aspires to the free development of all social forces in life”. (“Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice”).

Albert Libertad, the editor of the individualist magazine “L’Anarchie”, was not satisfied with that: “For us, the anarchist is the one who has overcome in himself the subjective forms of authority: religion, fatherland, family, human respect or whatever you like, and who does not accept anything that has not passed through the sieve of his reason as far as his knowledge allows him.” Anarchy could only be “the philosophy of free examination, which imposes nothing by authority, and which seeks to prove everything by reasoning and experience.”

For Sébastian Faure, anarchy “as a social ideal and as an effective realisation, corresponds to a modus vivendi in which, freed from all legal and collective subjection to public force, the individual will have no other obligations than those imposed on him by his own conscience”. His compatriot Janvion declared anarchism to be “the absolute negation of the authority of man over man”; Emma Goldman went further by enshrining the individual as the measure of all things: “Anarchism is the only philosophy which restores to man self-consciousness, which maintains that God, the State and Society do not exist, that they are empty and worthless promises, since they can be achieved only through the subordination of man.” Although in an abstract way, she alluded to issues such as production and sharing, she does not specify what such terms mean. In her little book “Anarchism. What it Really Stands For” she wrote: “Anarchism [is] the philosophy of a new social order based on unrestricted freedom, the theory that all governments rest on violence and are therefore equivocal and dangerous, as well as unnecessary. […] Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life…” Soledad Gustavo stated tersely that anarchy was “the genuine expression of total freedom” and Federica Montseny, who did not forget her working-class audience, pointed out what her mother had said: “anarchism is a doctrine based on the freedom of man, on the pact or free agreement of man with his fellows, and on the organisation of a society in which there should be neither classes nor private interests, nor coercive laws of any kind’ (“What is anarchism?”) In view of Montseny’s practice as an anarchist, José Peirats asked in his little dictionary of anarchism whether anarchy “is an idea that can be framed in the revolutionary political recipe book or is it a vaporous mass that is diluted when we try to grasp it?” He feared that it was no more than “a diluted principle”, an ethereal slogan, and not, as his esteemed Emma Goldman said, “the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society”, or in the words of Élisée Reclus, “the practical end, actively sought by multitudes of men united in resolutely collaborating in the birth of a society where there are no masters…”

Despite the undeniably crucial role of the anarchist masses in the revolutions of the last century, no matter how much we search through classic anarchist literature, we will find few references to revolution as a means of transforming society. Because of the violent implications it necessarily contains, it contradicted the pacifist postulates of the ideology, which, let us not forget, is often presented as an ethical ideal, not an imposed one; or as a moral rebellion (Errico Malatesta), a liberated subjectivity (Libertad), “a conduct within any regime” (Felipe Alaiz)…. Revolutionary boasts were typical of men of action, whose paradigm is Bakunin, more interested in defeating the oppressive side of reaction than in building a utopia by working from a desk according to uncontaminated guidelines. They conceived action primarily as struggle, combat, confrontation, not as pedagogy and experiment. Nevertheless, the epithet “anarchist” was historically used to qualify what conservative factions supposed to be revolutionary excesses. During the English Revolution, it was first used pejoratively against the “Levellers” and anyone who upset the established order and did not recognise the dominant power, particularly the ecclesiastical hierarchy (it was synonymous with radical, atheist or Anabaptist). During the French Revolution, the moderate republicans called anarchists all those who wanted to continue the revolutionary process rather than stop it, the Jacobins, the Enragés and the Hébertists. Finally, the first to define himself as an anarchist, in a positive sense, was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his famous work “What is property?” and he called anarchy “the absence of masters and sovereigns, the form of government to which we are approaching”. He was also the first to claim the working class as an autonomous social force, opposed to the bourgeoisie. On other issues he was much less innovative. Shortly afterwards, Anselme Bellegarrigue in his Manifesto of 1850 asserted that “anarchy is order, the state is civil war.” Max Nettlau introduced us to other revolutionaries active from the middle of the 19th century in favour of a socialism without rulers: Joseph Déjacque, Coeurderoy, Pisacane, Cesar De Paepe, Eugene Varlin, Ramon de la Sagra…, whom we could well consider as anarchists, even if they did not use that term. Therefore, we would not be wrong to define anarchism as an anti-authoritarian current of revolutionary socialism, the intellectual product of the incipient class struggle typical of capitalist society in the early stages of industrialisation.

In Proudhon’s correspondence we find the most complete statement of the ideal: “Anarchy is a form of government or constitution where the public or private conscience, moulded by the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and to guarantee all liberties; where consequently the principle of authority, the institutions of police, the means of prevention or repression, the civil service, taxation, etc., are reduced to their minimum expression; where, a fortiori, monarchical forms and a high degree of centralisation disappear and are replaced by federative institutions and communal customs.”

The International Workingmen’s Association was a milestone in the organisation of the proletariat, giving it not only economic but also political objectives. The clashes between the various factions within it led to its decline. During the brief and intense period of the IWA, Bakunin was able to turn the underdeveloped libertarian socialism into a coherent and revolutionary political theory. The winds were blowing in favour of social revolution; Bakunin, in possession of an extraordinary store of historical and philosophical knowledge, did no more than translate it into practical ideas. The working class was the subject of the revolution, and therefore the battering ram of anti-authoritarianism, and which accordingly needed to outline strategic lines distinct from the social-democratic reformism characteristic of the Marxist tendency. For Bakunin, the working class was “the unrestricted manifestation of the liberated life of the people, from which freedom, justice, the new order and the very force of revolution from which must emerge.” Anarchy was thus the uncontrolled outburst of popular passions overcoming the obstacles of ignorance, submission and exploitation, which the agitators present in its midst would direct towards the destruction of all existing institutions. At the Congress of Saint-Imier in 1872, a proposition of his was voted: “The destruction of all political power is the first duty of the proletariat.” Unlike later ideologues, he was not interested in describing the new society in its various facets, the fruit of the entry of all workers into the International. It would be “a natural society which would support and strengthen the life of all” and would consist of “a new organisation having no other basis than the interests, needs and natural inclinations of the peoples, and no other principle than the free federation of individuals into communes, of communes into provinces, of provinces into nations, in short, of these into the United States of Europe first, and later, of the whole world.” (“The Programme of the International Brotherhood”)

The splits and expulsions in the International, the defeat of the Paris Commune, the crushing of the internationalist revolts in Spain, the failure of the peasant insurrection in Italy and the subsequent persecutions, broke the momentum of the workers’ movement, reducing it to small circles dedicated mainly to the diffusion of ideas. Kropotkin, Reclus, Malatesta and their comrades stood out in this. The death of Bakunin meant the virtual disappearance of his theoretical legacy. None of his followers ever read Hegel, Fichte, Feuerbach or Comte, and few were interested in Babeuf, Weitling or Proudhon. In this post-revolutionary period the term “anarchist” became widespread and a distinct ideology was properly created, external to the oppressed classes, which had to be taught through doctrinal propaganda and exemplary behaviour. It did not constitute a system as such, as was the case of Marxism. Furthermore, the elevation of Godwin, Tolstoy, Thoreau and Stirner – authors who were not in favour of revolutions – to the saintly altar added conflicting elements to ideological reflection. Subaltern currents developed that were often opposed and incompatible: those that put the future society before the present, communism (to each according to his needs) before collectivism (to each according to his work), communalism before individualism, organisation before spontaneity, reflection before action, pacifism before violence, propaganda before expropriation or attack, legality before clandestine action, political parties before economic associations, etc. The confusion was such that a close intellectual, Octave Mirbeau, stated that “anarchists have broad shoulders; like paper, they can bear anything.” For others, indifferent to substance as much as to action, everything was anarchism. The main thing was the purpose; the means, often contradictory to it, were secondary. Tárrida del Mármol came up with the idea of ??“anarchism without adjectives”, with which the true expression of the revolutionary proletarian movement as reflected in the work of Bakunin and the anti-authoritarian International would be sacrificed on the altar of doctrinal, nebulous and sectarian interpretations of reality. Anarchism as an ideal of an emancipated society and at the same time a method of action, a simple variant of revolutionary socialism, did not seem to be enough. Gustav Landauer wanted to return to the basis when he wrote: “Anarchism is the goal we pursue, the absence of domination and the State; the freedom of the individual. Socialism is the means by which we want to achieve and ensure that freedom.” Prince Kropotkin, on the other hand, set out to put the anarchist theoretical corpus in order, to find a philosophical basis other than Bakunin’s, to give it biological roots, to establish libertarian communism as its ultimate goal, and to spread a scientistic optimism that took root more than anything else in the oppressed masses. He was the most widely read and influential author in the history of anarchism.

Kropotkin reshaped anarchism as a materialist, scientistic, evolutionist, atheist and progressive philosophy, culminating in an ethics that he never finished. The English philosophers and the discoveries of 18th century science, and naturally Darwin, provided him with the material on which he built his ideological edifice, where scientific progress acquired the rank of a determining force instead of class struggle. In his pamphlet “Modern Science and Anarchism”, he said: “Anarchism is an attempt to apply to the study of the human institutions the generalizations gained by means of the natural-scientific inductive method; and an attempt to foresee the future steps of mankind on the road to liberty, equality, and fraternity, with a view to realizing the greatest sum of happiness for every unit of human society.” Elsewhere, in essay, he insisted on the same: “Anarchism is a world-concept based upon a mechanical explanation of all phenomena, embracing the whole of Nature — that is, including in it the life of human societies and their economic, political, and moral problems.” In his article for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he stuck to the classics and defined anarchism as “a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.”

Carlo Cafiero, a comrade to Bakunin, had a more dynamic concept of anarchism: “Anarchy today is an attack, a war against all authority, against all power, against all States. In future societies, anarchy will be a defense, the prevention brought against the reestablishment of all authority, of all power, of any State.” Anarchy and communism went hand in hand, as did the demand for freedom and the demand for equality (“Anarchy and Communism”, 1880). Nevertheless, the metaphysical distinction between libertarian communism and anarchy itself, that some made, required new clarifications. For Charles Malato, a disciple, anarchy was the complement of communism, “a state in which the governmental hierarchy is replaced by the free association of individuals and groups; the law is imperative for all and voluntary contracts are of unlimited duration; the end of the hegemony of fortune and rank, by universalisation and well-being and the equivalence of functions, and finally, the present, hypocritically ferocious morality to be replaced by a higher morality which will naturally flow from the new order of things” (“Philosophy of Anarchism.”) The absence of any indication of the way to reach this paradise of freedom is noteworthy; along with the way in which everyday action, not to speak of revolution, were bypassed. Agitators like Pelloutier and Pouget were perfectly aware of the danger of methodological vagueness concerning the daily struggle and invited anarchists to join the unions.

Malatesta chose a middle path that included, in addition to the strike, insurrection, and in addition labour unions, other factors of struggle. In the pages of “La Protesta” (Buenos Aires), he referred to the society of the future as “a rationally organised society in which no one has the means to subjugate and oppress others.” And he defined anarchism as “the method to achieve anarchy by means of freedom, without government, without anyone – even someone with good intentions – imposing his will on others.” He derived it from a single principle: love of humanity. According to Malatesta’s humanist conception, one was an anarchist by feeling rather than by reasoned conviction, therefore, philosophy and science had little to do with it, no more than did historical development or economic conditions. It was a question of will. Anyone could be an anarchist, whatever their philosophical beliefs or scientific knowledge; it was enough to want to be one. He declared himself an anarcho-communist. Regarding anarchy, in the pamphlet of the same name, he described it as “the condition of a people who live without a constituted authority”, “a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities.” Throughout his life, Malatesta had to speak a great deal about the ideal, anarchy, “a society founded on free agreement, where each individual could achieve the maximum possible development”, which he did not distinguish from libertarian communism: “the organisation of social life by the work of free associations and federations of producers and consumers.” In his last writings, he confirmed what he had been saying throughout his life: “anarchy is a way of social coexistence in which human beings live as brothers, without anyone oppressing or exploiting others and everyone having at their disposal the means that the civilization of the time grants to reach the highest level of moral and material development.” Contrary to most of the ideal’s propagators, Malatesta insisted that the way to achieve anarchy was through the organisation of anarchists around a programme, using the revolutionary arsenal to abolish the State and “all political organisation based on authority.” The means had to be in accordance with the ends. If the latter were revolutionary, the former would have to be as well.

Anarchist militancy in labour unions shifted collective action into the sphere of the economy, further distancing itself from politics. The sowing of the ideal among the exploited had a spiritual child: revolutionary syndicalism. The Amiens Charter of 1906, its birth certificate, enshrined the primary function of syndicalism, not only in the struggle for better working conditions, but in the preparation “for integral emancipation, which can only be achieved through capitalist expropriation; it advocates the general strike as a means of action and considers that the union, today a resistance group, will in the future be the production and distribution organisation, the basis of social organisation.” In order to avoid any misunderstandings, one of the main theorists of this type of syndicalism, opposed to political and reformist syndicalism, Pierre Besnard, referred to the union as “the organic form that Anarchy takes to fight against capitalism.” In Spain, the country where the workers’ movement was most closely linked to anarchism, Salvador Seguí stated that the union was “the weapon, the instrument of anarchism, to put into practice the most immediate aspects of its doctrine.” Thus, it was more congruent to speak of anarcho-syndicalism, according to Rocker, another theorist and founder of the IWA of 1923, as “the result of the fusion of anarchism and revolutionary trade union action.” After Kropotkin and fifteen others joined the Allied side in the First World War, the anarchists had no choice but to force their anti-militarism, and the trade union confederation was the most suitable mass organisation to get anarchist ideas out of the metaphysical and warlike hole that it had been taken into. Concrete economic objectives such as the abolition of monopolies, the expropriation of land and the means of production, collective work, socialist distribution, the suppression of wages and money, etc., progressively displaced liberal rhetoric and the commonplaces of individualism, in the propaganda of the “idea.” Unfortunately, other themes such as the Magonist influence on the Mexican peasantry, the Workers’ Council as a class organization in the German revolution, the crushing of anarchism in Russia – particularly the defeat of the Makhnovist insurrectionary movement – ??or the Bolshevist splits in the anarchist workers’ movement in Latin America, had very little presence in the libertarian and syndicalist press. Anarchism was able to survive as a movement thanks to its connection with the workers, but except in Spain, it did not achieve sufficient strength to resist the onset of fascism.

In the 1920s, a covert war between syndicalist, communist and individualist anarchists was raging, blocking any attempt at specific organisation. The remedy proposed by the Makhnovist exiles, the “Archinov platform”, was worse than the disease. An organisation resembling a political party inspired many misgivings about making its way into anarchist groups. Sébastien Faure proposed a “synthetic” organisation, which would leave things as they were. It was more of a non-aggression pact, a sweetening of the rarefied atmosphere in the style of anarchism “without adjectives”. His definition of anarchism was equal to his proposal: “it is the highest and purest expression of the reaction of the individual against the political, economic and moral oppression imposed upon him by all authoritarian institutions, and on the other hand, the firmest and most precise affirmation of the right of every individual to his integral development through the satisfaction of needs in all areas.” (“The Anarchist Synthesis”) But more or less banal discussions never left the libertarian milieu. Polemics about legality and pacifism were constant. Byzantine conflicts between communist purists and “exasperated liberals” (Georges Darien dixit) also did not cease to occur. Ideology set its traps. Chapels were often formed, secondary details and peripheral aspects were insisted upon, the self was apostatized in meetings that lasted to the point of boredom, principles were raised with paralyzing intent, the organisation was boycotted by branding it oppressive, any binding agreement was described as authoritarian and any historical reflection as useless… . There was simply too much mental confusion, too much narcissism, too many doctrinal dogmas and empty formulas, which by the 1930s led anarchism to shipwreck. In reality, this type of anarchism detested action and was content with simulations. It was necessary for Camillo Berneri to appear to denounce (in “L’Adunata dei Refratari”) what he called “anarchist cretinism” and to dedicate himself to critically treating social reality in order to make the era intelligible – anarchism included – a prerequisite for trying to change it. Logically, he was not very concerned with posterity (“anarchy is religion”, he once said) and more with giving real answers to concrete problems, whether or not they clashed with orthodoxy. He spoke provocatively of a “libertarian State” by showing real anarchy as a totally decentralized federal administrative structure. His works always dealt with precise problems or urgent theoretical questions, never or almost never with principles or purposes. Unfortunately, there were not many like him. Berneri’s assassination in May 1937 deprived anarchism of its most lucid mind.

The Spanish Civil War was both the high point of anarchism (the militias, the anti-fascist committees, socialisation) and the abyss into which it plunged (the idea that revolutionary conquests were best defended by retreating). Many sacred cows remained silent, and even showed understanding towards the “circumstantialism” of the CNT-FAI leadership bureaucracy. The real split in anarchism occurred between the unconditional supporters of the collaborationist policy of the CNT leadership and the critical supporters of the Spanish libertarians. After Franco’s victory, the ideology could not return to the Iberian arena as if nothing had happened, if its followers did not first take stock of the failed revolution and the monstrous state anarchism that the capitulations of 1936-37 gave rise to. They did not do so and the consequences are still being paid today. Despite all the difficulties, the historical exhaustion of anarchism, as it could be conceived in the years before the Second World War, has not meant the death of the ideal, but the impossibility of its reformulation in the same terms as those of the past. For example, Kropotkin’s confidence in science and faith in moral progress are untenable. Old-fashioned trade unionism has been put out of play. Futurist visions of anarchism from other times seem tremendously puerile today. With the dissolution of the traditional workers’ movement and the penetration of capital into all corners of life, anarchism re-emerges, less as a postmodern ideology than as a diffuse state of mind, turning to feminism, the working environment, ruralism, anti-development, popular culture and alternative education. In these areas, it will have to coordinate, find new practical modalities of anti-capitalist combat and prepare theoretical weapons to confront the identitarian reaction, with its harmful ideas about power and truth, gender and sex, religion and race, language and food; with its essentialisation of differences, its anti-universalism, its relativism, its fictitious enemies, its technophilia… Unless it prefers to wallow in the rubbish offered by irrational and sectarian creeds that, to crown the confusion, also call themselves anarchist, even though they are not.

Miguel Amorós, August 1, 2024


We have previously published a number of essays by Miguel Amorós and The Anarchist Library website holds a large collection of his work.

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Miguel Amorós: What is anarchism?

  1. Julius Gavroche says:

    Thank you.

    In solidarity,

    Autonomies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.