List of anarchist communities

Template:Merge to Template:Anarchism sidebar An anarchist community is any society or portion thereof that functions according to anarchist principles.

Throughout history, anarchists have been involved in a wide variety of communities. While there are only a few instances of large scale "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions, there are examples of societies throughout history that have functioned according to various anarchist principles.

Recent history

In recent history there have been instances in which a society peacefully organizes itself without a government or other form of centralized power, along philosophically anarchist lines. A functioning society would then maintain peace without a state. Research of past anarchist or semi-anarchist societies is complicated by "a governmental bias in the working methods of historians."-Murray Rothbard.

Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262)

Classical ("Thing system") Iceland (also called the Icelandic Commonwealth or the Icelandic Free State) was an example of society where elements of society that were not communal, such as police and justice, were procured by purchasing them. Author Jared Diamond has written

Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor.

Prominent anarcho-capitalist writer David D. Friedman featured classical Iceland in his book The Machinery of Freedom, and has written other papers about it.

Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one. Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens.

This Icelandic "Thing system" survived for several centuries. It was eventually destroyed by the Christian church, which bought up all the godards (defense agencies) creating a state monopoly. For market anarchist scholar Roderick Long, this illustrates a flaw in the thing system which differentiates it from pure anarcho-capitalism - new "startup" mutual defense units were not allowed.

The social anarchist authors of An Anarchist FAQ took issue with Friedman's portrayal of the period, arguing that the Icelandic system was pre-capitalist in nature with numerous communal institutions. Friedman accused them of misconstruing his position and not caring whether what they published was true. The authors of the FAQ admitted to making mistakes, but rejected the notion that they were uninterested in the truth, and maintained their analysis that Iceland was a communal system.

Rhode Island (1636–1648)

Religious dissenter Roger Williams founded the colony of Providence, Rhode Island after being run out of the theocratic Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Unlike the Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local Indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace."

While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander, Anne Hutchinson, was. Hutchinson and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638, bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being anarchists, and Governor John Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth." Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own, Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."

In 1648, Warwick joined with the other three towns of Rhode Island to form the colony of the "Providence Plantation." From that time on Rhode Island had a government; this government, however, was far more democratic and libertarian than existed elsewhere in the American colonies. In a letter to Sir Henry Vane penned in the mid-1650s, Williams wrote, "we have not known what an excise means; we have almost forgotten what tithes are, yea, or taxes either, to church or commonwealth."

Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681–1690)

When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon Treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.

Libertatia (1670s–1690s)

Libertatia was a legendary free colony forged by pirates and the pirate Captain Misson, although some historians have expressed doubts over its existence outside of literature. Historian and activist Marcus Rediker describes the pirates as follows:

These pirates who settled in Libertalia would be "vigilant Guardians of the People's Rights and Liberties"; they would stand as "Barriers against the Rich and Powerful" of their day. By waging war on behalf of "the Oppressed" against the "Oppressors," they would see that "Justice was equally distributed."

The pirates were against the various forms of authoritarian social constructs of their day, monarchies, slavery, and capital. The pirates practiced forms of direct democracy, where the people as a whole held the authority to make laws and rules, and used systems of councils with delegates, who were supposed to think of themselves as "comerads" of the general population, and not rulers. The pirates created a new language for their colony and operated a socialist economy.

[The] pirates were anti-capitalist, opposed to the dispossession that necessarily accompanied the historic ascent of wage labor and capitalism. They insisted that "every Man was born free, and had as much Right to what would support him, as to the Air he respired." They resented the "encroachments" by which "Villains" and "unmerciful Creditors" grew "immensely rich" as others became "wretchedly miserable." They spoke of the "Natural right" to "a Share of the Earth as is necessary for our Support." They saw piracy as a war of self-preservation. [They redefined the] fundamental relations of property and power. They had no need for money "where every Thing was in common, and no Hedge bounded any particular Man's Property," and they decreed that "the Treasure and Cattle they were Masters of should be equally divided."

Misson's crews often were half white and black. The pirates have been reported to have freed enslaved people because the idea of slavery went against their own ideals of freedom.

Although the existence of Libertatia is contested, the radical ideas that it represented were very common in various pirate-era events. After the American Revolution, pirates fleeing from England crashed on an island and set up their own Libertatia. They called their new island "the Republic of Spensonia", and according to A. L. Morton, it "looks backward to the medieval commune and forward to the withering away of the state."

Free Territory (Ukraine) (1918-1921)

In March 1918, Russia (led by the Bolsheviks), the Ukrainian People's Republic, and the Central Powers, signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to pull Russia out of World War I. The Treaty resulted in the occupation of the territory of the weak Ukrainian state by the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. This was done without consulting Ukrainian population. Various insurgence groups arose, including the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, led by the anarcho-communist Nestor Makhno. They won popular support due to their attacks on the Austro-Hungarian puppet-leader Hetman Skoropadsky and the Nationalist Petliurists.

Although the movement was forced to spend great energy and resources to fight off the invaders, they still managed to carry out a social revolution according to the principles of anarchism.

It seemed as though a giant grate composed of bayonets shuttled back and forth across the region, from North to South and back again, wiping out all traces of creative social construction. [Arshinov]

The Makhnovists aimed for a true social revolution in which the working classes (both urban and rural) could actively manage their own affairs and society. Their social program aimed to eliminate both the state and private property because oppression had its roots in both political and economic power. At the core of their social ideas was the principle of working-class autonomy, the idea that the liberation of working-class people must be done by the working-class people themselves. This vision is at the heart of anarchism and was expressed most elegantly by Makhno:

Conquer or die– such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we will not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years, the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our own hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and our own conception of the truth.

Around Gulyai-Polye (Makhno’s birthplace), several communes sprang up. Several regional congresses of peasants and workers were organized. A general statute supporting the creation of 'free soviets' (elected councils of workers', soldiers' and peasants' delegates) was passed, though little could be done towards its implementation in much of the Ukraine because of the constantly changing battlefront.

The Makhnovist movement consisted almost entirely of poor peasants and in contradiction to the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, the Makhnovists were very popular. Wherever they came, they were enthusiastically greeted by the population, who provided food, lodging and information on the enemy. The Bolsheviks and Whites relied on terror, imprisoning and killing thousands of peasants.

It is rare for a group of anarchists to be named after an individual. This occurred because the movement, although inspired by Anarchism, contained few people who had solidly defined their anarchist views. The movement encouraged learning and political discussion, but most combatants and supporters still called themselves Makhnovists and the name stuck.

The Makhnovist movement was quite a threat to the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks clung to the idea that the “masses” were unable to carry out a social revolution on their own and perform self-management. This was proven wrong by the Makhnovist movement, prompting Bolshevik attacks. Even in the military area it seemed that the anarchist answer was superior. The Makhnovists defeated on several occasions armies up to 30 times their size, and had great morale.Template:citation needed The army was organized according to three main principles:

Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.

The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.

Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."

Autonomous Shinmin region (1929–1932)

The apex of Korean anarchism came in late 1929 outside the actual borders of the country, in Manchuria. Over two million Korean immigrants lived in Manchuria at the time when the Korean Anarchist Communist Federation (KACF) declared the Shinmin province autonomous and under the administration of the Korean People’s Association. The decentralized, federative structure the association adopted consisted of village councils, district councils and area councils, all of which operated in a cooperative manner to deal with agriculture, education, finance and other vital issues. An Army to fight for the defense of Shinmin was also set up and spearheaded by the prominent Korean Anarchist Kim Jwa-jin which had great successes against the Imperial Japanese Army and the Bolshevik Red Army, using hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. KACF sections in China, Korea, Japan and elsewhere devoted all their energies towards the success of the Shinmin Rebellion, most of them actually relocating there. Dealing simultaneously with the Soviet Union's attempts to overthrow the Shinmin autonomous region and Japan’s imperialist attempts to claim the region for itself, the Korean anarchists had been crushed by 1932Template:citation needed.

Spanish Revolution (1936–1938)

In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, there was a profound libertarian socialist revolution throughout Spain.

Much of Spain's economy was put under direct worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life– snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.– had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", without any Marxist dogma attached. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely egalitarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. It is generally held that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.

In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of free love became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.

Anarchist Catalonia (1936–1939)

Anarchist Catalonia (July 21, 1936 â€“ February 10, 1939) was the stateless territory and anarchist society in part of the territory of modern Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, because Catalonia was one of the most industrializated zones of Spain, the collectivizations were mostly on urban zones (factories, cinemas, restaurants...).

Anarchist Aragon (1936–1937)

Anarchist Aragon (October 6, 1936 â€“ August 10, 1937) was the stateless territory and anarchist society in the eastern part of the territory of modern Aragon during the Spanish Civil War. That was the territory conquered by the anarchist forces (Durruti Column, South-Ebro Column) that came from Barcelona at the first months of the war. The collectivizations in this territory were mainly in agrarian areas, because it was a rural zone.

Hungarian Revolution (1956)

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 can be seen as an excellent example of a functioning anarchy. From October 22, 1956, Hungarian workers refused to obey their managers or their government, in the face of authoritarian soviet rule. Claiming sovereignty for their own workers' councils they organized economic, military and social production on an increasing scale. An example of the anarchic social organization was that vast sums of money were freely donated for injured revolutionary fighters, and that this money was left unattended in the street for days at a time. Peasants supplied the workers with food on a voluntary basis. Between October 22 and December 14 Hungary's economy and society was governed by the democratic opinion of workers councils and voluntary associations.

These councils constantly increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student associations affiliated to the body. The attempts to form a national Workers Council were crushed by Soviet military violence. The workers councils fought off one invasion by the Soviet Union between October 23 and 28, and fought a second invasion to an armistice of exhaustion between November 3 and November 10. After this time the Soviet Union negotiated directly with the Workers Councils. However, arrests of the primary and reserve leaderships of the CWC-GB, and massive reprisal executions and deportations of Hungarian revolutionaries lead to voluntary dissolution of the CWC-GB as it was no longer able to uphold its aims and ideals. Sporadic resistance by Hungarian revolutionaries and workers continued until mid 1957. Only one self-proclaimed anarchist, the playwright Julius Hay (Hay Gyula), was involved in organizing the revolution. Most revolutionary Hungarians adopted their own "anarchist" way of organizing spontaneously.

Israeli Kibbutz Movement

The Kibbutz movement was an outgrowth out of socialist strands of the Zionist Movement, many of which stressed Arab-Jewish cooperation. The movement revolved around anarchist principles of non-hierarchy, self-management of production, and direct democracy. The early kibbutz collectives could be seen to be following the doctrine of, "...from each according to ability, to each according to need". New people joining the collective farms, however, were expected to give up most of their assets to the greater whole.

"... a voluntary collective community, mainly agricultural, in which there is no private wealth and which is responsible for all the needs of its members and their families." (Encyclopedia Judaica, 1969)

"...an organization for settlement which maintains a collective society of members organized on the basis of general ownership of possessions. Its aims are self-labor, equality and cooperation in all areas of production, consumption and education." (Legal definition in the Cooperative Societies Register)

The early kibbutzim were examples of a close-knit egalitarian community, based on common ownership of the means of production and consumption, where all, conferring together, made decisions by majority vote and bore responsibility for all. Decisions were generally made during general assembly dinners, and direct democracy was used to come to consensus. In discussions, which often continued late into the night, members would decide how to allocate the following day's work, guard duties, kitchen chores and other tasks, as well as debate problems and make decisions. Beyond farm land and dining halls, many centers included offices, sports areas, libraries, and entertainment areas.

When kibbutzim were smaller, social and cultural life was characterized by togetherness and being "one big family". This found expression in the high involvement of members in planning, organizing and carrying out activities, which ranged from campfires and nature walks to choirs and folk dancing. Each kibbutz appointed a cultural director to plan and coordinate events.

After the creation of the state of Israel, the kibbutz movement began to become much more hierarchical and wage-labor based. Ideas of egalitarianism still existed, but became seen as not as important. To this date however, hundreds of thousands of people have existed and worked in worker-self-managed kibbutz farms.

The Kibbutz movement deviates from anarchist philosophy. The Kibbutz system is highly organized in a more oligarchical way and quite democratically. The economic system paired with anarchy, communism, is a classical pairing not in accordance with the actual definitions of the words. The kibbutz system can be viewed as an example of an effective form of socialist economic policy controlled by oligarchical democracy, and in many cases direct democracy with participation by all members.

Freetown Christiania (1971–present)

File:Entrée de Christiania.jpg

One of the two main entrances to Freetown Christiania.

Christiania was founded in 1971, when a group of hippie squatters occupied an abandoned military barracks in Copenhagen, Denmark. One of the more influential people involved was Jacob Ludvigsen, who published an anarchist newspaper which widely proclaimed the establishment of the free town. The people of Christiania developed their own set of rules—independent of the Danish government—which include the prohibition of cars, stealing, guns, bulletproof vests and hard drugs. Cameras are not allowed, and locals will wave their hands and shout "No photo!" if they see a picture being taken. Famous for its main drag, known as "Pusher Street" as hash was sold openly from permanent stands until 2004. Such commerce is controversial, but cannot be removed without complete community consensus. For years the legal status of the region was in limbo, as the Danish government attempted, without success, to remove the squatters.

The neighborhood is accessible only through two main entrances, and cars are not allowed. Danish authorities have repeatedly removed the large stones blocking the entrance, which have been replaced each time by residents. The authorities claim that the area must be accessible for safety concerns, but the residents suspect that it will instead be used by the police. The town negotiated an arrangement with the Danish defense ministry, the legal owners of the location, in 1995, resulting in resident taxation. The future of the area remains in doubt, as Danish authorities continue to push for its removal.

The inhabitants fight back with humour and persistence—for instance, when authorities in 2002 demanded that the hash trade be made less visible, the stands were covered in military camouflage nets. On January 4, 2004, the stands were finally demolished by the owners themselves (without stopping the hash trade as such, which continued on a person-to-person basis) as a way of persuading the government to allow the Free Town to continue to exist. Before they were demolished, the National Museum of Denmark was able to obtain one of the more colourful stands, and now includes it as part of an exhibit.

Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (1994-present)

The indigenous peoples of Southern Mexico rebelled in 1994, partially in response to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), reclaiming their lands in what is called "a war against oblivion".

Laws in the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities are not passed by "leaders", as such, but by "Good Government Councils" and by the will of the people (representatives in these councils are truly representative of their communities, rather than professional politicians). This is very similar to the delegate structure that many anarchists engage in with spokescouncils, or with unions. In many communities, general assemblies gather during the week to decide on various things facing the community. The assemblies are open to all, with no formal hierarchy. The decisions made by the communities are passed to elected delegates whose only job is to give the decided upon information to a council of delegates. Like anarcho-syndicalist organizations, the delegates are recallable, and are also rotated. This way, massive numbers of people are able to decide things with no formal hierarchy, and without people speaking for them.

The assemblies and councils serve not as traditional governing bodies but as instruments of the people to provide medicine, education, food, and other essentials. The "laws" passed by the Good Government Councils are not enforced with policemen and prisons, but in a way that respects "criminals" as members of the community. For example, it was decided to ban alcohol and drugs, due to their nefarious influence on Indians in the past (though alcohol/drug prohibition is considered in conflict with anarchist principles). Violation of this law is surprisingly rare; those who do may be required, for example, to help build something their community needs. Some anarchists believe this to be a decentralized, non-authoritarian style similar to what they advocate, having always loathed prisons, police power, and capital punishment.

Like anarchists, Zapatistas also believe in forming freely associated collectives to carry out various jobs and tasks. Zapatistas collectively work land, and plant and grow crops. The Zapatistas do not claim to be anarchists, but through their actions and words, have shown some similarities to self-proclaimed anarchists and have become a cause célebre of the global left and the "anti-globalization movement". However, the Zapatistas, along with libertarian Marxism and traditional Zapatismo (which is almost identical to anarchism), have also been heavily influenced by the writings and actions of Ricardo Flores Magón, or "Magonism", who was an anarcho-communist during the Mexican Revolution.

Revolts and uprisings with anarchist qualities

Instances of anarchist and anti-authoritarian systems of operation during periods of uprisings and revolts against authoritarian governments.

Italian Factory Occupations and Councils

After the First World War, Europe’s working class became massively radicalized. Union membership exploded, and strikes, demonstrations and uprisings increasing. Italy was no exception. Its workers were angry with the fall-out from the war and were getting increasingly militant. In Turin, and all across Italy, a rank and file workers’ movement was growing which was based around ‘internal commissions’. These were based on a group of people in a workshop with a mandated and recallable shop steward for every 15-20 workers. The shop stewards in one factory would then elect their ‘internal commission’ which was recallable to them. This was known as the ‘factory council’, and is a structure of direct democracy practiced and proposed by anarcho-syndicalists (and through spokescouncils by modern-day anarchists).

By November 1918, these commissions had become a national issue within the trade union movement and by February 1919, the Italian Federation of Metal Workers (FIOM) won a contract to allow the commissions in their workplaces. They then tried to transform these commissions into councils with a managerial function. By May 1919, they “were becoming the dominant force within the metalworking industry and the unions were in danger of becoming marginal administrative units”. (Carl Levy, Gramsci and the Anarchists) Though these developments happened largely in Turin, this militancy swept Italy. Peasants and workers seized factories and land. In Liguria, after a breakdown in pay talks, metal and shipbuilding workers occupied and ran their plants for four days.

During this period, the Italian Syndicalist Union (USI) grew to 800,000 members and the influence of the Italian Anarchist Union grew accordingly (it had 20,000 members and a newspaper, Umanità Nova). Welsh Marxist Gwyn Williams says in his book Proletarian Order: “Anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists were the most consistently…revolutionary group on the left…The syndicalists above all captured militant working-class opinion which the socialist movement was utterly failing to capture.” Anarchists were the first to suggest occupying workplaces. Errico Malatesta wrote in Umanità Nova in March 1920: “General strikes of protest no longer upset anyone…We put forward an idea: take-over of factories…the method certainly has a future, because it corresponds to the ultimate ends of the workers’ movement”.

Bosses' organizations denounced factory councils for encouraging “indiscipline” among workers and asked the government to intervene. The state backed the bosses, who began to enforce existing industrial regulations. The big showdown was in April. When several shop stewards were sacked at Fiat, the workers staged a sit-in strike. The bosses responded with a lockout which the government supported by deploying troops and placing mounted machine gun posts outside the factory. After two weeks on strike, the workers surrendered. The employers then responded with the demands that the FIOM contract should be re-imposed along with managerial control. These demands were aimed at destroying the factory council system and the workers of Turin responded with a general strike in defense of it. Workers called on Marxist and socialist unions and parties to spread the strike, but they refused, and the anarcho-syndicalist groups were the only ones to act. In the end, control was given back to the bosses with the help of authoritarian socialist groups, and many of the main anarchist organizers were arrested.

Situationist and Worker/Student Occupation Movement (May 1968)

Following months of conflicts between students and authorities at the University of Paris at Nanterre, the administration shut down that university on May 2, 1968. Students at the University of the Sorbonne in Paris met on May 3 to protest the closure and the threatened expulsion of several students at Nanterre. Prominent student activist Daniel Cohn-Bendit rose to the limelight. Police were called in and finally prevailed, but only after arresting hundreds of students.

On Monday, May 6, the national student union and the union of university teachers called a march to protest the police invasion of the Sorbonne. More than 20,000 students, teachers and supporters marched towards the Sorbonne under red and black flags, still sealed off by the police. The police charged, wielding their batons, as soon as the marchers approached. While the crowd dispersed, some began to create barricades out of whatever was at hand, while others threw paving stones, forcing the police to retreat for a time. The police then responded with tear gas and charged the crowd again. Hundreds more students were arrested.

High school students started to go out on strike in support of the students at the Sorbonne and Nanterre on May 6. Student Occupation collectives, general assemblies, and committees started to take over the Sorbonne, the teachers and whole system was attacked, and the church was looked upon with contempt. vandalism and posters was used as a way of communication and propaganda and became one of the main uses of distributing information during the revolt. General Assemblies at the Sorbonne were carried out every night, (generally, sometimes waiting for marches, etc), and students volunteered or elected various groups into action collectives that carried out various tasks. The people within the various groups had to be re-elected at various times and could be recalled. One of the most influential of the groups of students was the Enragers, who also worked directly with the Situationist International (SI), which was an autonomous Marxist group that had much of an organizational view like that of anarcho-syndicalism. Situationism rejected the state, and all hierarchical organization. It had an expanded vision of Marx's theories on the alienation created by capitalist society on workers and consumers. Although Situationists made up only a small number of people involved with the revolt, their ideas and forms of organization would spotlight them as a critical group.

Soon, wildcat strikes took over many French factories in solidarity with the student strikers, and went against the wishes of the labor leaders, who were under Stalinist (Communist Party) control. Millions of workers went on strike, occupied their factories, and a social revolution began. Workers' councils were formed on factory floors and began to make contacts and networks with the student assemblies. Councils were generally large assemblies of all workers without a hierarchy. "Committee for the Maintenance of Occupations" (which included Enragers and Situationists), grew out of the student assemblies at the Sorbonne, and worked to carry out occupation of buildings, help with various workers strikes, and produced massive amounts of propaganda, most of it advocating for the creation and power of the workers councils and self-management. Goods and services were traded and shared, money began to disappear to some extent, and direct democracy, and the creation of councils of students and workers carried out decisions along with general assemblies which used to be done by the state and the authoritarian unions. Militant resistance to the police and capital (including periodic destruction of police cars and vans, and the sacking of a stock exchange building), drew together thousands of workers and students, and many of the battles lasted through the night. Large sections of French working society began to come under the influence of anti-authoritarian principles of mutual aid, self-management, and direct democracy. For example, nurses organized against bureaucratic doctors, soccer players kicked out their managers, and grave diggers occupied the cemeteries. Large masses of people largely rejected a modern, commodity-driven capitalist society in favor of something new.

Infighting and desire by authoritarian Marxist groups (i.e., Maoists, Stalinists, etc.) to control the student assemblies and groups destroyed much of the direct democracy at the university. The infighting and sectionalism was so bad that many of the anti-authoritarian groups left the university to work out of occupied government buildings. The Stalinist Union labor leaders also tried to get the solidarity between the students and the workers to end, calling the rioters and Situationists various names, and said that they were not to be trusted. They also tried to get the workers back into the factories and end the strike, partly to make sure that they could gain power in the upcoming elections, and also to regain control over the working class - as opposed to having the workers control and manage their own destiny. The French President left the country, but returned late in May and met with Communist Party leaders. He challenged the strikers and students to a civil war if they refused to end the occupation and strikes. Few of the workers were prepared to engage in armed struggle against a very powerful state, and with the constant orders of the labor leaders, many of the strikers went back to work, and the occupied buildings were retaken.

Polish revolution/Solidarity 1980–1982

Template:Unreferenced section Template:Confusing In 1980, a revolt against the Soviet Polish government was initiated by Gdańsk Shipyard workers though the Solidarity independent trade union. It triggered large-scale discussion inside and outside Solidarity about various conceptions of "workers' self-government" i.e. workers councils and forms of industrial democracy. The old Communist party-controlled Conferences of Workers Self-Government (KSR) set up in 1958 were totally ineffectual to most of the workers. Large factories took the lead,Template:Clarify and a survey conducted by Solidarity activists found that 95% of respondents in factories employing more than 1000 people favoured self-government, and 68% of the whole sample wanted Solidarity to start building them at once. In March 1981, a "Network" of these initiatives was forming and by May the biggest enterprises in Poland (including the Gdansk and Warski shipyards) were represented through this movement. By July, there were 3000 enterprises linked this way. The Network proposed - "Social ownership of the means of production should mean just that: ownership by society, not the state. A similar network was organized in Lubin. Within 2 years this movement had faded with the domination of the "national independence" issue (the freeing of Poland from Russian and Warsaw Pact interference) and the increasing power of nationalism and pro-capitalist factions within Solidarity.

Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities

The indigenous peoples of Southern Mexico rebelled in 1994, partially in response to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), reclaiming their lands in what is called "a war against oblivion".

[2]

Laws in the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities are not passed by "leaders", as such, but by "Good Government Councils" and by the will of the people (representatives in these councils are truly representative of their communities, rather than professional politicians). This is very similar to the delegate structure that many anarchists engage in with spokescouncils, or with unions. In many communities, general assemblies gather during the week to decide on various things facing the community. The assemblies are open to all, with no formal hierarchy. The decisions made by the communities are passed to elected delegates whose only job is to give the decided upon information to a council of delegates.Template:Clarify Like anarcho-syndicalist organizations, the delegates are recallable, and are also rotated. This way, massive numbers of people are able to decide things with no formal hierarchy, and without people speaking for them.

The assemblies and councils serve not as traditional governing bodies but as instruments of the people to provide medicine, education, food, and other essentials. The "laws" passed by the Good Government Councils are not enforced with policemen and prisons, but in a way that respects "criminals" as members of the community. For example, it was decided to ban alcohol and drugs, due to their nefarious influence on Indians in the past (though alcohol/drug prohibition is considered in conflict with anarchist principles). Violation of this law is surprisingly rare; those who do may be required, for example, to help build something their community needs. Some anarchists believe this to be a decentralized, non-authoritarian style similar to what they advocate, having always loathed prisons, police power, and capital punishment.

Like anarchists, Zapatistas also believe in forming freely associated collectives to carry out various jobs and tasks. Zapatistas collectively work land, and plant and grow crops. The Zapatistas do not claim to be anarchists, but through their actions and words, have shown some similarities to self-proclaimed anarchists and have become a cause célebre of the global left and the "anti-globalization movement". However, the Zapatistas, along with libertarian Marxism and traditional Zapatismo (which is almost identical to anarchism), have also been heavily influenced by the writings and actions of Ricardo Flores Magón, or "Magonism", who was an anarcho-syndicalist during the Mexican Revolution.

Argentina (2001–2002)

After the collapse of the Argentine economy, coupled with riots and finally the fall of the government in the last days of 2001, the social and economic organization of Argentina underwent major changes. Argentina was once a shining example of free market reforms and structural adjustment programs ("the IMF's best pupil"). However, after the economy crashed, the IMF responded by demanding that more social programs (health care, schools, etc) be cut, and more things be privatized. Massive popular rebellion erupted.

Out of the uprisings came many popular organs of self-management and direct democracy. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. Approximately 250+ "recovered" factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. Over 10,000 people work in factories with little or no management or hierarchy. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. Decisions are made by all workers, in general assembly type structures. These co-operatives have organized themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups, such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups, have often been important for the survival of these factories. Unemployed workers elsewhere have also organized takeovers of plots of vacant land, and taken them back for housing and growing food.

A survey by an Argentina newspaper in the capital found that around 1/3 of the population had participated in general assemblies. The assemblies used to take place in street corners and public spaces, and generally gathered to discuss ways of helping each other in the face of eviction, or organizing around issues like health care, collective food buying, or conducting free food distribution programs. Some assemblies started to create new structures of health care and schooling, to replace the old ones that were not working. Neighborhood assemblies met once a week in a large assembly to discuss issues affecting the larger community. In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (Author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take, about these events.

Popular assemblies gradually died out as the economy began to recover. However, activism has continued. The piqueteros and unemployed worker movements have become organized and often adopted a radical left-wing ideology. Some middle-class Argentinians, especially in Buenos Aires, now regard piqueteros as violent and disruptive, due to the continuous road blocks and massive demonstrations they stage in the capital.

Abahlali baseMjondolo: South Africa (2005–present)

Abahlali baseMjondolo is a movement of shack dwellers and is active in 36 shack settlements in Durban, Pinetown and Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. It has instituted popular democratic rule in all settlements where the movement is dominant. The movement has refused electoral politics in favour of decentralised popular people's power.

All major decisions are taken in open assemblies and all elected positions are for one year-terms and people can be recalled. People elected to official positions are not elected to represent those who voted for them but rather to ensure that there is democratic decision making on all issues related to their portfolio. The movement faces constant violent and unlawful police harassment.

The film 'The Take' was screened in one of the most famous Abahlali baseMjondolo communities, Kennedy Road, in 2005. Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis were present.

Local communities

• Utopia, Ohio
• Brentwood, New York (originally "Modern Times")Template:Citation needed
• Whiteway Colony
• Stapleton Colony Template:Or
• Life and Labor Commune Template:Or

See also

Wikipedia:Template:Portal boxWikipedia:Template:AnarchismWikipedia:Template:CommunityWikipedia:Template:PoliticsWikipedia:Template:Social and political philosophyWikipedia:Template:Sociology

This article contains content from Wikipedia. Current versions of the GNU FDL article List of anarchist communities on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article

WP

• A-Space (community center)
• List of anarchist movements by region
• Drop City- first rural "hippie commune"
• Acephalous society - society which lacks political leaders or hierarchies
• Anarcho-primitivism - posits prehistoric societies as examples of anarchist communities
• Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - posits prehistoric societies as examples of anarchist communities

Further reading

• Amster, Randall. "Chasing Rainbows: Utopian Pragmatics and the Search for Anarchist Communities." Anarchist Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 29–52. 2001.
• _____. "Restoring (Dis)order: Sanctions, Resolutions, and 'Social Control' in Anarchist Communities." Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–24. March 2003.
• Crawford, Rick. Uneasy Spirits: 13 Ghost Stories from Clermont County, Ohio (Rhiannon Publications, 1997)
• Curl, John (2007). Memories of Drop City, The First Hippie Commune of the 1960s and the Summer of Love, a memoir. iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-42343-4. http://www.red-coral.net/DropCityIndex.html
• Horrox, James. A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement. Oakland: AK Press, 2009
• Martin, James J. Men Against the State. The Adrian Allen Associates, Dekalb, Illinois, 1953.
• Ash, Timothy Garton. "The Polish Revolution: Solidarity" by (1999) ISBN 0-300-09568-6

Modern Times

• Low Living and High Thinking at Modern Times, N.Y., by Roger Wunderlich, 1992, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, ISBN 0-8156-2554-5.
• A Century of Brentwood, by Verne Dyson, 1950, Brentwood Village Press, Brentwood, NY.
• Supplement and Index, An After-piece to A Century of Brentwood, by Verne Dyson, 1953, Brentwood Village Press, Brentwood, NY.

External links

• Anarchist FAQ - What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?
• Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution
• Pirate Utopias (Do or Die) - Piracy and Anarchism
• Anarchism in the Italian Factory Councils
• Nestor Makhno Archive, Information on Anarchism in the Russian Revolution
• Hungary's Worker's Councils
• Zapatistas Autonomous Community Councils
• Self-Management in Argentina
• Mau Mau Uprising
• People Without Government - An Anthropology of Anarchy by Harold Barclay
• Review: History of the Makhnovist Movement
• The Korean anarchist Movement