International Blacklist: An Anti-Authoritarian Directory (1983)

More recently, anarchist organizations and projects have been catalogued by the "Anarchist Yellow Pages" or Slingshot's "Radical Contact List". In earlier periods, other comparable lists existed, too. These directories open up a door into the diverse anarchist milieu, identifying curious patterns between the types of organizations and geographical spaces where they reside.

Thirty years ago, the 1983 "International Blacklist" was released. It included contact information for anarchists in dozens of countries, as well as a cross-listing for specific types of organizations. The "Blacklist" listed organizations, projects, unions, college professors, punk bands, bookshops, newspapers, and other anarcho-friendly things. While they included listings for the Catholic Worker and syndicalist unions, they [wisely] decided not to include so-called "anarcho-capitalists". The "Blacklist" also has numerous graphics, photos, and cartoons that are representative of the era.

Enjoy!

   International Blacklist: An Anti-Authoritarian Directory (1983) by anarchyandsociety

Debt, Obligation, and Sociality: A Review of David Graeber's "Debt"

[Published in the ASA section newsletter Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity Forum,  4 (1): 25-26 in 2013.]

Graeber, David. 2011. Debt: The First 5,000 Years. New York: Melville House Press.

Typically, “debt” is only viewed as an economic phenomenon, with very simple rules and principles: when someone owes another person something, then this debt is as official and non-negotiable as a contract. David Graeber dismantles this myopic conceptualization of debt via an expansive analysis of many millennia of human history. He finds that “debt” is not as simple or clear as most people assume. The most immediate observation readers will be struck by is that the etymology of many words are linked to the social concept of debt, including: honor, sin, guilt, forgiveness, reckoning, redemption, freedom, credit, and interest. It is helpful to know that the background of these words derive from centuries-old debates about debt or that their histories intersected with debt debates at some point in time.

According to Graeber, “debt” is a social obligation we hold to each other. Although debt is often considered only in monetary terms (“How much money do we owe someone for that product or service?”), it is much broader, and refers to all the ways in which we find ourselves obligated to each other (economically or otherwise). Since debt is ultimately about our social relationships, debt is therefore a social construction. The answer to the question “What do we actually owe to each other?” is never quite certain, since debt is socially-arbitrated and can, thus, be re-negotiated. Graeber goes to great lengths to demonstrate—philosophically as well as through copious anthropological evidence—that most people actually want to be in debt to each other. People enjoy doing things for each other, both feeling gracious for giving (and thus incurring other debt) as well as receiving gifts from each other (and landing in each other’s debt). Even though free-market economic theory pretends humans do not like this, the truth is that most of us actually seek out debt, because we enjoy the social relationships that come with exchange.

Much of Graeber’s Debt is focused on the oscillations between credit and money, which define general periods in human history over the last five-thousand years. Despite the popular assumption that pre-money economies operated on principles of barter (two parties exchanging things of equal value or desire), Graeber argues this is an unsubstantiated myth and that no society has ever been discovered which has operated strictly on the basis of barter. The reasons are self-evident, according to Graeber: squaring and settling one's debts indicates a lack of desire to continue associating with others (“Okay, we both have what we want, so this transaction and our relationship is completed”). Thus, if direct, bartered exchange happens it usually indicates that the people involved lacked faith in each other or are strangers, and they do not expect or wish to see the other person again. In other words, an “even trade” often indicates a lack of trust or that we are unsure of our ability to get what we are owed from that person in the future. Consequently, it is also usually uncouth, even offensive, to keep track of what friends and neighbors owe each other. This is clear in close, intimate relationships: friends or lovers who always demand an immediate, equal trade of kindness, pleasantries, or favors—and who keep track of any debt the other party has—are likely to be characterized as pathological.

Another reason why no economy has ever been based wholly upon barter is that it is generally impractical: what are the chances that two people have exactly what each other need? Instead, a loose system of “credit” is more practical; we approximate our general indebtedness to each other (at least in less-intimate relations) and we know that we can rely on the other party to help out when there is the need. A system of credit (accounting either goods or services) also mandates that we stay in each other’s debt, thereby ensuring constant interaction and sociality. This is one of Graeber’s most compelling arguments: human sociability (and, even solidarity) is premised on debt (i.e. social obligation).

Graeber dedicates a sizable portion of Debt to discussing the epochal fluctuations between credit and money, starting during the early Agrarian period, then the Axial age (sometimes called the classic age), the medieval era, the industrial age, and finally the period following Nixon's decision in 1971 to detach the US from the gold-standard. During each period, the general human relationship to debt changed. Graeber argues that money, slavery, markets, and states arise alongside each other during the Axial age, in what he calls the military-coinage-slavery complex. Most of these phenomena disappear during the medieval period, shrink, or go into latency. Yet, the industrial age rekindles them again. For example, slavery (by definition, the consequence of a debt that cannot be paid back) makes a comeback and war begins, once again, to predominate relations between large, centralizing states, all of whom resume the use of coin money.

The present-day political ramifications of Debt could scarcely be clearer: debt is not only important to economies but is also fundamental to human relationships. To eliminate all debt—such as what Right-wing forces seek for the US federal government (as in the 2011 “debt ceiling” debate in the Congress)—is not merely preposterous, but would represent a deathblow to social relations. Contrary to popularly-incanted mantras, debt is not universally bad, nor is it something to avoid at all costs. A deeper question emerges for Graeber: why do we “have to” pay back our loans, especially for those debts that are created by unethical, hierarchical practices (e.g. International Monetary Fund-created debt for poor countries, decade-long crippling student loans, or predatory home loans that end in foreclosure)? Those who hold monetary debt over people tend to be wealthy and powerful people (i.e. affiliated with banks, landlords, loan-sharks, credit card companies), and, let's face it, they can handle losing the obligation that the poor “owe” them, which creates non-free relations more akin to slavery than mutual aid.

Graeber's suggested solution to the enslaving characteristics of some debt and the socially constructed qualities that make it negotiable, is proposed at the end of Debt: he calls for a Biblical-style “Jubilee” to wipe-free the slate on these arduous forms of debt existing between unequal parties. Jubilee was a commonplace practice in many earlier periods of human history—in fact, it was regularly done, not only for purposes of social justice, but also to re-balance societies that were on the brink of revolution. The latter is likely the very thing that motivated the Saudi Arabian monarchy when it wiped-out some forms of consumer debt for its citizens, gave government employees pay raises, and offered cheap, subsidized loans—all in the wake of the Arab Spring. Autocratic regimes watched with fear as the Egyptian dictatorship was overthrown; so, instead of letting the burdens of debt become so extreme that they threaten the monarchy's hold over its citizens, the Saudi Arabian government deemed it smarter for the oil-wealth coffers to be used to soften the worst injustices of capitalism. Jubilee could help eliminate un-payable debt and thus return us to the socially-useful sort of debt that obliges us to keep working together in social communities (what Graeber simply identifies as “communism”).

While there is an abundance of wisdom to admire with Debt, Graeber's incredibly-fine attention to detail sometimes distracts from the general argument. Also, although his prose is fascinating, Graeber has the odd habit of starting nearly every single paragraph via direct, yet non-obvious reference to the prior paragraph (e.g. writing “this” without indicating exactly what previous thing he is referring to). Thus, putting down and picking-up the book makes for a discordant experience. Yet, such minor aesthetic concerns aside, Debt is not only timely and consciousness-expanding, but also an entertaining read. Students of solidarity, altruism, mutual aid, and human relations generally would benefit greatly from Debt’s insights.

Occupy a Small Southern City? No.

A local “Occupy” began in the small Southern city I live in. The folks who started it were from a student environmental group—the closest thing to an activist group on the local campus—and were joined by professors and community activists. At the first meeting I attended, someone asked: “Does anyone want to set-up an encampment somewhere?” there was silence followed by a bevy of reasons from individuals why they couldn't participate in it (thus, implying they would like to, but just couldn't). The new group of “occupiers without intent to occupy” debated the legality of a sidewalk march, looked into acquiring a permit, and even announced their route to police (who sent a bike-cop to the march). The occupiers were a remarkably self-disciplining group. I was very curious to see what all this would lead to.

The event itself inspired youthful, first-time participants, as well as elders, who expressed excitement at the number of protesters. The turn-out was relatively large, due to the influence of “bigger cities”; people had heard about #OWS in NYC and elsewhere. Very positive media coverage resulted, just as with lead-up coverage to the protest. (Very little activism takes place here and there's usually a direct regurgitation of talking-points by the media.) Attendees were a mixture of optimistic, excited newcomers and battle-scarred, cynical political veterans. People vented righteous rage, but afterward did not know how to translate it into long-term struggle. Some of us inserted some class-war flavor, including a “you are the 1%” line into the liberal, repetitive “we are the 99%” chants as we approached a Bank of America branch. The chant went great, and was the event's most intense and exciting moments. But, ultimately, the town's “Occupy” was just that: a one-time protest event, not a movement.

As always, multiple factors contribute to an outcome. In this case, certain things prevented the movement from moving forward, growing, and gaining militancy. First, low trust, experience, and stable residency existed amongst those active with Occupy. The town’s small activist “pond” caused problems: activists must interact with a small number of fellow activists who do not get along. Thus, many interested people stayed-away from Occupy due to personality conflicts. Debates between seasoned activists, who share long histories, drowned-out other voices. Like many other Occupy groups, this one includes Democrat partisans who—in the country's most conservative region—position themselves as the local radicals. FaceBook served as a safe “place” for trading information. But, if online “activism” is the extent of a community's collective experience, translating talk into real-world action is difficult.

The local university, the most progressive zone in the small city, is also the site of a restrictive “free speech” policy, vindictive administrators, and a transient student population. The town itself has a history of political repression (including being adjacent to the historic “lynching capital” of the US), a small number of incredibly large land-owners, and crony politicians. Finally, conservative Christianity not only provides the theoretical framework for most people's lives, but also tends to numb people's sense of self-empowerment from collective acts of resistance.

The biggest challenge to the city's attempt at Occupy involved the lack of activist or progressive infrastructure, critical-mass, or inertia. Yes, culture can change, but it often takes long years of organizing. People do what they know or what they think others are doing—thus if little radicalism or reference to radical ideas exists, where are people to gain experience with radical action? Radical ideas (e.g. occupations, GAs, direct democracy, consensus) can get watered down due to misunderstanding, lack of experience, timidity, a “that wouldn't work here” attitude, a less politically-adversarial culture, and people refusing to work with others. The challenge remaining: introducing more folks in small cities to radical ideas (of praxis, strategy, tactics). It's possible—and I hope—that Occupy can still help satisfy this need.

Institutional Confidence and Social Trust

The anarchist understanding of social relations is not paradoxical. Authority figures deserve challenge, while average humans deserve greater trust (since they lack the motivations and position for malice). This understanding suggests ways to empirical measure anarchist orientations towards others in society. Perhaps a simple, but useful, way of measuring this is by constructing a "two-by-two" typology regarding an individual's confidence in hierarchical institutions and their social trust in other people. Various surveys (such as the international World Values Survey) asks two key questions that could help measure respondents' orientations. This orientation could be conceived of as a continuum ranging from hierarchicalism to horizontalism.

One variable is a respondent's confidence in different institutions. Certain institutions have regularly and widely been asked about, and are clearly hierarchical in character: armed forces, police, parliaments, and churches. A second variable is a respondent's social trust, measured dichotomously as either "most people can be trusted" or "you can't be too careful". By contrasting responses to having or lacking confidence in institutions with trusting or not trusting others, four possible categories emerge.

1) Hero-worshippers/boot-lickers: people who have confidence in hierarchical institutions, but lack trust in others.
2) Paranoid/individualists: people who lack confidence in hierarchical institutions as well as trust in others.
3) Gullible: people who have confidence in hierarchical institutions as well as trust in others.
4) Horizontalists/anarchist-inclined (?): people have lack confidence in hierarchical institutions, but have trust in others.

Conceivably, these different categories have variant social positions, beliefs, and behaviors. Hypothetically, category #1 may justify social inequality and protest less than #4. Such hypotheses could be empirically tested, in a cross-national fashion even.

Conclusions About Anarchist Political Opportunities

This article has affirmed established claims that opportunities are a consistent quality necessary for movement success and anarchism is no exception. However, the conventional view of “political opportunities” makes less sense for an avowedly anti-state movement, since such opportunities are typically oriented towards engaging with the state, not disengaging from it—to say nothing of dismantling and abolishing it. Nonetheless, opportunities have been seized by the anarchist movement, as demonstrated by a review of the histories of a sample of country’s movements. Moreover, anarchists in different countries have perceived the importance of certain common opportunities and a few consistent patterns are discernible. We found evidence of both country-specific and common opportunities in the subjective narratives in our sample, as well as the broader literature, with the common opportunities perhaps being the most decisive in shaping the anarchist movement around the world. One key pattern shows the antagonistic, yet symbiotic, relationship of anarchism to Marxism. Bolshevism all but silenced anarchism in the late-1910s, draining it of political appeal. Still, each loss of face to the Soviet Union enhanced the anarchist movements. The New Left in mid-century benefited from disillusionment with Stalinism, and then the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union gave rise to even more anarchist organizing in the 1990s. This pattern clearly illustrates the importance of non-state-based, but still political, opportunities (in this case, the nature of global Marxist regimes or domestic Left movements) in affecting the chances of anarchist movement mobilization.

Another observed pattern is anarchism’s parallel development with other anti-mainstream movements, particularly labor during the classical period and punk in recent years. A fruitful, cultural synergy developed between anarchism and both of these movements. These other movements seemed to be sources of new members and inspirational frames for the anarchist movement, and should not just be considered mere “allies” to anarchism. Such patterns were common opportunities in many countries, not just one or two.

These shared narratives indicate a number of possible conclusions, which point in divergent directions. First, there have been real empirical opportunities that have facilitated anarchist movement growth and an equally real closing of opportunities that have stymied the movement. In other words, anarchist movements have experienced opportunities that are structurally comparable to other movements, albeit more anti- and non-state in character.

Second, modern anarchists have generalized specific anarchist “opportunities” to many of their local contexts based upon universal narratives that are widely exchanged within the global movement. Thus, present day anarchists may be articulating claims about opportunities that circulate within the intellectual milieu of anarchist culture, and claims may be an inaccurate or inappropriate extrapolation of opportunities from one societal context to another. Activist interpretations may also be derived from scholarly sources, thus indicating a perceptional-feedback loop.

Or, some third option may best explain our findings. A combination of substantial and objective opportunities have likely shaped anarchist movement success over time, while modern anarchists may also be selectively framing their analysis as to generalize those histories and unite disparate local factions of the movement in a common, internationalist narrative.

Our findings appear to be reliable, in light of other secondary evidence. The anarchist movement narratives from A-Infos were overwhelmingly supported by additional anarchist history sources, not just from the same case study countries under investigation, but also for prominent countries that fell outside of our data sample. This congruency confirms the strength of the movement narrative as reflective of external scholarly opinion. It also indicates that the opportunities noticed in the A-Infos histories were in-fact major opportunities broadly shared globally—but not universally by all countries—and that the authors were astute observers of that history.

With these general patterns in mind, we advance the following expectations based on our subjective data that should be tested in future research. This work should advance both our understanding of the anarchist movement and political opportunity theory. First—contrary to our main finding about the generalized importance of political opportunities—anarchism in some countries (e.g., Venezuela) has not directly benefited from political opportunities at all, but is rather the result of cultural forces. In other countries, factors related to economics (Greece), culture (Britain, Czech Republic, Japan)—or both (Bolivia)—combined with the “political” to shape the movement. So we expect the relative importance of political opportunities to vary across countries, even though they are also shaped by common opportunities that transcend state boundaries. “Objective” research could further explore and refine these findings from our subjective accounts. Second, extreme state repression has historically limited anarchist mobilization, so some minimal level of political freedom is required for the movement to exist. But once this minimal threshold is reached, state repression may advance rather than hinder the movement (as with Greece and the Czech Republic). Further research should explore the conditions that transform state repression into a positive political opportunity beyond the tentative data we have presented here. Finally, anarchist mobilization has been reduced by the existence of other strong, Left political movements (e.g., Bolshevism), as well as declines in distrust of the state that are associated with increased freedom and rights. These ironies, at least for anarchism, of ostensibly positive social change should be more fully explored.

As hinted in the methods section above, our findings raise cautions about how to measure and evaluate the usage of POs. Not all movements take advantage of opportunities in the ways typically expected. Anarchism possesses extra-legislative goals that aim to achieve the overthrow of major social institutions like the state, capitalism, patriarchy, and others. Consequently, there have been no pure, explicit victories for the anarchist movement (perhaps with the exception of the short-lived Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939). Our case study narratives instead had to focus upon the perception of movement “growth” or “decline” as opposed to legislative victories. Measuring movement activity in this fashion is out of sync with not only most other movements, but also prevailing theoretical assumptions about how movements operate. Some movements do not seek to influence of alter the state, but to abolish it altogether—as well as other hierarchical institutions.

This study calls into sharp question the unchallenged assumption that the state is a strategic location for opportunities from the perspective of radical, anti-state movements. The applicability of existing theoretical tools is limited because anarchism has been studiously avoided in social movement analyses. Movement theories have largely been constructed via analyses on reform-oriented movements that lobby government in some fashion or request other elites modify their practices, and revolutionary movements that seek to merely substitute current ruling elites with themselves. However, this research oversight does not mean that existing movement theories are of no use; instead, they require a serious re-working and reflexivity to appreciate the radical, anti-state character of movements like anarchism. Although anarchism has not enjoyed the same level of “success” that other comparable radical movements—such as Bolshevism and Maoism—have enjoyed, there have clearly been periods of increased anarchist activity, mobilization, and short-term goal achievement. Obviously, ultimate anarchist goals—the dissolution of all forms of economic, political, and social hierarchies—would be difficult to achieve, and the state would be an unlikely partner in such a mission. Consequently, the notion of “opportunity” is still important to the study of anarchist movements, but it needs to be re-operationalized in order to remain relevant. This re-operationalization would seem to require a focus on the subjective opportunities perceived and sought by movement participants themselves, a de-emphasis upon strictly political (and especially state-based) opportunities, and a broadened appreciation of other forms of opportunity (such as economic and cultural) that may assist in the social revolution anarchist movements aim to inspire.

Due to certain methodological limitations—a small number of countries and only one central narrative per country—our study is not necessarily a definitive analysis on anarchism. Instead, we consider the study to be an important step towards a new approach in considering opportunities, especially amongst anti-state movements. Future attempts to consider supposedly “political” opportunities should be sure to distinguish what sorts of opportunities movements seize upon, even though the typical understanding of such opportunities rely upon the state for fulfillment. The radical character of the anarchist movement illustrates the need to consider non-state-based opportunities and, potentially, opportunities that are more economic or cultural. Additionally, as other research has shown, movements may have multiple, non-state targets. For anarchism, these targets of critique and attack are many, including all forms of domination and authority. How these claims find resonance with different audiences is poorly understood. Where do anarchist movements make their demands: to the polity, the state, specific groups of disadvantaged persons, or society at large? Each is likely to have different levels of appreciation for anarchist critiques and goals. The lack of movement success could be partially due to the strong social control mechanisms and self-interest operating in each aforementioned audience, which in turn circumscribe potential opportunities.

Discussing Anarchist Political Opportunities

Our analysis of anarchist movements in six countries indicates a number of common themes. Additional evidence from other non-activist histories (i.e. outside of the A-Infos data) reinforces the major claims. There are two questions that can immediately be raised by this analysis. First, we are interested in confirming these general patterns in major anarchist histories—especially those histories focused on countries with large, vibrant movements such as Russia and Spain—as well as countries that have been the target of substantial research, like the US. Are the opportunity themes we discovered with Bolivia, Britain, the Czech Republic, Greece, Japan, and Venezuela consistent with those found in more well-known sites of the anarchist movement? Second, are there opportunity themes that we were surprised to find no mention of in the A-Infos data? In other words, are there “objective” opportunities that anarchist movements could have or likely took advantage of that are missing within the activist narratives we studied here?

 

State repression is a common theme throughout the activist and scholarly literatures on anarchism. For example, state response to anarchist opposition of WWI was extreme. Anarchists were (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Peter Kropotkin) vocal opponents to WWI itself, viewing it as a war between capitalists and their state agents. Public opposition to the war coincided with a crackdown on radicals throughout the world. The Palmer Raids in the US are an illustrative example: foreign- and native-born anarchists and labor leaders were rounded-up, put on trial, and often deported (Renshaw 1968). The anarchist Union of Russian Workers was a target of particular interest, although there was scant evidence of their actual participation in illegality (Coben 1963). Individual US states also passed “criminal anarchy laws” that not only aimed to stop the overthrow of government, but also any criticism of representative government or politicians (Levin 1971).

 

The social revolution that seemed imminent within the radical movements of the early 1900s, prior to WWI, did eventually break-out. While Marxism predicted revolution would occur in a parliamentarian capitalist society, it instead happened in feudal and agrarian Russia. The popular revolution in February 1917 and the subsequent ascension to power by the Bolsheviks in October 1917 inspired radicals throughout the world. Many anarchists and other radicals were initially drawn towards this successful anti-capitalist revolution, and even if they did not end up converting to communism, they often provided material and propagandistic support for the Bolsheviks (Zimmer 2009). The Soviet Union formed a Third Internationalism which co-opted the radicalism that had grown in opposition to World War I (Levy 2004). Initially, Lenin employed key anarchist concepts in his speeches, thereby supporting the very causes Russian anarchists had pioneered and advocated, including the soviets and worker self-management. However, once in power, the Bolsheviks imprisoned anarchist critics, took control of the worker soviets, attacked and then dissolved the anarchist Mahknovist army in the Ukraine, and laid siege to disgruntled anarchist sailors during the Kronstadt Uprising (Avrich 1967). It took years (decades in some cases) for anarchists outside of Russia to conclude that the true aims of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were non-anarchist and “counter-revolutionary” at heart. As Joll (1964) writes:

 

The Marxists, by their success in Russia, now appeared to be a far more effective revolutionary force than the anarchists; and it was thus even harder for the anarchists to win and retain the support which would enable them to put into practice their own ideas of what the revolution should be. (p. 192)

The impact of Bolshevism seems nearly universal, not just within the A-Infos countries and in Russia, but throughout the world. The secondary literature verifies the narratives told within A-Infos. The major exception to the movement abeyance that began during the interwar years was in Spain. Anarcho-syndicalism had been widely adopted by large sectors of the Spanish working classes and unlike anarchists in other countries, the movement was large and ideologically-driven enough—under the organization of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) anarcho-syndicalist union and the Federación Anarquista Ibérica—to retain its anarchist character until after Bolshevik repression began in Russia and peaked with the Kronstadt Uprising in 1921 (Bookchin 1998). Anarchists also played a prominent role in facilitating the defense against the attempted, and eventually successful, fascist coup by Franco during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). During this period, the CNT aligned itself with the socialist Republic forces fighting against the fascist army. Having this elite ally (the socialist Republican government) undoubtedly created pockets of freedom for anarchists to pursue their goals in land and factory collectivization. However, the Spanish Left remained divided and was repressed by the Stalinist forces, who were ostensibly aiding the Spanish Republic in its struggle against Franco. After the Communist suppression of the POUM (non-Stalinist Marxists) and the anarchist militias (predominantly organized by the CNT), Franco easily conquered the remaining outposts of Communist resistance, thus leading to a decades-long dictatorship. Anarchism, while not dead, then went into a period of dormancy, kept together by scattered newspapers and authors, waiting for a new resurgence. Spanish anarchists who escaped prison or death went underground or into exile abroad (Beevor 2006).

 

Anarchism's mid-20^th Century reappearance would look radically different from early 20^th Century anarchism that died in Spain. Consequently, the activity of anarchist movements around the world has been bi-modal. First, the “golden age” of anarchism was heavily involved in the labor movement and died away in the early decades of the 20^th Century. Second, a re-birth—largely not directly connected to the first wave—mobilized in the 1960s New Left and counter-culture that diffused into many popular movements. The barriers to opportunities noted in Table 1 indicate demobilization associated with the repression around the time of WWI and the positive opportunities in the 1960s indicate a new mobilization period, although our data indicate that the specific triggers of anarchist organizing varied by country during this period of generally increased mobilization.

 

Although the New Left was “post-Old Left”—particularly unaffiliated to the Communist Party—this does not mean it was able to completely break free of the Old Left. For example, the major New Left organization in the US was Students for a Democratic Society, which by the late-1960s cannibalized itself into a smattering of various Leftist, non-anarchist sects (Balser 1997, Bookchin 2004, Sale 1973). However, the anti-authoritarian impulse of the New Left remained and found a place within other burgeoning movements outside the student movement, especially the feminist, anti-nuclear, and environmental movements, such as the organized called Movement for a New Society (Cornell 2011, Epstein 1991).

The continued evolution of the New Left throughout the 1960s provided opportunities for anarchism to re-emerge. In fact, the current wave of anarchism can be traced back to the New Left’s insistence upon “participatory democracy”, as opposed to “democratic centralism” (as offered by the Soviet bloc) or “representative democracy” (in the West). The New Left’s eventual rejection of formal leadership was not an immediate one, but emerged most clearly with the rise of the anti-nuclear and radical feminist movements (Epstein 1991). Here, the tactical emphasis upon cooperation, consensus decision making, and direct action are key anarchist contributions. Within this radical milieu emerged many of the key ideas and structures that would come to represent the anarchist movement of the 1990s, namely grassroots, community-based direct action, through the use of direct democracy and affinity groups (Polletta 2002).

We expected the A-Infos narratives to identify the advent of the Internet as a recent, technological opportunity for mobilization, but none mentioned the Internet in this fashion. This is a particularly noteworthy absence, given that our data source is itself the Internet; we expected anarchists to be reflective of the new chances for organizing being offered by the Internet. Although unremarked upon, the increasingly widespread use of the Internet as a popular tool for communication (the online version of A-Infos being a prime example) seems to have created an incredible set of cultural opportunities. Demands for free speech rights and information exchange have spread throughout the world. The Internet facilitated collaboration and networking between movement allies, even if separated by large geographic distances. The ease in coordinating protests also amplified activist voices and allowed for the wider dissemination of demands, as seen by the anti-capitalist protests organized by the decentralized network of Peoples’ Global Action. It is difficult to miss the uniquely anarchistic nature of the Internet, which functions as a decentralized network of information channels, that allow for easy voluntary association, and the relatively inexpensive ability to provide mutual aid, such as in setting-up websites, email accounts, and mailing listserves (Wall 2007). Anarchists were not only early adopters of the world-wide-web for propaganda purposes, but they have also created their own organizational infrastructure to avoid the influence of corporations and the state. Thus, autonomous collectives have spread throughout the world to provide the aforementioned Internet services to anarchists and other activists (Shantz 2003a). Although the case studies did not provide evidence for the self-described utility of the Internet to the movement, this does not discount the possibility that it was truly beneficial in an objective sense.

References

Avrich, Paul. 1967. The Russian Anarchists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Balser, Deborah. 1997. “The Impact of Environmental Factors on Factionalism and Schism in Social Movement Organizations”. Social Forces, 76 (1), September: 199-228.

Beevor, Antony. 2006. The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. New York: Penguin.

Bookchin, Murray. 1998. The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years, 1868-1936. Edinburgh: AK Press.

Bookchin, Murray. 2004. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Edinburgh: AK Press.

Coben, Stanley. 1963. A. Mitchell Palmer: Politician. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cornell, Andrew. 2011. Oppose and Propose! Lessons From Movement for a New Society. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Epstein, Barbara. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Joll, James. 1964. The Anarchists. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Levin, Murray. 1971. Political Hysteria in America: The Democratic Capacity for Repression. New York: Basic Books.

Levy, Carl. 2004. “Anarchism, Internationalism and Nationalism in Europe, 1860-1939”. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50 (3): 330-342.

Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Renshaw, Patrick. 1968. “The IWW and the Red Scare 1917-24”. Journal of Contemporary History, 3 (4): 63-72.

Sale, Kirkatrick. 1973. SDS. New York: Random House.

Shantz, Jeff. 2003a. “Seize the Switches: TAO Communications, Media, and Anarchy”. Pp. 209-223 in Representing Resistance: Media, Civil Disobedience, and the Global Justice Movement, edited by A. Opel and D. Pompper. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wall, Melissa A. 2007. “Social Movements and Email: Expressions of Online Identity in the Globalization Protests”. New Media & Society, 9 (2): 258-277.

Zimmer, Kenyon. 2009. “Premature Anti-Communists?: American Anarchism, the Russian Revolution, and Left-Wing Libertarian Anti-Communism, 1917-1939”. Labor: Studies in Working Class History of the Americas, 6 (2): 45-71.

Anarchist Movement Mobilization and Decline

As an internationalist movement opposed to borders, we expected localized anarchist movements to articulate their opportunity structure in global terms. Many of the opportunities mentioned by the case study histories concerned opportunities that either happened outside of their country or events that were shared experiences across multiple countries. Consequently, we found less evidence for individual country-specific opportunities, but rather common opportunities available to many countries’ movements. This does not mean that all countries experienced these global opportunities in the same way, as we will discuss. See Table 1 for details regarding what phenomena or events were cited for each country, whether the phenomena were considered to lead to mobilization or decline for the movements, and a categorization of the phenomena as political, cultural, or economic.[i]

[Table 1 not included here]

The A-Infos histories of many countries reflected common themes, particularly the importance of deprivation, the political Left and Bolshevism, international interaction, and punk. Repetition of these themes indicates a shared, cross-national narrative of opportunity or an actual universal character for certain anarchist movement opportunities. While each country-based movement developed in an interaction with global phenomena and local factors, most opportunities were not wholly derived from domestic conditions. Instead, modern anarchists seem to be describing global opportunities that are said to have benefited many country’s anarchist movements concurrently. This finding is particularly striking given the enormous diversity of the nations that comprised our sample.

One of the first opportunities noted in the A-Infos histories is something not often considered to be a movement “opportunity”: deprivation. As Giugni (2008) has suggested, the discursive context in which movements exist can be important for movement success. If movement actors collectively define something to be beneficial for them (even post-hoc, decades later), it may be interpreted as having a motivational influence upon later movement activity and success.[ii] Thus, subjective opportunities can include dynamics that would not otherwise be considered “open” opportunities, such as grievances or deprivation. The A-Infos histories for Greece and Japan indicate that poor socio-economic conditions in countries were factors influencing the growth and influence of anarchism, particularly in early anarchist history. With many Left movements, poverty and social injustice is framed as a barrier for movements to overcome. But for anarchism, these ills are defined as systemic problems derived from hierarchical institutions, such as capitalism, the state, patriarchy, and the like, so that anarchist analyses frame institutions as creating deprivation, which in turn can give rise to anarchist movements. For example, Fragos and Sotros (2005) assert that “Greek anarchism first appeared during the last quarter of the 19th Century as a result of the then unfavourable economic and social conditions of poverty, distress and the dependance (sic) of the country on European capital”. What is deemed “unfavorable” for people is actually very favorable for anarchist movement formation, according to these insiders. Likewise, the deprivation affiliated with war was a major factor in fostering anarchist movement development in Japan:

The Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 was a major event that led to the emergence of the first Japanese anarchists. At the time many Japanese people had converted from Shinto and Buddhism to Christianity, yet they supported the imperialist nature of the war as a way of integrating themselves with the state. It was those who were determined to resist both the state and the war that turned elsewhere for political inspiration, thus laying the foundations for the Japanese anarchist movement (WSM 2008).

Also of particular note in the A-Infos histories is the repeated reference to other Left movements. Anarchism was often largely indistinguishable from the militant labor movement that thrived within industrializing economies throughout the world, but especially in Europe (Levy 2004). Anarcho-syndicalism became a vibrant tendency within organized labor and it was viewed as an alternative to union-led social democratic parties and Marxist vanguardism (Schmidt & van der Walt 2009). As such, anarchism thrived outside of the formal realms of political power, taking energy from the masses of working class laborers. Mobilization opportunities were also provided by active labor and anarchist movements outside of each country. For example, Bolivia's anarchist movement was enhanced by cross-border interaction with neighboring countries, specifically Argentina and Brazil (Simon 1946):

The [May 1st Workers Union] probably owes itself, because of its geographic location, to the influence of the anarchist movement in Argentina. The second source of introduction of anarchist ideals in Bolivia stems from the forced emigration of more than 4,000 Bolivian workers to the salt mines in northern Chile, where a strong anarcho-syndicalist movement developed. These workers spread out from the mines into the countryside and the cities carrying newspapers, books and ideas that changed the ideological landscape at the time. This process culminated in 1927 with the appearance of the Local Workers Federation (FOL) which brought together the five most combative, militant unions in La Paz [the Bolivian capital city]… This experience, with many difficult ups and downs up until 1956, has a key importance in the history of syndicalism (IBM 2002).

International interaction was also cited as an opportunity in pre-WWI Japan. For example, “In the [United] States, [the exiled anarchist] Kotoku was influenced by many different things, such as his new found correspondence with [the Russian anarchist] Kropotkin. He translated the [book] Conquest of Bread into Japanese, which was then distributed clandestinely among [Japanese] workers and students” (WSM 2008). From the 1890s through the 1910s, anarchism spread far and wide, not just throughout Western Europe and North America, but also colonies and former colonies, including Argentina, Cuba, Egypt, and South Africa (Adams 2002). More recently, the Venezuelan El Libertario newspaper has established international connections helping to grow its national movement (Nachie 2006).

Two major world events in the 1910s halted the further expansion of anarchism: state repression and the Bolshevik victory in Russia. In Japan, state repression all but ended anarchist activity during WWI. Mass imprisonment and even state execution drove remaining anarchists underground or to exile abroad:

Some unions opted solely for anarchism and grew in number, more journals and newspapers were established and the movement gained huge momentum. Unfortunately, the government then regained control by sentencing more than 7,000 people to life imprisonment for almost any radical involvement (WSM 2008).

Thus, state repression was experienced as a barrier to opportunity in Japan, while it was a positive opportunity for Greek and Czech anarchists, as reflected in Table 1.

The repression in Japan actually began prior to the war with the Japanese state’s discovery of an anarchist bombing campaign plan (Crump 1993). Assassination attempts or “propaganda by the deed” may be viewed as radical desperation during the end of a protest cycle (Tarrow 1998). Similarly, in 1919 and 1923 Czech anarchists attempted assassinations of prominent political figures, including the Prime Minister. Although neither attempt was successful, the movement faced intense repression, a loss of legitimacy in the public, and the first Czech fascist organization was founded in response (Slaèálek 2002).[iii] An earlier assassination of two capitalists led to harsh repression in Greece (A. Gallery 1982). The repression by the state and by capitalist forces can be interpreted as a response to the increasing victories of anarchist-led labor struggles and the political elite’s need to restrict revolutionary change for the preservation of the system.[iv]

Contrary to the standard interpretation of PO theory, state repression did not always lead to a decline in anarchism. According to Slaèálek (2002), repression actually positively influenced the movement in the Czech Republic:

A considerable importance had also a movement of the nationally and socially radical youth around the magazine Omladina (The Youth). In February 1894, 68 of those were sentenced to a short-term prison. By that, many of them got radicalised and reassured in their anarchistic conviction.

Much later in Greece, the Athens Polytechnic School Uprising in 1973 saw increased participation by anarchists in the struggle against the Greek military junta (Fragos & Sotros 2005). The following crack-down on student protest boomeranged against the regime and led to democratic elections the next year. As a consequence of the state’s brutal repression of the uprising, Greek law now prohibits any military or police presence on university property, thus opening greater opportunities for students (and others, like anarchists) to use universities as staging points for political protest and resistance.[v] In fact, the history of the suppressed uprising in 1973 has created a radical “meme” that replicates itself for every generation of youth who have regularly revolted in the same neighborhoods of Athens, thereby providing anarchists with annual opportunities for protest (Karamichas 2009). In this instance, the brutal use of repression by the junta backfired, thus creating opportunities for decades-worth of anarchist mobilization.

According to PO theory, the flip-side to state repression is an expansion of political access and civil liberties. The only country where an increase in political access is noted—outside of the post-Greek junta years—was Japan. After the state repression early in the century, Japanese anarchism disappeared. According to WSM, “[i]t wasn’t until after the Second World War that the anarchists found a real chance to organise. With Japan defeated, humiliated on the world stage and at the mercy of the Americans, the anarchists decided to form a federation in 1946”. The fall of Imperial rule coincided with the creation of a parliament and an increase in representative democracy. Coupled with the unpopular occupation of the US army, there was both new free space and cause for increased anarchist organizing, the first such opportunity for Japanese anarchist mobilization since the suppression in the 1910s (WSM 2008). This rebirth was, however, circumscribed by the Cold War, as anarchists faced the repressive occupying Supreme Command of the Allied Powers on one side and the more popular Communist Party on the other (Tsuzuki 1970). Thus, greater political opportunities in the form of a more tolerant political climate were balanced by other disadvantageous conditions.

The 1917 October Revolution in Russia affected anarchists throughout the world. For example, Japanese anarchists in the labor movement found they had to compete with reformists and pro-Bolshevik elements. By the early-1920s, those forces had squeezed-out most of the anarchist influence from Japanese unions (Crump 1993). The Socialist movement split, with anarchists (including Osugi Sakae) refusing to cooperate with Bolsheviks for multiple reasons, including anarchist unwillingness to submit to the Comintern and their own critical analysis of poor political conditions in Russia (Stanley 1978). Bolivian anarchist influence in the labor movement was likewise “displaced by the deceptive actions of the Bolshevik parties” (IBM 2002). For the Czechs, the displacement was more formalized:

In 1919, after the end of the war, a meeting (sic) of anarchists took place, where despite of (sic) the disagreement of the members, the leaders persuaded them that a (sic) it was necessary that they be united with the national socialists[vi] and dismiss the anarchistic organisation. And in fact, that was the end of the classical anarchist movement (Slaèálek 2002).

According to Fragos and Sotros (2005), after WWI in Greece “…anarchists were a rarity. The main reason for this was the almost complete domination of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism within the working-class movement as a result of the Bolshevik coup in Russia and also of the successfully [sic] repressive and opportunistic policy of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE)”. The Communist Party emerged strong in Greece during this period and remained dominant in the labor movement until the recent period (A. Gallery 1982). After WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution, anarchism went into a period of demobilization and decline as Communism gained increased legitimacy amongst the Left as a revolutionary ideology that was perceived to be succeeding in the USSR.

After a long, multi-decade period nearly devoid of an anarchist presence, conditions gradually changed as a result of actions by the Soviet Union and its proxies throughout the world. Leftist disapproval of Marxist-Leninism, particularly following the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and disappointment with the Labour Party created positive conditions for an anarchist resurgence in Great Britain (Heath 2006) and other countries. Soviet Premier Khrushchev's acknowledgement of the horrors of Stalinism disillusioned leftists worldwide, a process that would be completed (as we shall see) with the dissolution of the USSR. The rediscovery of anarchist ideas in the 1960s can be attributed to the New Left, although this movement tended to be led more by the middle-class and educated than by the working-class as during the previous anarchist movement cycle.[vii] “This marked a break with the preceding period of “apathy” used by the old Left to explain lack of movement within the working class… A revolt, often inchoate and unarticulated, among young people against this complacency meant some were attracted to this new movement” (Heath 2006). During the period of the 1960s, the growth of anarchism ran parallel to intensified social movement struggles, including anti-colonialist movements, civil rights, and anti-war movements (especially regarding the US war against Vietnam). The British anarchist movement was rejuvenated in the early 1960s through the “ban the bomb” movement, especially the Committee of 100 (Heath 2006). This re-birth of anarchist politics surprised many observers, including esteemed anarchist historian George Woodcock (1962). While 1960s anarchism differed from classical anarchism, Lerner noted certain similarities, including an acceptance of violence, anti-majoritarianism, individual moral responsibility, radical critique of the state, and longing for a simpler life (Lerner 1970).

Perhaps the most important political opportunity enabling the dramatic mobilization of anarchism in the 1990s was created by the fall of the Soviet Union. This incredible development affected not only Russia, but former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe. Active social change organizations and movements grew as state repression declined in these countries (Ruff 1991, Tarrow 1998). This decline in repression was coupled with another important, related opportunity that fueled anarchist movements globally: the possible spectrum of radical dissent re-broadened. The demonstrable failure of state-centered socialism freed the political Left from some of its historical, totalitarian baggage. Marxist vanguardism lost credibility in the eyes of people throughout the world’s social movements, which allowed for other visions of socialism and leftism. For radicals, the political and moral failure of Marxism facilitated a greater appreciation and enhanced legitimacy for anarchist ideas and practice. For example, crumbling Communism led Czech anarchists to begin publicly organizing against the army and fascists prior to the fall of the Czech regime. The Czech A-Infos history notes that “[a]fter the fall of Bolshevik in 1989 the trockists (sic) created a free platform of the autonomous and liberal activities called Lev alternative (‘The left alternative’), in which the anarchists also participated” (Slaèálek 2002).

Anarchism seems to have prospered well in the general milieu of the radical working class movements, but in reverse proportion to the Left, particularly Marxism. The victory of Bolshevism led to anarchist decline, while mid-century disappointment with the USSR and other leftists—e.g. the Hungarian revolt in 1956—increased anarchist mobilization. The record also indicates a dramatic global boom in anarchism in the wake of the USSR’s break-up in the late-1980s and early 1990s. This supports Olzak and Uhrig’s (2001) argument that similar actors in a social movement field—in this case radical Leftists—compete for scarce resources, including members and popular support. Therefore, in times of one radical tendency’s success and legitimacy, others are diminished and vice-versa in other times.

The integration of the Eastern/socialist bloc countries into the world economy intensified global economic integration (commonly called “globalization”). This economic opportunity brought (or, perhaps, forced) social movements from disparate struggles and locations together, compelling dialogue and coordination on a wider variety of issues (Smith 2004). Capitalist integration and hegemony created resistance by those who did not benefit—primarily workers and citizens, but also the indigenous and other disenfranchised minorities. Globalization spurred an increased focus upon issues and struggles worldwide about which other activists were previously unaware or unconcerned. Institutions that drove the processes of economic globalization, particularly the World Trade Organization, World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Group of Eight (G8) became the target of protests in which anarchists played a central role (Epstein 2001). This globalization of local enemies drew anarchist protest at high-profile meetings and summits that were popularly represented in the media as events overrun with the most radical of critics (anarchists) who dramatically faced the state and its repressive forces (the police). For example, the 2000 World Bank and IMF meetings were held in Prague, Czech Republic and large protests took place, including multiple marches led by or consisting of anarchists (Juris 2008, Notes From Nowhere 2003). In Bolivia, as in other places, anti-capitalist traditions were merged with a growing awareness of globalized capitalism: “Juventudes Libertarias, a group of anarchist-communists base in La Paz, has risen from a strong history of resistance to capitalism in the country” (IBM 2002).

Finally, a cultural opportunity has been offered by the musical punk subculture of the West since the late 1970s and 1980s. While punk is not explicitly “anarchist”, the opportunities offered by punk as a cultural form are undeniable. Punk scenes provided a “safe space” for anti-authoritarian politics, recruiting grounds for future anarchists, and a shared culture that could unite anarchists. As such, punk is not just a music form, but a subculture grouping and practice that rejuvenated and fed into the broader anarchist movement. In Great Britain—the birthplace of punk—anarcho-punk took a front-seat within the anarchist movement:

The beginning of the 1980s saw another upsurge in anarchism. A number of young people began to refer to themselves as anarchists. This had its origins in the birth of the punk movement in the late 70s and the influence of the Crass group (Heath 2006).

British punk dovetailed with the Stop the City protests, the confrontational Class War organization, and countless local music scenes throughout Britain (Heath 2006). This chaotic, intense, and confrontational musical form brought with it a strong anti-authoritarian impulse and DIY (“do it yourself”) ethic that mirrored the anarchist preference for “direct action”. Through these sub-cultural channels, punk rock spread anarchism throughout the world, along with references to historical anarchism, radical left-wing values, and various, relatively new concerns (such as those of the so-called “new social movements”), including anti-racism, feminism, animal liberation, environmental defense, and anti-imperialism (O’Hara 1999). Punk frequently articulated anti-authoritarian politics that were sometimes explicitly anarchist in nature. Influential anarcho-punk bands and organizations inspired punks to become active in radical politics.

Punk soon spread throughout the world, with active “scenes” found throughout Latin America, Europe, and Asia (O’Connor 2004, O’Hara 1999). With the emergence of local or national punk scenes, anarchists mobilized the energies of otherwise non-political punks. For example, punk has been so influential in Venezuela that the national anarchist movement may be separated into two groupings: that which has been fostered by anarcho-punk and that which has not. According to Nachie (2006),

“[a]lthough Venezuela has no appreciable history of explicitly-anarchist direct action and the scene is certainly less militant than others in Chile or Brazil for instance, anarcho-punk, organized or unorganized, is undoubtedly the most consolidated and publicly visible source of anarchist ideas in the country”.

Punk is also identified as an “important influence” on the re-birth of Czech anarchism (Slaèálek 2002). The influence of anarcho-punk was particularly strong after the “Velvet Revolution” that split Slovakia from the Czech Republic, with over a hundred anarchist groups in the country, many “crystallize[d] around punk and hardrock music groups” (Konvička & Kavan 1994: 175). The influence of punk on modern anarchism cannot be understated; punk cultural symbols and dress are widely represented amongst anarchists, almost to the point where the two sometimes appear to merge and become one. Yet, punk has not had a universal, dominant role in anarchist movements, as indicated by the fact that the narratives from Bolivia, Greece, and Japan did not mention punk.

Endnotes

[i] We coded specific opportunities that were seen as causal in a temporal sense rather than contextual/historical. For example, discussion of patterns in a country’s literature or art across centuries may have played a role in shaping the anarchist movement, but this does not represent a specific “opportunity” in the same sense that the emergence of the punk movement in music did. The Punk movement occurred at a specific point in time, which according to Heath (2006), led to an “upsurge in anarchism” in the 1980s at which point “A number of young people began to refer themselves as anarchists.” This is a specific opportunity with a defined outcome occurring at an identifiable point in time. We operationalized this example as an opportunity. In contrast, the discussion by Slaèálek (2002) of “revolts against authorities” during “the Czech Middle Ages” may be important for the context in which anarchism in that country developed in the 20th century, but we did not operationalize it as an “opportunity” because such background conditions always exist and are neither necessary nor sufficient for movement growth at a particular time point.

[ii] For example, Christiansen’s (2009) study of the contemporary Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) found that members told themselves decades-old stories about the IWW and established a direct connection with anarchism that mutually stimulated growth for both the IWW and the anarchist movement.

[iii] Dictators elsewhere did not require attempted assassinations to justify anarchist repression. For example, the Gómez dictatorship in Venezuela did not tolerate unions or anarchists during its 27 year reign from 1908 to 1935 (Simon 1946).

[iv] Sabatini (1996) argues—somewhat unconvincingly—that repression is “not very tenable as a main causal factor” in anarchist movement decline (p. 175). This “decline” occurs earlier (1900) in Sabatini’s estimation and the evidence offered earlier does not operationalize how “decline” or “repression” is measured. “Repression” is only considered in a narrow number of countries and the massive red scare of the late-1910s and early-1920s is not considered.

[v] Evidence for the importance of this protection has been shown in many instances, including the late-2008 protests following the police murder of a 15-year old Greek (Karamichas 2009).

[vi] “National socialism” here is not comparable to fascism, but rather refers to the country-based socialist parties.

[vii] Incidentally, Breines (1982) argues that anarchists and pacifists had a substantial influence on the New Left, too, including Murray Bookchin, Paul Goodman, and C. Wright Mills. Also, for more on class differences in modern anarchism, see Williams (2009).

References

A. Gallery. 1982. A Brief History of Anarchism in Greece. Athens: A. Gallery.

Adams, Jason. 2002. Nonwestern Anarchisms: Rethinking the Global Context. Johannesburg: Zabalaza Books.

Breines, Wini. 1982. Community and Organization in the New Left, 1962-1968: The Great Refusal. New York: Praeger.

Christiansen, Jonathan. 2009. “’We Are All Leaders’: Anarchism and the Narrative of the Industrial Workers of the World”. Working USA: The Journal of Labor & Society, 12 (3), September: 387-401.

Crump, John. 1993. Hatta Shūzō and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Epstein, Barbara. 2001. “Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement”. Monthly Review, 53: 1-14.

Fragos, Spyros & James Sotros. 2005. “The General Social, Political and Economic Situation in Greece and the Greek Anarchist Movement”. Retrieved May 1, 2007 (http://www.ainfos.ca/05/apr/ainfos00252.html).

Giugni, Marco. 2008. “Welfare States, Political Opportunities, and the Mobilization of the Unemployed: A Cross-National Analysis”. Mobilization: An International Journal, 13 (3): 297-310.

Heath, Nick. 2006. “40 Years of British Anarchism”. Retrieved May 1, 2007 (http://www.ainfos.ca/06/nov/ainfos00272.html).

IBM. 2002. “Discussions With Bolivia’s Libertarian Youth”. Retrieved May 1, 2007 (http://www.ainfos.ca/02/oct/ainfos00382.html).

Juris, Jeffrey. 2008. Networking Futures: The Movements Against Corporate Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Karamichas, John. 2009. “The December 2008 Riots in Greece”. Social Movement Studies, 8 (3), August: 289-293.

Konvička, Libor and Jan Kavan. 1994. “Youth Movements and the Velvet Revolution”. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 27 (2): 160-176.

Lerner, Michael. 1970. “Anarchism and the American Counter-Culture”. Government and Opposition, 5 (4), August: 430-455.

Levy, Carl. 2004. “Anarchism, Internationalism and Nationalism in Europe, 1860-1939”. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50 (3): 330-342.

Nachie. 2006. “Notes on the Anarchist Movement in Caracas”. Retrieved May 1, 2007 (http://www.ainfos.ca/06/jul/ainfos00085.html).

Notes From Nowhere. 2003. We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anti-Capitalism. London: Verso.

O'Connor, Alan. 2004. “Punk and Globalization: Spain and Mexico”. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (2): 175-195.

O’Hara, Craig. 1999. The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise. San Francisco: AK Press.

Olzak, Susan and S.C. Noah Uhrig. 2001. “The Ecology of Tactical Overlap”. American Sociological Review, 66 (5), October: 694-717.

Ruff, Philip.1991. Anarchy in the USSR. London: ASP.

Sabatini, Peter Joseph. 1996. The Marginalization of Anarchism. Unpublished dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

Schmidt, Michael and Lucien van der Walt. 2009. Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press.

Simon, S. Fanny. 1946. “Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in South America”. The Hispanic American Historical Review, 26 (1), February: 38-59.

Slaèálek, Ondøej. 2002. “Brief History of the Czech Anarchism”. Retrieved May 1, 2007 (http://www.ainfos.ca/02/nov/ainfos00698.html).

Smith, Jackie. 2004. “Exploring Connections Between Global Integration and Political Mobilization”. Journal of World-Systems Research, 10 (1): 255-285.

Stanley, Thomas A. 1978. A Japanese Anarchist's Rejection of Marxism-Leninism: Ōsugi Sakae and the Russian Revolution. Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsuzuki, Chushichi. 1970. “Anarchism in Japan”. Government and Opposition, 5 (4), Autumn: 501-522.

Williams, Dana M. 2009 “Anarchists and Labor Unions: An Analysis Using New Social Movement Theories”. Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society, 12 (3), September: 337-354.

Woodcock, George. 1962. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Cleveland: Meridian.

WSM. 2008. “WSM Talk On the history of Japanese Anarchism”. Retrieved May 1, 2007 (http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos20822.html).