An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 2

     Conquer or die  such is the dilemma that faces the . . . 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.

     Nestor Makhno[1][1]

   Welcome to volume 2 of An Anarchist FAQ (AFAQ)!

   If the core of volume 1 was based on outlining anarchist ideas and
   history as well as presenting the anarchist critique of authority,
   capitalism and statism, then this volume is focused around two threads.
   The first is the critique of Marxism, historically anarchisms main
   alternative within the socialist movement. The second is what
   anarchists aim for and how we get there.

   Needless to say, the second theme is by far the more important as
   anarchism is more than just analysing what is wrong with the world, it
   also aims to change it.

   First, though, we start with an account of individualist anarchism
   ([2]section G). It is fair to say that individualist anarchism has
   generally been on the margin of accounts of anarchism. This,
   undoubtedly, reflects the fact it has been predominantly a North
   American movement and was always a small minority within the global
   anarchist movement. Even in the USA, it was eclipsed by social
   anarchism.

   As such, it has been somewhat overlooked in accounts of anarchism and
   AFAQ seeks to correct that. Unfortunately, it has also to address
   claims that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism
   and so it spends some time refuting such assertions. We do so with a
   heavy heart, as this will tend to exaggerate the importance of that
   ideology and its influence but it needs to be done simply in order to
   counteract those ideologues and academics who seek to confuse the two
   either out of ignorance (for the latter) or self-interest (for the
   former). In addition, section G is shaped by the history of AFAQ, when
   it started as an anti-anarcho-capitalist FAQ rather than a
   pro-anarchist one. If it had been started as the pro-anarchist FAQ it
   has now become, that section would have been substantially different
   (most obviously, the material on anarcho-capitalism being placed in
   an appendix where it belongs).

   This means that in some regards, section G can be considered as a
   continuation of [3]section F (which is on why anarcho-capitalism is
   not a form of anarchism). Individualist anarchism is the form of
   anarchism closest to liberalism and, as a consequence, to
   anarcho-capitalism. However, similarities do not equate to the former
   being a (flawed, from an anarcho-capitalist perspective) forerunner
   of the latter. If this were the case then some would assert that social
   anarchism is a form of Marxism. There are overlaps, of course, but then
   again there are overlaps between individualist anarchism, Marxism and
   social anarchism. Yet, for all its differences with social anarchism,
   individualist anarchism shared a critique of capitalism and the state
   which has significant commonality.

   Individualist anarchism is a unique political theory and it does it a
   disservice to reduce it to simply a flawed precursor of an ideology
   whose origins and aims are radically at odds with it. It is no
   coincidence that individualist anarchism found its home in the broader
   labour and socialist movements while propertarianism views these with
   disdain. Nor is it a coincidence that the main influences on
   individualist anarchism were labour, monetary and land reform movements
   plus the economics of Proudhon and other socialists while, for
   anarcho-capitalism, it is Austrian economics which developed, in
   part, precisely to combat such popular movements. This leads to
   fundamentally different analyses, strategies and aims that show beyond
   doubt that the two cannot be confused. The individualist anarchists
   cannot be considered as forerunners of propertarianism in any more than
   the most superficial terms. So it is a shame this needs to be discussed
   at all, but it has.

   Ironically, a sadly unpublished article from the 1950s by the founder
   of that ideology, Murray Rothbard, has come to light which came to the
   same conclusion (inaccurately entitled, given the history of anarchist
   use of libertarian, Are Libertarians Anarchists?). Ignoring the
   errors, distortions and inventions about anarchism Rothbard inflicts on
   the reader, this essay came to the following (correct!) conclusion: We
   must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who
   call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being
   completely unhistorical. This was applicable to both the dominant
   anarchist doctrine . . .  of anarchist communism (which has also
   been called collectivist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and
   libertarian communism) as well as individualist anarchists,
   considered by Rothbard the best of them, as both had socialistic
   elements in their doctrines. He suggested that there were thinkers in
   that Golden Age of liberalism who had ideas similar to his ideology
   but these never referred to themselves as anarchists while all the
   anarchist groups . . . possessed socialistic economic doctrines in
   common. If only he had kept to that analysis and called his ideology
   something more accurate then this FAQ would have been much shorter!

   Also significant is Rothbards use of the term libertarian communism
   which indicates he was well aware of the traditional use of libertarian
   as an alternative to anarchist. Interestingly, while reminiscing about
   the origins of the so-called libertarian right in America Rothbard
   publicly acknowledged their stealing of the word libertarian from
   genuine anarchists:

     One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for
     the first time in my memory, we, our side, had captured a crucial
     word from the enemy . . . Libertarians . . . had long been simply
     a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for
     anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or
     syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over . . .[4][2]

   Today, of course, propertarians shrilly denounce anarchists using the
   term libertarian in its original and correct meaning as attempting to
   appropriate their name and associate it with socialism! Oh, the irony

   Unlike the propertarians who are so busy degrading the good name
   libertarian and the memories of individualist anarchism, adherents of
   both schools of anarchism considered themselves socialists. Of course
   there are real differences between individualist and social anarchism,
   and we explore these. We show that attempts by some members of each
   school to excommunicate the others are, ultimately, pointless (in
   general, the individualists seemed keener to do that than the social
   anarchists but both sides had their intolerant ones). There is
   significant overlap between both sections of the movement and so it is
   perfectly possible for each to coexist happily in a free society as
   well as, on certain issues and tactics, to work fruitfully together in
   resisting capitalism and the state.[5][3]

   We then turn to discuss Marxism and its flaws ([6]section H). To be
   honest, it is staggering that this section even needs to be written
   given that the anarchist critique of Marxism has been validated time
   and time again. It is like writing a book on evolution and spending a
   significant time refuting the claims of Lamarckian theory. Sadly,
   though, many radicals seem unable to grasp the facts of history, namely
   that the predictions made by anarchism as regards Marxism have come to
   pass. Bakunin was right: social democracy did become reformist and the
   dictatorship of the proletariat became the dictatorship over the
   proletariat.

   This critique is not to suggest that anarchists should reject
   everything Marx argued.[7][4] In terms of his critique of capitalism,
   there is much that libertarians can agree with (undoubtedly because
   much of it was built on Proudhons analysis!). In part, it is this
   analysis which ensures that Marxism remains alive as a distinct
   ideology in the radical movement rather than Marxs positive
   contributions being integrated along with others (such as Proudhon and
   Bakunin) into libertarian socialism. It is a powerful and, in large
   parts, a correct analysis of that system but in terms of constructive
   ideas on what socialism would be and how to achieve it, Marxism comes
   up as deeply flawed. So, as with anarchist thinkers, we should
   recognise the important and valid parts of Marxs contribution to the
   socialist movement while rejecting its negative aspects  particularly
   as many so-called Marxist positions were first expounded by
   anarchists!

   In part, because as well as his critique of capitalism the other main
   reason for Marxisms continued existence is, undoubtedly, its apparent
   success. Needless to say, most Marxists are keen to forget that the
   first apparently successful Marxist movement was social democracy.
   Engels lavish praise for it is rarely mentioned these days, given
   social democracys quick descent into reformism and, worse, explicit
   counter-revolution during the German revolution. Rather, it is the
   apparent success of Leninism[8][5] during the Russian Revolution that
   accounts for why so many radicals are attracted to it. As such, what
   Alexander Berkman termed The Bolshevik Myth is alive and well  and
   needs to be combated.

   Suffice to say, the promises of Lenins State and Revolution did not
   last the night and within six months there was a de facto party
   dictatorship presiding over a state capitalist economy (by early 1919,
   the need for party dictatorship in a revolution was considered a truism
   by all the leaders of the party). If that counts as a success, what
   would failure be? Luckily, unlike Berkmans generation, the numbers
   blinded by wishful thinking about socialism in Russia are fewer
   although we do have those who, while denouncing Stalin, seem incapable
   of seeing the obvious links with Lenins regime and its ideological
   conceptions (most notably, but not limited to, its vanguardism). As we
   show in section H.6, the standard modern-day Leninist excuses for
   Bolshevik tyranny have nothing to recommend them  both in terms of
   theory and empirical evidence. So as well as presenting a theoretical
   critique of Marxism, we seek to root it in the experiences of Marxism
   in practice. This involves, in the main, focusing on the
   Social-Democratic movement, Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution.

   We also spend some time refuting numerous Marxist distortions of
   anarchist ideas. Ive lost count of the times I have seen blatantly
   false claims about anarchism raised by Marxists. Im not that
   surprised, as few Marxists actually bother to read the likes of
   Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Instead, they simply repeat what other
   Marxists have claimed about anarchism (starting, of course, with Marx
   and Engels). This explains why [9]section H.2 has so many quotes in it,
   simply to drive home what would be obvious to anyone familiar with
   anarchist theory and practice. A few quotes could be dismissed as
   selective, a multitude cannot. Im sorry that has to be done, but the
   regularity of abysmally bad Marxist diatribes against anarchism means
   that it had to be done in such detail. Sadly, Im sure that refuting
   these habitual false assertions in AFAQ it will not stop Marxists
   repeating them.

   Marxist myths on anarchism also feeds into section G, given that many
   Marxists have been at pains to portray anarchism as being simply
   anti-state (in this, they share common-ground with the
   propertarians). Yet even a cursory glance of anarchist theory and
   history shows that it has never limited itself to just a critique of
   the state. As long as anarchism has been a named socio-economic theory
   we have directed our fire at both state and property. [10]Property is
   Theft!, my new anthology of Proudhons writings, shows how interlinked
   the anarchist opposition to the state and capitalism has been from the
   start. Thus we find Proudhon arguing that the capitalist principle
   and the governmental principle are one and the same principle and so
   the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and the abolition of
   government of man by man are one and the same formula. Moreover, it is
   to protect this exploitation of man by man that the State exists
   Unsurprisingly, then, anarchists are simultaneously striving for the
   abolition of capital and of the State and if you do away with the
   former, you still have to do away with the latter, and vice
   versa.[11][6]

   So the notion of an anarchism which is simply anti-state is completely
   alien to our tradition. However, falsely limiting anarchism to purely
   opposition to the state does allow Marxists to portray their tradition
   as the only form of socialism and so exclude anarchism, by definition,
   from anti-capitalism.

   After Marxism, we move onto more constructive and fruitful subjects,
   namely anarchist ideas of what a free society could be like
   ([12]section I) and what we do in the here and now to bring it closer
   and to make our lives better ([13]section J).

   [14]Section I is important, simply because it presents a rough outline
   of what anarchists have suggested would characterise a free society. So
   we discuss workers self-management, community self-government, economic
   and social federalism, anti-social behaviour in a free society, and a
   host of other issues. While many people, particularly Marxists,
   question the wisdom of discussing the future society (Marxs comment on
   writing the cookbooks of the future springs to mind[15][7]),
   anarchists have been more willing to sketch out a rough vision of what
   a free society could be like. This may come as a surprise for some
   (infatuated with Bakunins pre-anarchist comment that the urge to
   destroy is a creative urge) but in reality anarchism has always been a
   constructive socio-economic theory and anarchist thinkers have always
   been more than willing to sketch what a free society could be.

   And that is the key, this is what anarchy could be like. As we are at
   pains to stress, we are not presenting a blueprint: it is a series of
   suggestions based on our critique of capitalism, anarchist principles
   and the experiences of the struggle against oppression as well as
   social revolutions that have taken place. This is important, as
   anarchists have never abstractly postulated ideal social organisations
   to the oppression of hierarchy but, rather, developed our ideas of what
   a free society could look like by critically analysing the current
   exploitative and oppression one as well as the self-activity and
   self-organisation of those resisting it. Anarchy will be created from
   below, by the people themselves, for, as Kropotkin put it, the work of
   demolition can only be accomplished by the direct participation of the
   whole of the people. And they will only act in the name of their
   immediate and popular needs. The land to the peasant; the factory, the
   workshop, the railway and the rest to the worker.[16][8]

   This anti-utopian perspective has been a significant aspect of
   anarchism since Proudhon who (especially his System of Economic
   Contradictions) attacked utopian socialists like Fourier and
   Saint-Simon for presenting fantastical visions (and appealing for rich
   benefactors!) rather than studying tendencies within capitalism which
   could transcend it (particularly working class self-activity). Thus
   social transformation must not emanate from the powers that be; it
   ought to be SPONTANEOUS. It must come from below as only this
   ensured change by the concerted action of the citizens, by the
   experience of the workers, by the progress and diffusion of
   enlightenment, revolution by the means of liberty.[17][9] Echoing
   Proudhon, Kropotkin argued that the method followed by the anarchist
   thinker is entirely different from that followed by the utopists . .
   . He studies human society as it is now and was in the past . . . tries
   to discover its tendencies, past and present, its growing needs,
   intellectual and economic, and in his ideal he merely points out in
   which direction evolution goes.[18][10] A key aspect of this is
   looking at the self-organisation and struggles of working class people,
   these being the means by which anarchists link the current to the
   future.

   So we discuss in AFAQ the perennial issues of both transition and how
   the new world gestates within the old. As section I.2.3 shows in
   detail, anarchists have always stressed that the new world is created
   in our struggles against the old. The fight for freedom transforms
   those who take part as well as creating the organisations (such as
   community assemblies, workers councils, factory committees and their
   federations) which will be the framework of a free society. So the IWW
   slogan of building a new world in the shell of the old has been a key
   aspect of anarchism for some time, with Proudhon proclaiming during the
   1848 Revolution that a new society be founded in the heart of the old
   society based on a body representative of the proletariat be[ing]
   formed . . . in opposition to the bourgeoisies
   representation.[19][11]

   Which brings us nicely to the last section, on what do anarchists do?
   In [20]section J we summarise how anarchists see social change
   happening. There are substantial discussions on alternative forms of
   social organisation we advocate and how they are the embryonic forms of
   a free society we create while resisting the current oppressive one.
   Thus, for example, we discuss how the federations of workplace
   assemblies we urge to fight the bosses become the means by which
   co-operative production is organised in a free society while the
   neighbourhood assemblies created as a counter-power to the state become
   the means by which free individuals manage their communities. As will
   soon become clear, Marxist myths not withstanding, anarchists stress
   the importance of working class struggle in changing the world.
   Kropotkin summarised the libertarian perspective well in 1907:

     Workmens organisations are the real force capable of accomplishing
     the social revolution  after the awakening of the proletariat has
     been accomplished, first by individual action, then by collective
     action, by strikes and revolts extending more and more; and where
     workmens organisations have not allowed themselves to be dominated
     by the gentlemen who advocate the conquest of political power, but
     have continued to walk hand in hand with anarchists  as they have
     done in Spain  they have obtained, on the one hand, immediate
     results (an eight-hour day in certain trades in Catalonia), and on
     the other have made good propaganda for the social revolution  the
     one to come, not from the efforts of those highly-placed gentlemen,
     but from below, from workmens organisations.[21][12]

   We also outline why anarchists support direct action and reject voting
   (political action) as the means of social change as well as the role
   of libertarians in social struggle and revolution as well as how we
   organise to influence both. As well as summarising our ideas on the
   important issues of how we organise and how we change the world, we
   take the time to refute some of the more common false claims against
   abstentionism and whether we are a-political or not. Suffice to say,
   the anarchist critique of electioneering has been validated (as can be
   seen by the numbers of ex-radical politicians and ex-socialist parties
   in the world). Our arguments on the transforming power of direct
   action, solidarity and working class self-organisation from below have,
   likewise, been vindicated time and time again.

   Few, if any, anarchists place all their hopes in spontaneity (if that
   were all that was required we would be in an anarchist society by
   now!). So we organise as anarchists and participate in the class
   struggle to push it in libertarian directions. Kropotkin words are
   extremely relevant here:

     The syndicate[union] is absolutely necessary. It is the only form
     of working-mens group that permits of maintaining the direct
     struggle against capital, without falling into parliamentarianism.
     But evidently it does not take that trend mechanically, since we
     have in Germany, France and England syndicates rallying to
     parliamentarianism . . . The other element is necessary, the element
     of which Malatesta speaks and which Bakunin has always
     practised.[22][13]

   So section J also addresses the issue of how anarchists organise, the
   kinds of associations we create and how we seek to influence social
   movements and the class struggle. Suffice to say, while we reject
   Leninism and its vanguardism we do not reject organising anarchist
   groups and federations to explain our ideas in order to see them gain
   predominance in popular organisations and social conflicts.

   It must also be noted that the sections within this volume have been
   slightly edited to ensure that it approximates volume 1 in size. This
   has involved trimming around a tenth of the material. I have tried to
   cut non-essential paragraphs and sub-sections to ensure that the core
   of the arguments remain intact. This means that, for example,
   [23]section H.2 (which debunks various Marxist myths about anarchism)
   ends on section H.2.11 in print but goes to section H.2.14 on-line.
   This was done with a heavy heart.

   Since volume 1 has been published, significant changes have occurred in
   the world. Neo-liberalism has taken a battering as the inevitable
   consequences of its policies resolved themselves in economic crisis.
   While reality has struck a blow to that ideology, it is fair to say
   that it will survive  after all, the ideology is so unrealistic
   already why should mere reality impact on its beauty for the true
   believer? Not to mention, of course, the significant class interests
   expressed in it. One thing is true, unless working class people
   organise and resist then governments, political discourse, economies
   and economic ideology will simply continue on as before  and those who
   will pay the costs of the crisis will not be the ruling class that
   created it.

   On a more positive note, [24]section B.1 of AFAQ indicated how
   hierarchies of wealth and power adversely affect those subject to them.
   The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by
   Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett presents more evidence on this
   subject, noting that on almost every index of quality of life or
   wellness there is a strong correlation between a country's level of
   economic inequality and its social outcomes. Significantly, it is not
   just the poor that are adversely affected by inequality, but society as
   a whole. So more equal societies have less crime and smaller prison
   populations as well as consistently delivering other advantages such as
   better physical and mental health, lower rates of teenage pregnancy and
   obesity, and higher rates of literacy and social trust. All of which
   confirm the anarchist analysis of the harmful effects of inequality in
   wealth and power.

   AFAQ has moved its main site location (although the various aliases we
   have remain the same).[25][14] As a result, it also has a blog in which
   we post supplemental material on anarchism and news about the FAQ
   itself (such as updates).[26][15] Notable postings include the 2008
   article marking the 150^th anniversary of the use of the term
   libertarian by anarchists ([27]150 years of libertarian), a
   supplement to our appendix on anarchist symbols contained in volume 1
   ([28]The Red Flag of Anarchy) and [29]an unfinished appendix to
   [30]section C explaining classical economics from a socialist
   perspective.

   Finally, on a personal note, I dedicate this volume, like the first, to
   my family. I hope that this work will help, however slightly, to make
   the world a better place for them and that my children will grow up in
   a freer, more sustainable, world. Whether they do or not really is up
   to us, the current generation. Are we up for the challenge? Are we
   ready to fight for freedom and equality? The answer to that lies in
   your hands.

   Either you can read AFAQ and leave it at that or you can join in the
   struggle for freedom and equality. The anarchist movement is not
   perfect, nor does it have all the answers. However, it remains for all
   that our best chance of making the world a fit place for unique
   individuals to live and flourish in. The question is whether we will
   remain happy to keep surviving within capitalism or whether we will
   seek to transform ourselves and our world for the better. We may fail.
   We may not stop the slide towards increased authoritarianism and
   atomisation. One thing is sure, if we do not resist then that slide
   will accelerate.

   And if we do resist? Well, we may well change the world

   Iain McKay

   [31]www.anarchistfaq.org.uk
   _______________________

   [1] quoted by Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement,
   p. 58

   [32][2] The Betrayal of the American Right, Ludwig von Mises Institute,
   p. 83

   [33][3] I would also like to take the opportunity to thank
   individualist anarchist Shawn Wilbur for his valued input into
   [34]section G and the suggestions he made after reading the first
   drafts sent to him. Without this help, and the numerous works of
   nineteenth century anarchism he has placed on-line, this section would
   not be as comprehensive as it has become.

   [35][4] Nor, for that matter, that there are no libertarian Marxists.
   There are, as we indicated in [36]section A.4.4 of volume 1 of AFAQ.
   Why they continue to call themselves Marxists while rejecting Marxs
   ideas on numerous key issues (and implicitly agreeing with Bakunin in
   the process) is a mystery.

   [37][5] We are aware that many Marxists reject the suggestion that
   Leninism is actually Marxist  a position we show has some validity. We
   argue that it was not only anarchism which Lenin distorted in State and
   Revolution but also important aspects of the ideas of Marx and Engels
   on such key issues as the state (see [38]section H.3.10, for example).

   [39][6] [40]Property is Theft!, p. 496, p. 535, p. 503 and p. 506

   [41][7] If Marx had been a bit more forthcoming then the likes of
   Stalin would have found it harder to label their nightmare regimes
   socialist.

   [42][8] quoted by G. Woodcock and I. Avakumovic, The Anarchist Prince,
   p. 369.

   [43][9] Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 325 and p. 398

   [44][10] Anarchism, p. 47

   [45][11] Op. Cit., p. 321. Proudhon had made a similar call in 1846,
   arguing that an agricultural and industrial combination must be found
   by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its
   slave as the state is inevitably enchained to capital and directed
   against the proletariat. (pp. 225-6)

   [46][12] quoted by Woodcock and Avakumovic, Op. Cit., pp. 294-5. As
   noted in the introduction to volume 1, the words used by previous
   generations of anarchists are dated and would appear sexist if uttered
   today. Suffice to say, Kropotkin was in favour of working women
   unionising. As discussed in [47]section A.3.5, with the notable
   exception of Proudhon, anarchists are for equality between the sexes 
   even if they unthinkingly used the sexist terminology of their time
   (Emma Goldman, for example, used man to describe all humanity).

   [48][13] quoted by Woodcock and Avakumovic, Op. Cit., p. 295

   [49][14] Namely: [50]www.anarchistfaq.org, [51]www.anarchismfaq.org,
   [52]www.anarchyfaq.org and [53]www.anarchistfaq.org.uk.

   [54][15] It can be found at:
   [55]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/afaq
   [56] An Anarchist FAQ: Introduction to Volume 1 [57]up [58]What
   Anarchists Say about An Anarchist FAQ 

References

   1. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn1
   2. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html
   3. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html
   4. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn2
   5. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn3
   6. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secHcon.html
   7. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn4
   8. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn5
   9. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html
  10. http://www.property-is-theft.org/
  11. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn6
  12. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html
  13. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJcon.html
  14. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html
  15. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn7
  16. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn8
  17. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn9
  18. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn10
  19. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn11
  20. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJcon.html
  21. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn12
  22. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn13
  23. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html
  24. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html
  25. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn14
  26. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_edn15
  27. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian
  28. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/the-red-flag-of-anarchy
  29. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/afaq/secCapp.html
  30. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html
  31. http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk/
  32. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref2
  33. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref3
  34. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secGcon.html
  35. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref4
  36. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA4.html#seca44
  37. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref5
  38. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech310
  39. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref6
  40. http://www.property-is-theft.org/
  41. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref7
  42. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref8
  43. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref9
  44. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref10
  45. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref11
  46. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref12
  47. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA3.html#seca35
  48. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref13
  49. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref14
  50. http://www.anarchistfaq.org/
  51. http://www.anarchismfaq.org/
  52. http://www.anarchyfaq.org/
  53. http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk/
  54. //usr/share/doc/anarchism/txt/vol2intro.txt#_ednref15
  55. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/afaq
  56. //afaq/vol1intro.html
  57. //afaq/intro.html
  58. //afaq/quotes.html
