作者：Ruth Kinna

譯者：A書翻譯平臺

索引: Kinna, R. (2005).?Anarchism: a beginner's guide. One word Publications. Chapter 1, 10-15?

無政府主義者的思想：重要人物

學(xué)習(xí)無政府主義的一個(gè)常見的方法就是通過分析那些重要思想家的經(jīng)典著述來勾勒無政府主義的思想史。德國法官和學(xué)者保羅·埃爾茲巴赫（Paul Eltzbacher）是最早一批用這種方法研究無政府主義的人。他在1900年用德語寫的《無政府主義》（Der Anarchismus）列出了七位無政府主義的“智者”（sages）。除了蒲魯東之外，還有威廉·戈德溫（William Godwin，1756-1836），麥克斯·施蒂納（Max Stirner，1806-1856），米哈伊爾·巴枯寧（Michael Bakunin, 1814-1870），彼得·克魯泡特金（Peter Kropotkin, 1842-1921），本杰明·塔克（Benjamin Tucker, 1854-1939），和列夫·托爾斯泰（Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910）。雖然喬治·伍德科克（George Woodcock）在1962年出版的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的參考類著作《無政府主義》（Anarchism）中很大程度上沿用了埃爾茲巴赫的列表，只是沒有將塔克列入重要思想家之列，但埃爾茲巴赫的列表并非絕對的權(quán)威。盡管如此，他的研究仍然廣受歡迎。其討論部分不僅介紹了本書將要研究的一些重要思想家的著作，更重要的是，也引發(fā)了一場能否用統(tǒng)一的思想界定無政府主義的持續(xù)爭論。

對于誰能被列入無政府主義先賢的爭論往往會變成評估誰在實(shí)際運(yùn)動(dòng)中產(chǎn)生了更大影響，這就反映出了評價(jià)者的特定文化，歷史和政治背景。例如，在英美研究中，巴枯寧和克魯泡特金通常被列為最偉大的無政府主義理論家；在中歐，特別是在法國，蒲魯東和巴枯寧則常常被視作無政府主義運(yùn)動(dòng)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人物。最近幾年，研究者們逐步充實(shí)了無政府主義先鋒思想家的列表?！兑蟛豢赡堋罚―emanding the impossible）一書的作者彼得·馬歇爾（Peter Marshall）不僅重新將本杰明·塔克列入無政府主義理論家行列，還進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)展到了埃里?！ど劭蓚H（Elisée Reclus, 1830-1905），埃里克·馬拉泰斯塔（Errico Malatesta, 1853-1932）和艾瑪·古德曼（Emma Goldman, 1869-1940）。而在無政府主義著作選集里也有同樣的趨勢。丹尼爾·蓋林（Daniel Guérin）的選集《沒有神仙也沒有主人》（No Gods, No masters）沒有任何關(guān)于威廉·戈德溫，本杰明·塔克和托爾斯泰的內(nèi)容，但卻收錄了凱撒·德·帕佩（Casar de Paepe, 1842-1890），詹姆斯·紀(jì)堯姆（James Guillaume, 1844-1916），馬拉泰斯塔，費(fèi)爾南德·佩洛蒂埃（1867-1901），埃米爾·普吉特（Emile Pouget，1860-1931），沃林（Voline, 弗謝沃洛德·米哈伊洛維奇·艾肯鮑姆[Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eichenbaum, 1882-1945]的筆名）和涅斯托爾·馬赫諾（1889-1935）。喬治·伍德科克的《無政府主義讀本》（Anarchist Reader）有更大的多樣性，但是它比蓋林的選集更偏向于北美的無政府主義傳統(tǒng)，包括了魯?shù)婪颉ぢ蹇藸枺≧odalf Rocker，1873-1958），默里·布克欽（Murry Bookchin, 1921-），赫伯特·雷德（Hebert Read, 1893-1968），艾歷克斯·康福特（Alex, Comfort, 1920-2000），尼古拉·沃爾特（Nicolas Walter, 1934-2000），柯林·瓦德（Colin Ward, 1924-）以及保羅·古德曼（Paul Goodman, 1911-1972）。

埃爾茲巴赫研究之所以廣受歡迎，也有一部分要?dú)w功于他研究對象之一的克魯泡特金。1910年時(shí)，克魯泡特金就稱贊埃爾茲巴赫的研究是“對無政府主義最好的研究”。他的這種研究方法的一大成功之處在于，他首先區(qū)分了我們現(xiàn)在所理解的“經(jīng)典”無政府主義理論家和其他無政府主義者。這種區(qū)分是基于學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域的成果。盡管學(xué)術(shù)界對誰才是經(jīng)典理論家的問題各有看法，但他們在論述十九世紀(jì)的無政府主義者時(shí)，只包含了那些將無政府主義提升到“嚴(yán)肅政治理論層次的表述”的人物，而將其他人視作煽動(dòng)家和宣傳家。即使不太熱心于無政府主義的喬治·克勞德（George Crowder）也認(rèn)為那些“偉大的無政府主義者”確實(shí)比其他人更杰出，因?yàn)樗麄兊淖髌酚^點(diǎn)更加新穎豐富，影響也要更大。而不少持無政府主義觀點(diǎn)，或者親近無政府主義的作家也支持區(qū)分出經(jīng)典傳統(tǒng)。丹尼爾·蓋林的無政府主義導(dǎo)論，《沒有神仙也沒有主人》只收錄了他認(rèn)為無政府主義第一等的思想，而那些“二流的名言警句”則被排除在外。在無政府主義大眾出版物上同樣有這種對經(jīng)典的區(qū)分。無政府主義組織所辦的小冊子和報(bào)紙也常常關(guān)注馬赫諾、克魯泡特金、巴枯寧和馬拉泰斯塔的作品。在無政府主義的書展和網(wǎng)站上，很容易找到這些知識分子精英們的著作。一些活動(dòng)家也樂于將學(xué)術(shù)界著名社會評論家（尤其是諾姆·喬姆斯基）的作品作為無政府主義文學(xué)出版，為知識界的等級制度又添加了一個(gè)新階層。

但是埃爾茲巴赫的研究方法也不是盡善盡美的。他的成功引起了廣泛的討論，而他的研究方法也受到了多方面的批評。正如蓋林所說，埃爾茲巴赫研究方法的缺陷在于，它更傾向于給無政府主義大師們立傳，而偏離了對他們種種思想觀點(diǎn)的分析。而當(dāng)大師們的生活細(xì)節(jié)比他們的作品更受關(guān)注的時(shí)候，大師們言行不一的情況就有可能混淆無政府主義本身的涵義。另一個(gè)問題則是埃爾茲巴赫在選錄文集時(shí)的隨意性。對于這個(gè)問題有兩種截然相反的批評角度。有些人認(rèn)為埃爾茲巴赫的收錄太過寬泛，包括了許多從未自稱無政府主義者的路人，以及許多雖然自稱無政府主義者卻從未真正投身于無政府主義運(yùn)動(dòng)之中的人。也有些人認(rèn)為埃爾茲巴赫的選集太窄，忽略了廣大的無名運(yùn)動(dòng)家的貢獻(xiàn)，而正是這些運(yùn)動(dòng)家的存在才讓無政府主義運(yùn)動(dòng)生機(jī)勃勃。許多作者傾向于將無政府主義當(dāng)作幾乎在所有政治思想中都顯而易見的趨勢，這加劇了關(guān)于包容性的問題。從克魯泡特金到赫伯特·里德（Herbert Read）的許多無政府主義者都寬泛的把無政府主義當(dāng)成“對沒有政府的社會的構(gòu)想”，因此他們認(rèn)為中國古代哲學(xué)，瑣羅亞斯德教和早期基督教思想都是無政府主義的源泉。道家之父老子，十六世紀(jì)的散文家艾蒂安·德拉博提（Etienne de la Boetie），法國百科全書派學(xué)者狄德羅，美國超驗(yàn)主義者大衛(wèi)·亨利·梭羅，費(fèi)多爾·陀思妥耶夫斯基和奧斯卡·王爾德，以及莫漢達(dá)斯·甘地這樣的政治領(lǐng)袖都曾被收錄在無政府主義的文集或歷史書中。正如尼古拉斯·沃爾特（Nicolas Walter）所說，這種包容性可能是誤入歧途：

在古代中國和印度、埃及和美索不達(dá)米亞、希臘和羅馬的思想中或許能找到對某種沒有政府的逝去黃金時(shí)代的描述。同樣，在無數(shù)宗教及政治作家與群體的思想中，也可能找到對沒有政府的未來烏托邦的夢想。但是，將無政府施以現(xiàn)在時(shí)的思想是最近才出現(xiàn)的，只有在19世紀(jì)的無政府主義運(yùn)動(dòng)中，我們才能找到對在此時(shí)此地實(shí)現(xiàn)沒有政府的社會的要求。

與之截然相反的批評則反對拘束選錄的范圍，這種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為埃爾茲巴赫的研究將經(jīng)典范圍局限的太窄了。畢竟，誰有資格決定哪些人物才對無政府主義的思想或歷史貢獻(xiàn)最大呢？安德魯·卡爾森（Andrew Carlson）就曾批評過像埃爾茲巴赫這樣的無政府主義理論家總有兩點(diǎn)誤解，即德國的運(yùn)動(dòng)沒有產(chǎn)生有聲望的無政府主義作者，德國的社會主義運(yùn)動(dòng)受無政府主義影響也很小，這兩點(diǎn)都是站不住腳的。從所謂經(jīng)典出發(fā)產(chǎn)生的另一個(gè)誤解就是女性對無政府主義幾乎沒有貢獻(xiàn)。除了艾瑪·古德曼（Emma Goldman），無政府主義中還涌現(xiàn)出了許多女性活動(dòng)家，比如路易斯·米歇爾（Louise Michel, 1830-1905），露西·帕森斯（Lucy Parsons, 1853–1942），夏洛特·威爾遜（Charlotte Wilson, 1854-1944）以及伏爾泰琳·德·克萊爾（Voltairine de Cleyre, 1866-1912）。這些女性對無政府主義做出了突出的貢獻(xiàn)，將她們排除在經(jīng)典之外是一種無理的忽視。

另一方面，對局限性的批評也涉及批評遴選經(jīng)典過程中的抽象性。許多無政府主義者都厭惡那種研究無政府主義思想，卻又脫離這些思想當(dāng)初產(chǎn)生的政治背景的研究方式。他們認(rèn)為，對思想與其最初政治背景的分離，把小部分無政府主義著作抬上了神壇，而促使廣大其他無政府主義運(yùn)動(dòng)的成就遭到忽視。確實(shí)，有一部分無政府主義者試圖努力闡述一個(gè)連貫的無政府主義世界觀：比如克魯泡特金就有意想成為一位哲學(xué)家。但即使是克魯泡特金也承認(rèn)，無政府主義是由在工人階級圈子里流傳的無數(shù)報(bào)紙和小冊子定義的，而不是像由他這樣的人寫出的理論。絕大多數(shù)無政府主義者都以散文家和宣傳家的方式工作，因此，既沒有道理也沒有必要用一小部分沒有那么廣泛代表性的文獻(xiàn)來框定無政府主義。正如金斯利·維德梅爾（Kingsley Widmer）所說:

無政府主義思想的狹隘主義，也就是局限于巴枯寧-克魯泡特金的十九世紀(jì)思想脈絡(luò)，或者可以再加上諸如施蒂納，梭羅，托爾斯泰，或者隨便什么讓你心醉神迷的自由解放思想家，是行不通的。不僅是在思想上也在情感上，不僅是在過去的歷史上也在未來的可能性上，狹隘主義都是不對的。無政府主義要么是多種多樣千變?nèi)f化的，要么就只能是失敗者的哀嘆和一種邊緣的政治理論。

除了遴選隨意性的問題以外，其他一些批評者同樣批評了埃爾茲巴赫的研究所得出的結(jié)論：在埃爾茲巴赫那本書的末尾，他試圖從多種多樣風(fēng)格迥異的文獻(xiàn)中提煉出一個(gè)核心理念來更好的定義無政府主義者。就像前文法蘭西學(xué)術(shù)院字典所說的那樣，他的核心觀點(diǎn)是拒絕國家（rejection of the state）。埃爾茲巴赫指出，無政府主義者“為了我們的未來而消滅國家”。而在除此以外的其他問題上，諸如法律，財(cái)產(chǎn)，政治變革和無國家的狀態(tài)，無政府主義者的觀點(diǎn)存在分歧。這一總結(jié)導(dǎo)致了兩種爭議。對于一些批評者來說，埃爾茲巴赫認(rèn)為無政府主義是拒絕國家的觀點(diǎn)是正確的，但是在給無政府主義分類時(shí)，他錯(cuò)誤地采用了源自法學(xué)理論的明顯的科學(xué)方法，試圖將其適用于無政府主義關(guān)于財(cái)產(chǎn)和國家之類的概念上。正如一位批評者指出，埃爾茲巴赫的“分析和陳述有一種法院審判的終局性”。另外一些批評者則更著眼于埃爾茲巴赫的那個(gè)最終結(jié)論。從這個(gè)角度來看，他的錯(cuò)誤在于給無政府主義確定一個(gè)共同點(diǎn)?，旣悺じトR明（Mary Fleming）在這個(gè)問題上見解頗深。在對埃里?！ど劭蓚H——一位并未被列入埃爾茲巴赫經(jīng)典名單里的作者——的研究中，她指出對大師們的研究強(qiáng)加了一種推定的但卻毫無意義的統(tǒng)一傳統(tǒng)，它試圖統(tǒng)一一系列截然不同還常?；ゲ幌嗳莸挠^點(diǎn)。正如她指出，埃爾茲巴赫自己都承認(rèn)他的定義總結(jié)——拒絕國家——包括了“許多完全不同的意義”。他堅(jiān)持將無政府主義者們聚集在一個(gè)思想流派中，因而錯(cuò)誤的將哲學(xué)置于歷史之上。他鼓勵(lì)“無政府主義體現(xiàn)了一種獨(dú)特的看待世界的方式”的觀點(diǎn)，卻忽視了它“是一個(gè)在特定歷史環(huán)境下回應(yīng)特定社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)不滿情緒而發(fā)展出來的運(yùn)動(dòng)”。

弗萊明對埃爾茲巴赫方法的批評很重要，但它并沒有削弱經(jīng)典無政府主義的吸引力，不應(yīng)被視為對埃爾茲巴赫的主要結(jié)論的反駁，即無政府主義意味著拒絕國家。個(gè)人無政府主義者當(dāng)然會繼續(xù)將他們的無政府主義聚焦于其他一些概念上——比起拒絕國家，他們對其他概念更感興趣。然而，拒絕國家是一個(gè)很有用的意識形態(tài)標(biāo)志，在流行文化中有很好的反響。此外，還有另外兩種分析方法可以糾正埃爾茲巴赫的律法主義視角所造成的疑慮。第一種是試圖通過區(qū)分不同的思想流派來理解無政府主義。第二個(gè)是基于對無政府主義運(yùn)動(dòng)的歷史分析。比起埃爾茲巴赫的研究方法，這些方法能夠?qū)o政府主義反對國家的本質(zhì)做出更微妙的說明。對學(xué)派的分析有助于理解反對國家這一概念的廣泛性，而歷史分析更能說明其與反資本主義的聯(lián)系。

Anarchist thought: key personalities

One popular approach to the study of anarchism is to trace a history of anarchist ideas through the analysis of key texts or the writings of important thinkers. Paul Eltzbacher, a German judge and scholar, was amongst the first to adopt this approach. His 1900 German language?Der Anarchismus?identifified seven ‘sages’ of anarchism: joining Proudhon were William Godwin (1756–1836), Max Stirner (1806–1856), Michael Bakunin (1814–1870), Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921), Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939) and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910). Eltzbacher’s list has rarely been treated as definitive, though George Woodcock’s?Anarchism?(1962), which remains a standard reference work, largely followed Eltzbacher’s selection, dropping only Tucker from special consideration in the family of key thinkers. Nevertheless, Eltzbacher’s approach remains popular. Its discussion both provides an introduction to some of the characters whose work will be examined during the course of this book and, perhaps more importantly, raises an on-going debate about the possibility of defifining anarchism by a unifying idea.

Arguments about who should be included in the anarchist canon usually turn on assessments of the influence that writers have exercised on the movement and tend to reflect particular cultural, historical and political biases of the selector. For example, in Anglo-American studies, Bakunin and Kropotkin are normally represented as the most important anarchist theorists; in Continental Europe, especially in France, Proudhon and Bakunin are more likely to be identified as the movement’s leading lights. In recent years selectors have tended to widen the net of those considered to be at the forefront of anarchist thought. In?Demanding the Impossible?(1992), Peter Marshall not only restored Tucker to the canon, he expanded it to include Elisée Reclus (1830–1905), Errico Malatesta (1853–1932) and Emma Goldman (1869–1940). The same tendency is apparent in anthologies of anarchist writings. Daniel Guérin’s collection,?No Gods, No Masters, makes no reference to Godwin, Tucker or Tolstoy but includes work by Casar de Paepe (1842–90), James Guillaume (1844–1916), Malatesta, Ferdinand Pelloutier (1867–1901) and Emile Pouget (1860–1931), Voline (the pseudonym of Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eichenbaum, 1882–1945) and Nestor Makhno (1889–1935). George Woodcock’s?Anarchist Reader?shows a similar diversity, though it leans far more towards the North American tradition than Guérin’s collection and also includes twentieth-century fifigures like Rudolf Rocker (1873–1958), Murray Bookchin (b. 1921), Herbert Read (1893–1968), Alex Comfort (1920–2000), Nicholas Walter (1934–2000), Colin Ward (b. 1924) and Paul Goodman (1911–1972).

The popularity of Eltzbacher’s approach owes something to Kropotkin – one of his subjects – who in 1910 endorsed Eltzbacher’s study as ‘the best work on Anarchism’.10 One measure of the method’s success is the distinction that is now commonly drawn between the ‘classical’ theoreticians of anarchism, and the rest. This distinction is particularly marked in academic work. Even whilst nominating different candidates to the rank of classical theorist, by and large academics treat nineteenth-century anarchists as a body of writers who raised anarchism to ‘a(chǎn) level of articulation that distinguished it as a serious political theory’ and disregard the remainder as mere agitators and propagandists. In a less than hearty endorsement of anarchism, George Crowder maintained that the ‘“great names” are indeed relatively great because their work was more original, forceful and influential than that of others’. Some writers from within – or close to – the anarchist movement have also supported the idea of a classical tradition. Daniel Guérin’s guide to anarchism,?No Gods, No Masters, includes only writings from those judged to be in the first rank of anarchist thought. The contribution of ‘their second-rate epigones’ is duly dismissed. A similar distinction is maintained in popular anarchist publications. Pamphlets and broadsheets produced by anarchist groups continue to focus on the work of Makhno, Kropotkin, Bakunin and Malatesta; and reprints of original work by this intellectual elite can be readily found at anarchist book-fairs and on websites. Some activists are also happy to publish as anarchist literature the work of leading academic social critics – notably Noam Chomsky – establishing a new tier to the intellectual hierarchy.

Yet Eltzbacher’s method has not been accepted without criticism. Indeed, its success has prompted a good deal of debate and his approach has been attacked on a number of grounds. As Guérin noted, one problem with Eltzbacher’s approach is that it can tend towards biography and away from the analysis of ideas. When the work of the masters is given less priority than the details of their lives, the danger is that the meaning of anarchism can be muddled by the tendency of leading anarchists to act inconsistently or sometimes in contradiction to their stated beliefs.14 Another problem is the apparent arbitrariness of Eltzbacher’s selection. Here, complaints tend in opposite directions. Some have argued that the canon is too inclusive, composed of fellow travellers who never called themselves anarchists and those who adopted the tag without showing any real commitment to the movement. Others suggest that the approach is too exclusive and that it disregards the contribution of the numberless, nameless activists who have kept the anarchist movement alive. The problem of inclusion has been exacerbated by the habit of some writers to treat anarchism as a tendency apparent in virtually all schools of political thought. Armed with a broad conception of anarchism as a belief in the possibility of society without government, anarchists from Kropotkin to Herbert Read have pointed to everything from ancient Chinese philosophy, Zoroastrianism and early Christian thought as sources of anarchism. The father of Taoism, Lao Tzu, the sixteenth-century essayist Etienne de la Boetie, the French encyclopaedist Denis Diderot, the American Transcendentalist David Henry Thoreau, Fydor Dostoyevsky and Oscar Wilde, and political leaders like Mohandas Gandhi, have all been included in anthologies or histories of anarchism. As Nicolas Walter argued, this inclusiveness can be misleading:

The description of a past golden age without government may be found in the thought of ancient China and India, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and Greece and Rome, and in the same way the wish for a future utopia without government may be found in the thought of countless religious and political writers and communities. But the application of anarchy to the present situation is more recent, and it is only in the anarchist movement of the nineteenth century that we find the demand for a society without government here and now.

The reverse complaint, that the canon is too exclusive, is in part a protest about the restrictedness of the choices. Who decides which anarchists have made the most important contribution to anarchist thought or to history? In his account of the German anarchist movement Andrew Carlson criticizes theorists of anarchism like Eltzbacher for wrongly suggesting that the German movement produced no writers of repute and that anarchist ideas exercised only a marginal inflfluence on the German socialist movement. Neither view is supportable. Equally misleading is the view, sustained by the canon, that women have made little contribution to anarchism. The anarchist movement has boasted a number of women activists, apart from Emma Goldman, including Louise Michel (1830–1905), Lucy

Parsons (1853–1942), Charlotte Wilson (1854–1944) and Voltairine de Cleyre (1866–1912). These women have made a significant contribution to anarchism and their exclusion from the canon is a sign of unreasonable neglect.

In the other part, the complaints about exclusivity touch on the abstraction involved in the process of selection. Many anarchists resent the way in which the study of anarchist thought has been divorced from the political context in which the theory was first advanced. Such a distinction, they argue, legitimizes the intense scrutiny of a tiny volume of anarchist writings and encourages the achievements of the wider movement to be overlooked or ignored. Some anarchists, it’s true, have worked hard to elaborate a coherent anarchist world view: Kropotkin made a self-conscious effort to present himself as a philosopher. But even Kropotkin recognized that anarchism was defined by the countless newspapers and pamphlets that circulated in working-class circles, not by the theories spawned by people like himself. The vast majority of anarchists have worked as essayists and propagandists and it seems unreasonable and unnecessarily restrictive to assess anarchism through the examination of a tiny, unrepresentative sample of literature. The point is made by Kingsley Widmer:

The parochialism of thinking of anarchism generally just in the Baukunin-Kropotkin [sic] nineteenth-century matrix, even when adding, say, Stirner, Thoreau, Tolstoy or ... what turned-you-on-in a-libertarian-way, just won’t do – not only in ideas but in sensibility, not only in history but in possibility … Either anarchism should be responded to as various and protean, or it is the mere pathos of defeats and the marginalia of political theory.

Leaving the problem of arbitrariness aside, other critics have directed their fire at the conclusions Eltzbacher drew from his study. At the end of his book, Eltzbacher attempted to distil from the wide and disparate body of work he surveyed a unifying idea or core belief that would serve to define anarchism. The idea he settled upon was – as the French academy suggested – the rejection of the state. Anarchists, Eltzbacher famously argued, ‘negate the State for our future’.18 In all the other areas Eltzbacher pinpointed – law, property, political change and statelessness – anarchists were divided. The controversy generated by this conclusion has centred on two points. For some critics Eltzbacher was right to identify anarchism with the rejection of the state, but mistaken in his attempt to classify anarchist families of thought by an apparently scientific method which imposed on anarchism concepts – of property, the state and so forth – that were drawn from legal theory. As one critic put the point, Eltzbacher’s ‘a(chǎn)nalysis and presentation possessed the finality of a court judgement’. Other critics have been more concerned with Eltzbacher’s general conclusion than with the means by which he purported to distinguish schools of anarchist thought. From this point of view, his mistake was the attempt to identify a common thread in anarchism. Marie Fleming has forcefully advanced the case. In her study of Elisée Reclus – a writer conspicuous by his absence from Eltzbacher’s study – Fleming argues that the study of sages imposes a putative, yet meaningless, unity of tradition on a set of ideas that are not only diverse but also often incompatible. As she points out, Eltzbacher himself admitted that his defining principle – the rejection of the state – was filled with ‘totally different meanings’. In his insistence that anarchists be drawn together in one school of thought, he wrongly prioritized philosophy over history. He encouraged the idea that ‘a(chǎn)narchism embodied a peculiar way of looking at the world’ and overlooked the extent to which it was 'a movement that ... developed in response to specific social-economic grievances in given historical circumstances'.

Fleming’s criticism of Eltzbacher’s method is important but it has not undermined the appeal of classical anarchism and should not be taken as a rebuttal of Eltzbacher’s leading conclusion that anarchism implies a rejection of the state. Individual anarchists will of course continue to centre their anarchism on a range of different concepts – usually more positive than the state’s rejection. Nevertheless the rejection of the state is a useful ideological marker and one that resonates in popular culture. Moreover, it’s possible to find a corrective for the general unease created by Eltzbacher’s legalism in two alternative methods of analysis. The first seeks to understand anarchism by distinguishing between different schools of thought. The second is based on a historical analysis of the anarchist movement. These approaches shed a more subtle light than Eltzbacher was able to do on the nature of anarchist anti-statism. Specifically, the analysis of schools has helped to illustrate the broadness of this concept, and the historical approach its relationship to anti-capitalism.