Social anarchism is a non-state form of socialism and is considered to be the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as being interrelated with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom through norms such as freedom of speech maintained in a decentralized federalism, balanced with freedom of interaction in thought as well as incorporating the concept of subsidiarity, namely "that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry" and that "or every social activity ought of its nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, never destroy and absorb them", or the slogan "Do not take tools out of people's hands". Social anarchism has advocated that the conversion of a proportion of present-day and future productive private property be made into social property to offer individual empowerment through easier access to such as tools or parts, or a sharing of the commons while retaining respect for personal property.
The term is used to describe the theory—contra individualist anarchism—that places an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects in anarchist theory while opposing authoritarian forms of communitarianism associated with groupthink and collective conformity and instead favouring a reconciliation between individuality and sociality. For instance, illegitimate authority is removed through vigilance. While self-determination is asserted as is worker's self-management and education and empowerment emphasized, both individually and through interaction with the community, a do-it-youself mentality is combined with educational efforts within the social realm. Social anarchism is considered an umbrella term that includes—but is not limited to—the post-capitalist economic models of anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism and sometimes mutualism, or non-state controlled federated guild socialism dual power industrial democracy or federated cooperatives in addition to workers' and consumers' councils, replacing much of the present state system yet still retaining basic rights as well as the trade union approach of anarcho-syndicalism, the social struggle strategies of platformism and specifism and the environmental philosophy of social ecology.
The term social anarchism is used interchangeably with libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, or left anarchism. It emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism. Mutualism developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, emerged from early 19th century socialism and is considered a market-oriented strand within the libertarian socialist tradition. Mutualists accept property rights, but with brief abandonment time periods. In a community in which mutuality property rules were upheld, a landowner would need to make continuous use of his/her land. A mutualist property regime is described as one rooted in possession, occupancy-and-use, or usufruct. Mutualism is associated with the economic views of 19th century American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and William Batchelder Greene. Today, Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist and author of Studies in Mutualist Political Economy who describes this work as "an attempt to revive individualist anarchist political economy, to incorporate the useful developments of the last hundred years, to make it relevant to the problems of the twenty-first century".
Collectivist anarchism is a revolutionary form of anarchism associated with Mikhail Bakunin and James Guillaume. It is a specific tendency, not to be confused with the broad category sometimes called collectivist or communitarian anarchism; the tendency emerged from the most radical wing of mutualism during the late 1860s. Unlike mutualists, collectivist anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivized, being made the joint property of the commune; this was to be achieved through violent revolution, first starting with a small cohesive group through acts of armed insurrection, or propaganda by the deed, which would inspire the workers and peasants as a whole to revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production. However, collectivization was not to be extended to the distribution of income as workers would be paid according to time worked, rather than receiving goods being distributed "according to need" as in anarcho-communism.
This position was criticised by anarcho-communists as "uphold the wages system". Anarchist communist and collectivist ideas were not mutually exclusive. Although the collectivist anarchists advocated compensation for labor, some held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need, claiming that this would become more feasible once technology and productivity had evolved to a point where "production outstrips consumption" in a relative sense. Collectivist anarchism arose contemporaneously with Marxism, but it opposed the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat despite the stated Marxist goal of a collectivist stateless society. Anarcho-communism is a theory of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the state, money and private property. Politically, anarcho-communists advocate replacing the nation-state and representative government with a
A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service; some conscientious objectors consider themselves pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, non-aggressionist, anti-imperialist, antimilitarist or philosophically stateless. On March 8, 1995, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/83 stated that "persons performing military service should not be excluded from the right to have conscientious objections to military service"; this was re-affirmed in 1998, when resolution 1998/77 recognized that "persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections". A number of organizations around the world celebrate the principle on May 15 as International Conscientious Objection Day; the term has been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience.
Many conscientious objectors have been executed, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized when their beliefs led to actions conflicting with their society's legal system or government. The legal definition and status of conscientious objection has varied over the years and from nation to nation. Religious beliefs were a starting point in many nations for granting conscientious objector status; the first recorded conscientious objector, was conscripted into the Roman army in the year 295, but "told the Proconsul in Numidia that because of his religious convictions he could not serve in the military". He was executed for this, was canonized as Saint Maximilian. An early recognition of conscientious objection was granted by William the Silent to the Dutch Mennonites in 1575, they could refuse military service in exchange for a monetary payment. Formal legislation to exempt objectors from fighting was first granted in mid-18th century Great Britain following problems with attempting to force Quakers into military service.
In 1757, when the first attempt was made to establish a British Militia as a professional national military reserve, a clause in the Militia Ballot Act allowed Quakers exemption from military service. In the United States, conscientious objection was permitted from the country's founding, although regulation was left to individual states prior to the introduction of conscription. In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it reads: The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions. In 1974, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Seán MacBride said, in his Nobel Lecture, "To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added, it is'The Right to Refuse to Kill'."In 1976, the United Nations treaty the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force.
It was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was created in 1966. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it, its Article 18 begins: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and religion."However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights left the issue of conscientious objection inexplicit, as in this quote from War Resisters International: "Article 18 of the Covenant does put some limits on the right, stating that manifestations must not infringe on public safety, health or morals. Some states argue that such limitations would permit them to make conscientious objection during time of war a threat to public safety, or mass conscientious objection a disruption to public order... that it is a'moral' duty to serve the state in its military."On July 30, 1993, explicit clarification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 was made in the United Nations Human Rights Committee general comment 22, Paragraph 11: "The Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief."
In 2006, the Committee has found for the first time a right to conscientious objection under article 18, although not unanimously. In 1997, an announcement of Amnesty International's forthcoming campaign and briefing for the UN Commission on Human Rights included this quote: "The right to conscientious objection to military service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of international human rights protection and promotion."In 1998, the Human Rights Commission reiterated previous statements and added "states should... refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors... to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service". It encouraged states "to consider granting asylum to those conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin because they fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military service..."In 2001, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognised the right to conscientious objection. The Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states: 171.
Not every conviction, genuine though it may be, will constitute a s
Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of established democracies, which are representative democracies. In a representative democracy, people vote for representatives who enact policy initiatives. In direct democracy, people decide on policies without any intermediary. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory deliberative democracy. Semi-direct democracies in which representatives administer day-to-day governance, but the citizens remain the sovereign, allow for three forms of popular action: referendum and recall; the first two forms—referendums and initiatives—are examples of direct legislation. In 2019, Thirty countries allowed for referendum initiated by the population on the national levelA'compulsory referendum' subjects the legislation drafted by political elites to a binding popular vote.
This is the most common form of direct legislation. A'popular referendum' empowers citizens to make a petition that calls existing legislation to a vote by the citizens. Institutions specify the timeframe for a valid petition and the number of signatures required, may require signatures from diverse communities to protect minority interests; this form of direct democracy grants the voting public a veto on laws adopted by the elected legislature, as is done in Switzerland. A'citizen-initiated referendum' empowers members of the general public to propose, by petition, specific statutory measures or constitutional reforms to the government and, as with referendums, the vote may be binding or advisory. Initiatives may be direct or indirect: With the direct initiative, a successful proposition is placed directly on the ballot to be subject to vote. With an indirect initiative, a successful proposition is first presented to the legislature for their consideration; such a form of indirect initiative is utilized by Switzerland for constitutional amendments.
A deliberative referendum is a referendum that increases public deliberation through purposeful institutional design. Power of recall gives the public the power to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term; the earliest known direct democracy is said to be the Athenian democracy in the 5th century BC, although it was not an inclusive democracy: women and slaves were excluded from it. The main bodies in the Athenian democracy were the assembly, composed of male citizens. There were only about 30,000 male citizens, but several thousand of them were politically active in each year, many of them quite for years on end; the Athenian democracy was direct not only in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but in the sense that the people through the assembly, boulê, law courts controlled the entire political process, a large proportion of citizens were involved in the public business. Modern democracies, being representative, not direct, do not resemble the Athenian system.
Relevant to the history of direct democracy is the history of Ancient Rome the Roman Republic, beginning around 509 BC. Rome displayed many aspects of democracy, both direct and indirect, from the era of Roman monarchy all the way to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the Senate, formed in the first days of the city, lasted through the Kingdom and Empire, continued after the decline of Western Rome; as to direct democracy, the ancient Roman Republic had a system of citizen lawmaking, or citizen formulation and passage of law, a citizen veto of legislature-made law. Many historians mark the end of the Republic with the passage of a law named the Lex Titia, 27 November 43 BC, which eliminated many oversight provisions. Modern-era citizen lawmaking began in the towns of Switzerland in the 13th century. In 1847, the Swiss added the "statute referendum" to their national constitution, they soon discovered that having the power to veto Parliament's laws was not enough. In 1891, they added the "constitutional amendment initiative".
Swiss politics since 1891 have given the world a valuable experience base with the national-level constitutional amendment initiative. In the past 120 years, more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendums; the populace has been conservative. Some of the issues surrounding the related notion of a direct democracy using the Internet and other communications technologies are dealt with in e-democracy and below under the term electronic direct democracy. More concisely, the concept of open source governance applies principles of the free software movement to the governance of people, allowing the entire populace to participate in government directly, as much or as little as they please. Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 600 BC. Athens was one of the first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, though most
Free love is a social movement that accepts all forms of love. The Free Love movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, adultery, it claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, no one else. Much of the free love tradition reflects a liberal philosophy that seeks freedom from state regulation and church interference in personal relationships. According to this concept, the free unions of adults are legitimate relations which should be respected by all third parties whether they are emotional or sexual relations. In addition, some free love writing has argued that both men and women have the right to sexual pleasure without social or legal restraints. In the Victorian era, this was a radical notion. A new theme developed, linking free love with radical social change, depicting it as a harbinger of a new anti-authoritarian, anti-repressive sensibility. According to today's stereotype, earlier middle-class Americans wanted the home to be a place of stability in an uncertain world.
To this mentality are attributed strongly-defined gender roles, which led to a minority reaction in the form of the free-love movement. While the phrase free love is associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination in reference to the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s the free-love movement has not advocated multiple-sexual partners or short-term sexual relationships. Rather, it has argued that sexual relations that are entered into should not be regulated by law; the term "sex radical" is used interchangeably with the term "free lover", was the preferred term by advocates because of the negative connotations of "free love". By whatever name, advocates had two strong beliefs: opposition to the idea of forced sexual activity in a relationship and advocacy for a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases. Laws of particular concern to free love movements have included those that prevent an unmarried couple from living together, those that regulate adultery and divorce, as well as age of consent, birth control, homosexuality and sometimes prostitution.
The abrogation of individual rights in marriage is a concern—for example, some jurisdictions do not recognize spousal rape or treat it less than non-spousal rape. Free-love movements since the 19th century have defended the right to publicly discuss sexuality and have battled obscenity laws. At the turn of the 20th century, some free-love proponents extended the critique of marriage to argue that marriage as a social institution encourages emotional possessiveness and psychological enslavement; the history of free love is entwined with the history of feminism. From the late 18th century, leading feminists, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, have challenged the institution of marriage, many have advocated its abolition. According to feminist critique, a married woman was a wife and mother, denying her the opportunity to pursue other occupations. In 1855, free love advocate Mary Gove Nichols described marriage as the "annihilation of woman," explaining that women were considered to be men's property in law and public sentiment, making it possible for tyrannical men to deprive their wives of all freedom.
For example, the law allowed a husband to beat his wife. Free-love advocates argued that many children were born into unloving marriages out of compulsion, but should instead be the result of choice and affection—yet children born out of wedlock did not have the same rights as children with married parents. In 1857, in the Social Revolutionist, Minerva Putnam complained that "in the discussion of free love, no woman has attempted to give her views on the subject" and challenged every woman reader to "rise in the dignity of her nature and declare herself free."In the 19th century at least six books endorsed the concept of free love, all of which were written by men. However of the four major free-love periodicals following the U. S. civil war, half had female editors. Mary Gove Nichols was the leading-female advocate and the woman most looked up to in the free-love movement, her autobiography became the first argument against marriage written from a woman's point of view. To proponents of free love, the act of sex was not just about reproduction.
Access to birth control was considered a means to women's independence, leading birth-control activists embraced free love. Sexual radicals remained focused on their attempts to uphold a woman's right to control her body and to discuss issues such as contraception, marital-sex abuse, sexual education; these people believed. To help achieve this goal, such radical thinkers relied on the written word, books and periodicals, by these means the movement was sustained for over fifty years, spreading the message of free love all over the United States. A number of utopian social movements throughout history have shared a vision of free love; the all-male Essenes, who lived in the Middle East from the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD shunned sex and slavery. They renounced wealth, lived communally, were pacifist vegetarians. An Early Christian sect known as the Adamites existed in North Africa in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and rejected marriage, they believed themselves to be without original sin.
In the 6th century, adherents of Mazdakism in pre-Muslim Persia supported a kind of free love in the place of marriage, like many other free-love movements favored
Anarchy refers to a society, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. The word meant leaderlessness, but Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism, a new political philosophy which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions, it can designate a nation—or anywhere on earth, inhabited—that has no system of government or central rule. Anarchy is advocated by individual anarchists who propose replacing government with voluntary institutions; the word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία which combines ἀ, "not, without" and ἀρχή, "ruler, authority". Thus, the term refers to the state of a society being without authorities or an authoritative governing body. Anarchism as a political philosophy advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions; these are described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.
Anarchism holds the state to be unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including yet not limited to the state system. There are many traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is considered to be a radical left-wing ideology and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, syndicalism, or participatory economics; some individualist anarchists are socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are individualists or egoists. Anarchism as a social movement has endured fluctuations in popularity; the central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being a literary phenomenon which did influence the bigger currents and individualists participated in large anarchist organizations.
Some anarchists oppose all forms of aggression and support self-defense or non-violence while others have supported the use of militant measures, including revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society. Since the 1890s, the term libertarianism has been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States. At this time, classical liberals in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians and it has since become necessary to distinguish their individualist and capitalist philosophy from socialist anarchism. Thus, the former is referred to as right-wing libertarianism or right-libertarianism whereas the latter is described by the terms libertarian socialism, socialist libertarianism, left-libertarianism and left-anarchism. Right-libertarians voluntarists. Outside the English-speaking world, libertarianism retains its association with left-wing anarchism; the German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated anarchy in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force".
For Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls a republic. Kant identified four kinds of government: Law and freedom without force Law and force without freedom Force without freedom and law Force with freedom and law Although most known societies are characterized by the presence of hierarchy or the state, anthropologists have studied many egalitarian stateless societies, including most nomadic hunter-gatherer societies and horticultural societies such as the Semai and the Piaroa. Many of these societies can be considered to be anarchic in the sense that they explicitly reject the idea of centralized political authority; the egalitarianism typical of human hunter-gatherers is interesting when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee, is anything but egalitarian, forming hierarchies that are dominated by alpha males.
So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the development of human consciousness, language and social organization. In Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, anarchist anthropologist David Graeber attempts to outline areas of research that intellectuals might explore in creating a cohesive body of anarchist social theory. Graeber posits that anthropology is "particularly well positioned" as an academic discipline that can look at the gamut of human societies and organizations to study and catalog alternative social and economic structures around the world, most present these alternatives to the world. In Society Against the State, Pierre Clastres examines stateless societies where certain cultural practices and attitudes avert the development of hierarchy and the state. He
Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and his will over external determinants such as groups, society and ideological systems. Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy, but it refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict. Benjamin Tucker, a famous 19th century individualist anarchist, held that "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny". Among the early influences on individualist anarchism were William Godwin, Josiah Warren, Max Stirner, Lysander Spooner, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Henry David Thoreau, Herbert Spencer and Anselme Bellegarrigue. Individualist anarchism of different kinds have a few things in common; these are the following: The concentration on the individual and their will in preference to any construction such as morality, social custom, metaphysics, ideas or the will of others. The rejection of or reservations about the idea of revolution, seeing it as a time of mass uprising which could bring about new hierarchies.
Instead, they favor more evolutionary methods of bringing about anarchy through alternative experiences and experiments and education which could be brought about today. This is because it is not seen as desirable for individuals to wait for revolution to start experiencing alternative experiences outside what is offered in the current social system; the view that relationships with other persons or things can be in one's own interest only and can be as transitory and without compromises as desired since in individualist anarchism sacrifice is rejected. In this way, Max Stirner recommended associations of egoists. Individual experience and exploration therefore is emphasized; the egoist form of individualist anarchism, derived from the philosophy of Max Stirner, supports the individual doing what he pleases—taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules. To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind, he held that society does not exist but "the individuals are its reality"—he supported property by force of might rather than moral right.
Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw "associations of egoists" drawn together by respect for each other's ruthlessness. For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, American individualist anarchism "stresses the isolation of the individual – his right to his own tools, his mind, his body, to the products of his labor. To the artist who embraces this philosophy it is "aesthetic" anarchism, to the reformer, ethical anarchism, to the independent mechanic, economic anarchism; the former is concerned with the latter with practical demonstration. The economic anarchist is concerned with constructing a society on the basis of anarchism. Economically he sees no harm whatever in the private possession of what the individual produces by his own labor, but only so much and no more; the aesthetic and ethical type found expression in the transcendentalism and romanticism of the first part of the nineteenth century, the economic type in the pioneer life of the West during the same period, but more favorably after the Civil War".
It is for this reason that it has been suggested that in order to understand American individualist anarchism one must take into account "the social context of their ideas, namely the transformation of America from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist society the non-capitalist nature of the early U. S. can be seen from the early dominance of self-employment. At the beginning of the 19th century, around 80% of the working male population were self-employed; the great majority of Americans during this time were farmers working their own land for their own needs" and so "ndividualist anarchism is a form of artisanal socialism while communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial socialism". Contemporary individualist anarchist Kevin Carson characterizes American individualist anarchism saying that "nlike the rest of the socialist movement, the individualist anarchists believed that the natural wage of labor in a free market was its product, that economic exploitation could only take place when capitalists and landlords harnessed the power of the state in their interests.
Thus, individualist anarchism was an alternative both to the increasing statism of the mainstream socialist movement, to a classical liberal movement, moving toward a mere apologetic for the power of big business". In European individualist anarchism, a different social context helped the rise of European individualist illegalism and as such "he illegalists were proletarians who had nothing to sell but their labour power, nothing to discard but their dignity. If they turned to illegality it was due to the fact that honest toil only benefited the employers and entailed a complete loss of dignity, while any complaints resulted in the sack. A European tendency of individualist anarchism advocated violent individual acts of individual reclamation, propaganda by the deed and criticism of organization; such individualist anarchist tendencies include French illegalism and Italian anti-organizational insurrectionarism. Bookchin reports that at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th "it was in times of severe social repression and deadening social quiescence that individualist anarchists ca
Propaganda of the deed
Propaganda of the deed is specific political action meant to be exemplary to others and serve as a catalyst for revolution. It is associated with acts of violence perpetrated by proponents of insurrectionary anarchism in the late 19th and early 20th century, including bombings and assassinations aimed at the ruling class, but had non-violent applications; these "deeds" were to ignite the "spirit of revolt" in the people by demonstrating the state was not omnipotent and by offering hope to the downtrodden, to expand support for anarchist movements as the state grew more repressive in its response. In 1881, the International Anarchist Congress of London gave the tactic its approval. One of the first individuals to conceptualise propaganda by the deed was the Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane, who wrote in his "Political Testament" that "ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around." Mikhail Bakunin, in his "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" stated that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, the most irresistible form of propaganda."
The concept, in a broader setting, has a rich heritage, as the words of Francis of Assisi reveal: "Let them show their love by the works they do for each other, according as the Apostle says:'let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.'" Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but action as propaganda." It was not advocacy for mass murder, but a call for targeted killings of the representatives of capitalism and government at a time when such action might garner sympathy from the population, such as during periods of government repression or labor conflicts, although Most himself once boasted that "the existing system will be quickest and most radically overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the enemies of the people must be set in motion." In 1885, he published The Science of Revolutionary Warfare, a technical manual for acquiring and detonating explosives based on the knowledge he acquired by working at an explosives factory in New Jersey.
Most was an early influence on American anarchists Emma Alexander Berkman. Berkman attempted propaganda by the deed when he tried in 1892 to kill industrialist Henry Clay Frick following the deaths by shooting of several striking workers. Beverly Gage, professor of U. S. history at Yale University, elaborates on what the concept meant to outsiders and those within the anarchist movement: To outsiders, the talk of bombing and assassination that pulsed through revolutionary circles in the late 1870s sounded like little more than an indiscriminate call to violence. To Most and others within the anarchist movement, by contrast, the idea of propaganda by deed, or the attentat, had a specific logic. Among anarchism's founding premises was the idea that capitalist society was a place of constant violence: every law, every church, every paycheck was based on force. In such a world, to do nothing, to stand idly by while millions suffered, was itself to commit an act of violence; the question was not whether violence per se might be justified, but how violence might be maximally effective for, in Most's words, annihilating the "beast of property" that "makes mankind miserable, gains in cruelty and voracity with the progress of our so called civilization."
By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings and tyrannicides. In 1881, "propaganda by the deed" was formally adopted as a strategy by the anarchist London Congress. In 1886, French anarchist Clément Duval achieved a form of propaganda of the deed, stealing 15,000 francs from the mansion of a Parisian socialite, before accidentally setting the house on fire. Caught two weeks he was dragged from the court crying "Long live anarchy!", condemned to death. Duval's sentence was commuted to hard labor on Devil's Island, French Guiana. In the anarchist paper Révolte, Duval famously declared that, "Theft exists only through the exploitation of man by man... when Society refuses you the right to exist, you must take it... the policeman arrested me in the name of the Law, I struck him in the name of Liberty". As early as 1887, a few important figures in the anarchist movement had begun to distance themselves from individual acts of violence.
Peter Kropotkin thus wrote that year in Le Révolté that "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite". A variety of anarchists advocated the abandonment of these sorts of tactics in favor of collective revolutionary action, for example through the trade union movement; the anarcho-syndicalist, Fernand Pelloutier, argued in 1895 for renewed anarchist involvement in the labor movement on the basis that anarchism could do well without "the individual dynamiter."State repression of the anarchist and labor movements following the few successful bombings and assassinations may have contributed to the abandonment of these kinds of tactics, although reciprocally state repression, in the first place, may have played a role in these isolated acts. The dismemberment of the French socialist movement, into many groups and, following the suppression of the 1871 Paris Commune, the execution and exile of many communards to penal colonies, favored individualist political expression and acts.
Anarchist historian Max Nettlau provided a more complex concept of propaganda when he sa