By Benjamin Franks
There is a considerable amount of confusion, even among Socialists, as to the real meaning of words that run off the end of our tongues every time we speak of the revolutionary movement. Take, for instance, the words Socialist, Communist, Collectivist, Social Democrat, Anarchist, and collect the opinions of the first half dozen men you meet as to what they understand by them, and you will hear as many interpretations as replies. Yet amidst this seeming confusion it is quite possible to gather the general lines of tendency expressed in these disputed terms (Freedom, Vol. 2, No. 17 (December 1888), 1).
1. Introduction
Anarchism is amongst the most difficult of the ideologies to precisely identify and explain. Emma Goldman began her noted introductory essay on anarchism with John
Henry McKay’s poetic observation that anarchism is: ‘Ever reviled, accursed, ne’er understood’ (Q. McKay in Goldman, 1969, 47). More recently, the analytical political philosopher Paul McLaughlin (2007, 25), following John P. Clark, has questioned whether it is possible to provide a satisfactory definition of anarchism. David Miller (1984, 3), after considering the range of differing accounts of anarchism, argues that there are no common features ascribed to anarchism, and as a result it can barely be recognised as a political ideology.
