When you ask an Anarchist, any Anarchist, anywhere in the world, for a definition of Anarchism, they will offer you the thought-terminating condescending, as, clearly Anarchists have already effectively created a community that does lack any form of order, along with all of the relationships of power that come along with it, cliché, "Anarchism is the abolition of all heirarchy." This is a rather spurious and literal etymological translation of what is, in point of fact, a political philosophy that was born as an alternative to authoritarian strains of Socialism. The reasons for this are varied. What I suspect for most Anarchists to want to do is to keep an open mind as to just what is or is not Anarchism. While well-meaning, I do not think that this is truly apt. I ascribe to a hypenated form of Anarchism, Anarcho-Pacifism, but do more or less generally agree to a kind of Anarchism without adjectives. What I would like to be able to say, when asked for a definition of Anarchism or to clarify my political views is, "Anarchism is libertarian socialism." If you anything about the history of Anarchism, you will find that this statement is just simply true. Anarchists, however, are a little too willing to placate other Anarchists and a little too unwilling to assert what, to me, are just simply facts for this to suffice in nearly every given political context.

Max Stirner was the founder of the philosophy of Egoism, which I have no qualms with having an influence upon Anarchism, and, along with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, one of the so-called "Young Hegelians", which has created much historical confusion as to just what is and is not Anarchism, as Anarchists tend to cite Stirner as an early Anarchist with a political philosophy markedly distinct from the various Anarchist philosophies that all could be defined as "libertarian socialism". The problem with this is that Max Stirner was not really a political philosopher. His "Union of Egoists" were ultimately vaguely analogous to Friedrich Nietzsche's society of "freethinkers", though infinitely less apropriable by the likes of Ayn Rand with her representation of the philosophy of "Might makes Right" via the character of Ragnar Danneskjöld in Atlas Shrugged. Stirner, like Nietzsche, however, also had an influence upon Fascism, a minor historical point that is quite often lost on a certain set of Anarchists who happen to be particularly prone to what you might characterize as "ruthless individualism".

The next historical example of non-Socialist, an entirely false one at that, Anarchist philosophies is, of course, the ill-defined Nihilism. Nihilism is kind of in vogue in both philosophical and political circles these days and, like many intellectual trends, the term itself can either be overdetermined or function as a near empty-signifier, depending upon the context in which it is used. Within a political context, it generally denotes a revolutionary pessimism, which would be fine, as I, too, think that an effective and ethical revolution is a near impossibility. The problem with Nihilism, though I won't throw the good author(s) of Nihilist Communism under the bus, here, is the proposed solution to this crisis, which is to engage in direct action à la l'art pour l'art. What that effectively is is adventurist terrorism, and, so, who these people are are would-be cult leaders. You can try to debate what constitutes terrorism if you like, but a spade is just a spade.

There are two other philosophies which are fairly contemporary that are also listed as examples of Anarchism that can not be defined as "libertarian socialism", the first of which I will address is Anti-Civilization.

Anti-Civilization was born out of the philosophy of the former member of the Situationist International, Jacques Camatte, with the journal, Invariance. It was titled as such to express what Camatte perceived as an invariance from the Communist project. His critique of industrialization and domestication was later taken up by John Zerzan, who popularized what became known as "Anarcho-Primitivism". Zerzan is somewhat notorious for having published Ted Kaczynski's Industrial Society and Its Future, which would have been fine had he not also supported him. Because of that "primitivism" is an essentialist term, this school of thought later became known as "Anti-Civilization". I consider for myself to be somewhat techno-critical, and, so, am vaguely sympathetic towards the critique of industrialization. Kaczynski's advocation of right-wing anarchism, however, poses a certain predicament for the Anarchist movement, as, though this charge is often levelled at anyone who has anything negative to say of technology or civilization whatsoever, it did open the doors to crypto-Fascist entryism.

The final school of thought that I will discuss was coined by the author of Anarchy 101, Bob Black. Before doing so, I will simply state that any form of individualist anarchism, even with the preference for liberty that I, too, endorse, that doesn't somehow ultimate in, at least, an invoked egalitarianism is just simply Social Darwinism so as to assure you that the political philosophy of one, Robert Charles Black Jr., is the only theoretical leg that my variegated detractors have left to stand on. Way back in the 1990s, Black took the Anarchist movement by storm by coining the term post-Left Anarchism in Anarchy after Leftism, a divisive maneuver that has singlehandedly done more damage to the Anarchist movement than the establishment of the PATRIOT Act under George W. Bush. Post-Left Anarchism denotes a rather insipid and banal third position outside of the standard right and left dichotomy. What kind of community these people expect to emerge was once described to me as "groups" who would "do things". What I do suspect for this characterization to be indicative of is the amount of thought put into what, though they would loathe to see me use this term, society will look like after their proposed revolution. Sure, I, too, have qualms with the Left, but what Anarchism is without Socialism is just some other political philosophy. If the post-Left Anarchists want to leave the Left behind, then, they might as well just take it one step far enough and leave the Anarchist movement as well.

The problem that I primarily have with these philosophies is with what they are per se nor with that they have had an influence on Anarchism. I consider for myself to be an open-minded guy who is capable of a certain degree of political pluralism. The problem that I have with them is that their adherents are often intransigent or fanatical and attempt to lay claim to an exclusive mandate over just what is and is not Anarchism. They, and they are all vaguely allied, form a minority within the Anarchist movement, but it is both significant and gaining traction. We have come to say that "anarchy is the abolition of all hierarchy" so as to placate them. What I can accept is there being multiple definitions of Anarchism. Within the Punk community, there is an old trope that the least Punk thing that a person can do is to debate just what is or is not Punk. What I do refuse to acquiesce to is that, in any given general conversation that doesn't require too much nuance, I can't just simply explain that "Anarchism is libertarian socialism", which is precisely as it has historically emerged as a political philosophy. What issue I also take with the agreed upon definition of Anarchism is that it suggests that it is something other than a political philosophy, particularly one that can be easily defined. Cultivating a way of life is one of the more important things that a person can do with their lives, but, in the sense that Anarchism differs from something like being kawaii, it is a political philosophy and not what people generally infer by invoking a so-called "way of life". There is a difference between dressing in all black and listening to the band, The Body, and being an Anarchist. Though I do realize that this is rather boorish of me, I do feel a need to emphasize that it is not a fashionable trend. Anarchism is a political philosophy and it can more or less be simply defined as "libertarian socialism". Though there may be nothing wrong with it, everything else is just some other school of thought.