The 19th century Anarchists (of which the gentlemen above are examples, both celebrated men of science as well as political and economic philosophers) rejected Statism, believing men could organize themselves politically through cooperative societies,what we would call pure democracy today (that was a dirty word until well into the 20th century!). In this respect they resembled our extreme libertarians today. But the Anarchists didn't stop where modern libertarians fear to tread. Not only did they reject state hegemony, they also rejected corporate authoritarianism as well. What good would it do to dismantle the State if the Corporation just took its place? The Anarchists saw no difference between the two, and viewed both as threats to individual liberty as well as collective security and prosperity.

Of course, the Anarchists understood perfectly well that some hierarchical organization was necessary, men are not rugged individualists existing in total isolation, they are social animals and must work together to produce anything of value. They simply believed the organizing principle should be that of democratic organization, the vote, instead of the bayonet or the purse. An Anarchist society would have leaders and rulers and businessmen and cops and soldiers and judges and jailers and bosses just like any other, but they would all be determined by vote, and people could be expected to vote in their own long-term best interest. If they didn't, well...no one put a gun to their heads, did they? They had no one to blame but themselves if they didn't vote conscientiously.

Libertarians are perfectly willing to accept this principle when applied politically, but are not as keen to apply the same standards in the economic sphere. Anarchists honor the autonomy and independence of the self-employed businessman or entrepreneur, but once he started hiring workers, he forfeited that independence and had the obligation of entering into a social contract with his "employees"; a contract determined by mutual negotiations with all parties fairly represented. In an Anarchist society, capitalists did not bargain with unions, the unions WERE the capitalists. In fact, there was no real hard distinction between manager, employee and stockholder. The lines blurred gradually from one to another.

As with any idealized philosophical system, whether it be Fascist, Socialist, Capitalist, or Anarchist, it's difficult to see how strict adherence to founding principles could actually result in a complete working society. (You will note I did not mention "Libertarian" as an option, they are an impossible combination: Anarchists who reserve for themselves the right to own the means of production and therefore, the right to control the livelihood and the sustenance of their fellow men). But there is much in the Anarchist philosophy I find appealing, and it could contribute some useful ideas to any combination of philosophies that might eventually evolve into a modern state. No, I don't pretend for a moment that this sort of arrangement would work today. The world has changed. But neither should it be dismissed out of hand. Socialism and individualism are not necessarily inconsistent.

I have actually seen some Anarchist institutions in action, they were quite common in immigrant communities in the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They came from the old country and were founded on Anarchist principles as a means of unifying and protecting and providing social and cultural services to immigrant populations in the laissez-faire wilderness of turn-of-the-century America. The stereotype of the Anarchist as a mustachioed bomb-throwing radical was one primarily fostered by their enemies, they recognized a threat when they saw it.

In the Cuban community of my home town, Tampa, Florida, the "social clubs" evolved from the old-country models and provided social and cultural services for immigrant cigar workers. These included El Circulo Cubano, El Centro Espanol, El Centro Asturiano, L'Unione Italiana, La Union Marti-Maceo (for colored Cuban workers, since US Jim Crow laws forbade them from belonging to white organizations). These clubs serviced their communities with libraries, ballrooms, theaters, recreational facilities, meeting rooms, schools, clinics, and welfare services for a small subscription fee. They were run by professional managers hired by elected boards, and financed by assessments on their members. They only began breaking up in the mid-fifties as the cigar industry faded out and the immigrants integrated into American society. But the grand old buildings, imposing city-block structures of fine masonry, glass, tile and iron work in the style of their home countries, survive to this day, albeit dedicated to new uses. As late as 1960, my mother had total health insurance for the whole family at $6 a month through the Clinica de Trelles. And it would pay for Tampa General if the condition or injury was beyond the capabilities of the Clinic. One of my earliest memories is the night they pumped my stomach when I mistakenly drank kerosene when I was four years old. My life was saved by "socialized medicine".

And if there is any question as to the origins of these institutions, a few decades ago when the Italian Club was being renovated for its new commercial owners, a wall was knocked down revealing a secret library where they found squirreled away a fine collection of anarchist literature, hidden from the prying eyes of an indifferent world outside.