It is notoriously difficult to define "Anarchism". This leads to serious difficulties in practical agitation, especially to two contradictory errors. One is to accept as an Anarchist anyone who for whatever reason calls himself such; extreme laissez-faire have been known to claim the label as only one example. The other error is to identify Anarchism exclusively with a particular programme or even a particular subculture. For example, inwriting this I asked my wife to define Anarchism and she came up with the following:
"An organisation of middle class would be revolutionaries with funny haircuts, characteristically male and not very successful with the opposite sex."
She was joking (I think), but all joking aside, while this may be a fair description of a section of the actually existing anarchist movement, it is not a definition unless it is really believed that a humourless haircut or a working class background would actually disqualify one from Anarchism. Likewise, Anarchists tend not to vote in elections, but some do and are generally accepted as Anarchists, so it seems that "not voting" is not part of the definition of Anarchism. Even of it so happened that every Anarchist did not vote, it would still not be part of the definition, if it was possible to vote and remain an Anarchist. Every few years some Anarchist revisionist stands for Parliament not as a joke or stunt but in hopes of gaining a seat. Opinion is divided as to whether this is "allowed" by Anarchism and on whether one can do it and remain an Anarchist; just as it remains on the position of the Spanish Anarchists who participated in government during the Civil War.
In my view, the problem of the definition of Anarchism is resolved if one understands that Anarchism is not a set of beliefs nor of rules but instead a project. That is, "the project of abolishing the pecking order (a.k.a. hierarchy or the chain-of-command-and-obey) as a factor in human social organisation." (The basic thought is the same as R.W.'s first article - "Our aim is to create a free and equal society"). From this definition it follows as a logical consequence that Anarchists seek to abolish racism, wage slavery - and other bad things. In addition the Anarchist movement has accumulated a body of experience that tells us for example that taking power over other people is not a promising method of abolishing the pecking order, and so we oppose setting up Anarchist vanguard parties and the like. In theory, if a group seized state power in the sincere belief that this was the best way to advance the Anarchist project that would still be genuine Anarchists; but it is hard to imagine how any group of Anarchists could be so blind to the lessons of our history that they could hold such a sincere belief.
This helps to explain how genuine Anarchists could collaborate with the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. If they were mistaken, then their experience is part of the history which tells us they were mistaken. But the lessons of history and experience may become out dated due to changed conditions, or they may have been misunderstood in the first place. All that is immutable in Anarchism is the nature of the project itself; to abolish the pecking order, to create a free and equal society.
The project of abolishing the pecking order does not directly encompass every worthwhile activity. A clear example is activism in defence of the environment. Strictly speaking this has nothing especially to do with the Anarchist project; Anarchists (and Anarchist groups) oppose poisoning the Earth because we are sane human beings rather than because we are in particular Anarchists.
None of the above answers the question of "what is Anarchism?", why we adopt the Anarchist project at all. I imagine people will have different reasons, and these different reasons will colour their anarchism. In my own case I believe that the struggle against the pecking order is a necessary part of human evolution, that we become more human the more we delight in our own and other peoples freedom. But this is a big, and separate subject. Anarcho-Syndicalism is sometimes held to be a particular theory as to how an Anarchist society should be organised, that is, through unions or syndicates. Some regard it as a faction counterposed to other forms of Anarchism, or even as a political ideology completely separate from Anarchism. In my view these are all mistakes. Rather, Anarcho-Syndicalism can be defined as "the strategy of advancing the Anarchist project through building a leaderless mass movement of wage-workers using direct action to take control of the workplace away from the bosses." This definition may be a little rough, but the important part I want to stress is that it is a "strategy for advancing the Anarchist project". Anarcho-Syndicalism as such implies no position as to how an Anarchist society should be organised although, particular Anarcho-Syndicalist individuals and groups may have such positions. Contrary to a common misunderstanding, no Anarcho- Syndicalist supports a vision of one part of society, calling itself "the worker" ruling over the rest of the population. That would be a strategy for frustrating the Anarchist project.
Further, support for the Anarcho-Syndicalist strategy implies no view that other strategies are not worth pursuing alongside it, nor does it imply that only people who are currently wage workers should be involved in taking over the workplaces. To my mind it is clear that suppport from the non wage earning working class would be crucial to an Anarcho-Syndicalist movement, and that support from othe areas such as small business would be both feasible. However I think that Anarcho-Syndicalism does imply a belief that wage workers, when advancing their collective self interest, are usually also advancing the interests of society as a whole. In industrialised societies, this is a reasonable belief, wage workers are not some isolated and priveleged minority, and in the main the "non-wage earning section of the working class" is our family, our friends, our past and future fellow workers.
Having said all that it remains true that an anarcho-syndicalist movement might be only partly successful in the medium term. That is, workers might takeover their workplaces but not proceed to bring about an Anarchist society. Instead they might institute some form of self management capitalism or some other form of unequal society. In this case the struggle would go on; but one of the great obstacles to the Anarchist project; the existence of a ruling class detached from the mass of the population, would have been removed.
Getting these matters clear seems likely to me to save a lot of time in the long run. Most of the points I've made above seem to me obvious yet I find in practice much disagreement on them. Please comment.
Jeremy Dixon