History
Anarcho-communism took shape as a distinct tendency in the late 1870s, inside the same Anti-Authoritarian International where the broader anarchist family had regrouped after the 1872 Hague Congress (see the Anarchism dossier for that founding split). Its founding statement was Carlo Cafiero's 1880 pamphlet Anarchy and Communism, read to the Jura Federation congress that October. The collectivist line then dominated the movement, and Cafiero broke with it. Any system that still pays wages for labor, he argued, reproduces the inequalities the revolution was meant to end, and it makes no difference whether workers' councils or capitalists sign the checks. So communism (full social ownership of the means of production, distribution by need) was not a tidied-up socialism. It was a different proposal that demanded the abolition of capital and state in one act. Classical Marxism held the reverse, that a transitional state could not be skipped, and the 1872 Marx-Bakunin split (see the Classical Marxism dossier) is where that quarrel hardened.
Its antecedents run earlier. Joseph Déjacque, writing in 1859, had already sketched most of the platform: no private commerce, common ownership held in trust by the people doing the work, free distribution, and a flat refusal of the dictatorship of the proletariat that Marx was beginning to float around the same years. Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread (1892) gave the position its mature shape. A Russian geographer-prince by background, Kropotkin set out to prove that an anarcho-communist society was logistically possible, not just morally attractive. He ran the numbers on bread output, transport networks, and working hours, and concluded that what limited universal provisioning was distribution and political will, never productive capacity.
For brief stretches the early twentieth century tried the idea out. Nestor Makhno commanded an anarcho-communist army across Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, fighting the Bolsheviks and the Whites at once while governing seven million people through federated peasant councils. Mexico had a parallel current around Ricardo Flores Magón and the Partido Liberal Mexicano. The high-water mark came in Spain in 1936, when the FAI worked in tandem with the anarcho-syndicalist CNT (see the Anarcho-Syndicalism dossier; Gaston Leval's reporting on the Levante collectives is the documentary record both traditions draw on). For almost three years, until Franco won, the CNT-FAI collectivised much of Catalonia and the Levante and ran industry and agriculture on openly anarcho-communist lines.
Then 1939 closed the door, and the tradition survived only at the edges: exile communities, the Industrial Workers of the World, Yiddish and Spanish-language periodicals that kept the texts in print. Murray Bookchin reopened it in the United States. His Post-Scarcity Anarchism (1971) carried Kropotkin's argument into the age of automation, on a simple premise: if scarcity no longer binds human flourishing, the case against distributing by need is weaker now than in 1892. Bookchin's later move toward libertarian municipalism supplied the explicit framework for the Rojava experiment in northeastern Syria. The Ecology of Freedom (1982) stretches Kropotkin's mutual-aid premise into ecology and doubles as the bridge into eco-socialism (see the Eco-Socialism dossier).
Calling anarcho-communism the most utopian wing of an already utopian tradition mistakes a philosophical commitment for empirical optimism. Nothing here depends on people being naturally good. It depends on a claim Kropotkin defended at length in Mutual Aid (1902): build institutions that assume competition and you breed competitive people; build institutions that assume cooperation and you breed cooperative ones. Which of those two designs you adopt is a political decision, not a verdict handed down by human nature. The tradition wagers that the wager is worth making.
Key Thinkers
Russian geographer whose The Conquest of Bread (1892) and Mutual Aid (1902) gave anarcho-communism both its account of human nature and its working economics. Start here. Most of what the tradition has said since reads as a gloss on him.
Italian agitator and tactician who did more than anyone to keep anarcho-communism organized across the long persecution years, roughly the 1870s to the 1930s. Where Kropotkin theorised, Malatesta worried over the practical problem of keeping a movement breathing under a hostile state.
Lithuanian-American anarchist who tied anarcho-communism to women's liberation, sexual freedom, and birth control fifty years before the mainstream left would touch any of it. Her autobiography Living My Life (1931) is the standard eyewitness account of the tradition at its height.
Ukrainian peasant turned guerrilla commander, living proof that anarcho-communist principles could field an army and run a territory in wartime. The Bolsheviks beat him in 1921. From exile in Paris he co-wrote the platformist program, which has split the tradition ever since.
American thinker who dragged anarcho-communism into the age of automation and ecological crisis. His later libertarian municipalism became the stated theoretical basis for the Rojava project. In English, no anarcho-communist of the postwar decades has mattered more.
Key Texts
Anarcho-communism's economics in mature form. With actual sums for bread, transport, and working hours, Kropotkin makes the case that provisioning everyone by need is logistically doable, and that whatever blocks it is political, not technical.
The view of human nature that sits under the politics. Writing against Social Darwinism, Kropotkin the naturalist argues that within a species cooperation weighs as heavily in evolution as competition. Here the tradition begins in natural history rather than political theory.
Goldman's essays, ranging across prison reform, women's suffrage, and much else from an anarcho-communist angle. Part period piece, part eerily timely: she is already arguing questions the mainstream left would not catch up to for another seventy years.
The book that brought the tradition back for the postwar generation. Bookchin's claim: twentieth-century automation has all but retired the empirical objection (that scarcity makes distribution by need unworkable), so what remains to argue about is political.
Where Bookchin fuses anarcho-communism with ecology. Domination of nature and domination of people, he argues, grow from one root in hierarchical thinking, so the tradition has to take on both together. This book underwrites much of today's eco-anarchist organising.
Modern Manifestations
The clearest place to see the tradition today is the Rojava project in northeastern Syria. Founded in 2012, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria runs on Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism, the form anarcho-communism has taken in the twenty-first century. Federated neighborhood assemblies that actually decide things, gender parity at every institutional level, cooperative economic units, and a refusal of both private property in the means of production and central state administration: that is anarcho-communism in working order, over roughly four million people. Nobody knows whether it outlasts the regional politics pressing on it. That it has held together for more than a decade is the practical reply to anyone who says the tradition cannot scale.
In Chiapas, Mexico, the Zapatistas have run an openly autonomous zone since 1994 on neighboring principles, though they wave off the anarcho-communist label as too narrow. Subcomandante Marcos's writing nods to the influence without claiming the lineage. Older than Rojava and smaller, the project has survived into a third decade against a hostile regional climate, which is no small thing.
Across the United States and Europe, the tradition gets by through the intentional communities, housing cooperatives, mutual-aid funds, and infoshops the post-Occupy generation has built since 2011. Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, the Catalan and Basque cooperative federations, the worker-owned shops the Italian autonomist current keeps going, the federated squatted social centers in Berlin, Athens, and Amsterdam: all of these carry the tradition, even where the people inside them say "autonomous" or "horizontal" rather than "anarcho-communist."
The largest live experiment in the spirit of the tradition, if not its explicit politics, is Mondragón in the Basque country. This federation of worker-owned cooperatives employs about 80,000 people and holds its own against conventional capitalist firms in machine tools, retail, and more. Mondragón is Catholic-distributist by origin, not anarcho-communist, which is inconvenient for everyone who would like to claim it. Yet its design (worker ownership, federated decision-making, no outside shareholders) is exactly what an anarcho-communist economy looks like when it runs. Anarcho-communists cite it as proof; distributists, with as much right, cite it as theirs.
Quieter than any of that, the tradition persists inside the Industrial Workers of the World (founded 1905, still going), inside the autonomist Marxist current in Italy and France, and inside the ecology-and-mutual-aid world around writers like David Graeber, whose death in 2020 took from the tradition its most charismatic recent public voice in English.
Real-World Debates
Housing is the tradition's standing exhibit for why neither market nor state gives people what they need. Markets build for profit, so you get too little of what people need and too much of what investors want. State housing puts a roof overhead but keeps the landlord-tenant relation intact, just with a bureaucracy in the landlord's chair. Anarcho-communism's reply: housing held in trust by the people living in it, handed out by need rather than ability to pay, and federated across cities for solidarity and exchange. The squatter movements in Berlin and Barcelona, the Catalan housing cooperatives that outlived Franco, and the land trusts scattered through US cities are rough working versions. None has yet grown into a national housing system, and whether one could is still an open question.
Climate is where the tradition's taste for federated, bioregion-scale decisions runs straight into a stubborn fact: steel, cement, aviation, and agriculture emit at continental scale and gain from coordinated decarbonisation policy. Most anarcho-communists grant that the state-led climate menu has delivered weak results, and they reach for parallel routes instead: city- and bioregion-level mitigation through federation, mutual aid when disaster lands, direct action to shut down fossil-fuel infrastructure where the political channels stall. They do not pretend this closes the gap. No one in the tradition has shown how to decarbonise a continental steel industry without something that looks a lot like state authority entering somewhere, and the preferred fix (federated solidarity between affected workers and ecological movements) has yet to face a test at that scale.
Care work is where anarcho-communism's designs fit the problem most snugly. Childcare, eldercare, the unpaid social reproduction capitalism has long pulled out of women without paying for it: the tradition's insistence on collective responsibility for shared work, on federated mutual-aid networks, and on dignity for every contribution regardless of its market price lands exactly on what care work asks. The record is genuinely mixed. Anarcho-communist communities have spread care across genders better than most comparable experiments, but the documented cases run small, and feminist writers in the tradition (Silvia Federici, Selma James) press the point that it has not yet built designs sized to, say, a national childcare system.
Today's "abolish the police" current in the US and UK borrows, usually without saying so, straight from anarcho-communist analysis: the police are not a neutral body that misfires now and then but an armed guard for private property and class hierarchy. Its constructive side (transformative justice, mutual-aid community defense, mental-health-first response) descends from the tradition even when its advocates use other words. One question stays open, and it is the same one left hanging since the Spanish Revolution: how does a non-state community fend off organized violent threat without rebuilding some working stand-in for the police it just dismantled? Rojava's answer, a federated militia under assembly oversight, is the best evidence going. Whether that answer travels is still being worked out.
Few traditions hold an open-borders line on principle rather than convenience, and anarcho-communism is one of them. A national state deciding who may live where is precisely the arbitrary, coercive, property-guarding power the tradition exists to oppose. Clean in principle, messier in practice: the tradition's other commitments, local self-determination and federation of communes, quietly raise a soft internal border at the assembly people choose to join. Cindy Milstein and other current writers say this plainly. The open-borders commitment guides opposition well (against the Border Patrol, against deportation regimes) and guides construction far less well, since nobody has settled how a federation of self-governing communes actually absorbs large inflows of new members.
Criticisms & Blind Spots
Strongest Critique
Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread (1892) and Mutual Aid (1902) put an evidence-backed counter to the Hobbesian claim that cooperation needs a coercive sovereign, and the anarcho-communist program of distribution-by-need without a state remains one of the few fully worked-out attempts in modern political economy to picture a society built on use-value instead of exchange-value. So the sharpest objection comes from inside the libertarian-socialist family, not from outside it. Robin Hahnel states it cleanly in Of the People, By the People (2012): the commitment to immediate distribution by need badly underrates the coordination problem of matching production to need across a complex economy. Whatever else they botch, markets crack a genuine informational problem, gathering scattered facts about preferences and capacities and routing them to producers. Scrap prices and central planning at once, which is what full anarcho-communism asks, and that problem just sits there unsolved. Hahnel's own answer, participatory economics, keeps the moral case for distribution by need but holds that anarcho-communism cannot deliver it at industrial scale without something like the participatory-planning machinery he has spent a career designing. To this the tradition has a standard reply, from Kropotkin and built out by Bookchin: the coordination problem is overdrawn for most goods, where mutual aid, federation, and direct production by the community that uses the output do the job, and the leftover cases needing continent-scale coordination are fewer than the critics assume. Even its current writers concede the hard cases (semiconductors, vaccine development, transcontinental rail) have gone unsolved in every actual experiment, and that the preferred mechanism, federated solidarity coordinating through shared standards rather than prices, has never been shown to work at the size required. Bookchin's later work raised a second objection from within: anarcho-communism has leaned too comfortably on Kropotkin's nineteenth-century frame and dragged its feet on what twentieth-century social ecology, feminist theory, and climate science actually imply. His attack on what he called "lifestyle anarchism" in Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (1995) went after currents he saw sliding toward individualism and away from the institutional-design work the project demands. The split angered part of the contemporary scene and the resentment lingers. It also forced an overdue argument about what the tradition is for. From outside, but worth taking on, comes the libertarian-capitalist charge that rejecting property in the means of production leaves anarcho-communism with two bad options: tolerate coercion (when a community stops someone from acquiring productive property) or sit defenseless against private accumulation. Alexander Berkman gave the standard reply in What Is Anarchism? (1929), that "personal possession remains only in the things you use," and that productive property differs in kind from personal property because of the relations each one creates. Principled, yes, and blurry at the margins. Is the sole proprietor of a one-person shop accumulating capital? The tradition has yet to offer a confident general account of where the line actually falls.
Blind Spots
Coordination at scale is the gap that has cost anarcho-communism the most. Spain in 1936 and Rojava now have both shown the institutions can run a city, a province, even a region of several million. What no one has shown is that they can run a continent. Robin Hahnel, writing from inside the libertarian-socialist family in Of the People, By the People (2012), traces the hole to the tradition's refusal of both prices and central planning, which leaves it short of a worked-out alternative for the cases that genuinely need coordination across millions of decisions over years: industrial supply chains, continental energy grids, large-scale ecological restoration. Federated solidarity and shared standards, the standing answer, reads well as principle and has never been put on the ground at that size. Defense is the next hole, and the record is grim. The Makhnovshchina fought the Bolsheviks and the Whites for three years and lost to both. The CNT-FAI held Catalonia against Franco for nearly three years and was crushed. Rojava has fought ISIS and Turkish military operations for over a decade to mixed effect. One pattern keeps recurring: anarcho-communist defense is formidable at unit and battalion scale and breaks down above the brigade, because the federation-of-equals principle the tradition rests on will not stomach the hierarchical command-and-control that large-unit warfare demands. Bookchin said as much, flatly, in his later writings. A tradition built on these designs cannot expect to beat a state built on the designs of a modern military, so it has to plan either to dodge that fight or to settle for surviving at smaller scale. Feminists inside the tradition (Silvia Federici, Selma James, Cindy Milstein) have named a third gap outright. The classical tradition was male-dominated and undercounted the reproductive labor every community runs on. Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread (1892) thinks hard about baking bread and says almost nothing about childcare. Bookchin's Ecology of Freedom (1982) is more careful yet still files care work under derivative. The contemporary feminist current has started repairing this, but fifty years of male framing have left the institutional designs here thinner than the moral commitment to gender equality should allow. The fourth gap is reputation, inherited from anarchism at large. David Graeber put it bluntly in The Democracy Project (2013). The practical proposals are sensible and widely shared, yet for most audiences the word "anarchism" still summons the bombings of the 1880s through the 1920s and a general picture of chaos. Today's practitioners pour effort into fixing that, and it has worked: the public is meaningfully more open to anarchist ideas than in 1980. Still the distance between what the tradition argues for and what its name broadcasts stays wide. Whether to rebrand (libertarian socialism, autonomism, horizontalism, social ecology) is a live argument, with defenders of the old name insisting that giving it up hands too much to the slander.
Internal Tensions
Platformism against synthesism is the fault line that has run through anarcho-communism since the 1920s, and it goes to the heart of the project. The platformist side, set out by Nestor Makhno and Pyotr Arshinov in their 1926 Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, says anarcho-communist movements need formal organizations with clear theory, tactical coordination, and shared discipline or they will not survive contact with a hostile state. Voline and Sebastien Faure fired back: any such tidying-up rebuilds, in miniature, the very hierarchies the tradition means to destroy, so the movement must stay a federation of autonomous tendencies bound by no common platform. A century on, neither side has won. Platformism lives in the Anarkismo network and the federated platformist groupings across Latin America; synthesism lives in most European anarchist federations and the loose US anarchist scene. Then there is the fight over unions. Anarcho-communism carries a long quarrel with anarcho-syndicalism: are trade unions engines of transformation or sponges that soak up worker militancy and wring it back into the system? In the founding years Errico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero called unions reformist by nature. The syndicalists (Rudolf Rocker, the CNT, the IWW) answered that a properly built union could be revolutionary. Practice today lands in between. Most anarcho-communists back particular unions while doubting unionism as a master strategy, and the tradition's busiest labor wing (the IWW and anarcho-syndicalist-adjacent affiliates) works as a shop-floor organising tool without treating the union form as the destination. Whether to touch state institutions at all is a third quarrel. The classical line, from Kropotkin and seconded by Malatesta, is hard abstention: vote in a state election, take a government post, or accept state money, and you have already betrayed the founding commitment. Practice has since softened. Anarcho-communists vote tactically here and there, take state grants for cooperative projects, and, with the Boric coalition in Chile or Barcelona en Comú, sit in legislatures. Classicists call that drift; the people doing it call it harm reduction. You cannot settle the argument in the abstract, because the answer turns on what you think the state currently does and whether engaging it changes that. Insurrection against organization is the fourth. The insurrectionary current, traced to Luigi Galleani's Italian-American anarchists of the 1900s through the 1920s, holds that revolution erupts from acts of direct action and that the anarcho-communist's job is to keep agitation alive and primed. The organizational current, traced to Kropotkin's later writings and Makhno's wartime command, holds that only durable institutions and patient mass work let a revolutionary moment leave anything lasting behind. The two get cast as enemies. More honestly, they are sequenced. Insurrection with no organization behind it tends to collapse, as much of the 1920s showed; organization with no disruption to shake it tends to ossify, as much of the mid-century anarchist federations showed. Last comes the ecology turn, which Bookchin pushed to the center and the tradition has still not fully absorbed. Classical anarcho-communism spoke for workers and peasants. Bookchin's later work argues the frame has to widen until non-human nature counts as a stakeholder, which the older tradition never granted. Most anarcho-communists nod along in principle. What it should do to strategy stays contested, down to questions like whether direct action against fossil-fuel infrastructure now sits closer to the tradition's core than workplace organising does.
Reading List
Read this first. Kropotkin's mature account of how an anarcho-communist economy would actually run, with real sums and concrete examples. It holds up as well in 2026 as it did in 1892.
The view of human nature that sits beneath the politics. A working naturalist, not a political theorist, makes the case that cooperation runs at least as deep in biology as competition does.
Goldman's autobiography and the standard eyewitness history of the tradition's peak years, the 1890s through the 1930s. Long and opinionated, and the best way to grasp what this political life was day to day.
The book that brought the tradition back for the postwar generation, carrying Kropotkin's argument into the age of automation. It is the bridge between classical anarcho-communism and its present-day forms.
Berkman's 1929 primer, written in plain English for ordinary readers. Nowhere is the line drawn more clearly: personal possession you keep, productive property the community holds.
Le Guin's novel about a moon-based anarcho-communist society set against the capitalist planet it orbits. The most honest fiction we have about what living inside one of these societies might really feel like, hard parts included.
The standard one-volume history, sympathetic without being credulous, and generous in its coverage of the anarcho-communist strand and its quarrels with the rest of anarchism.
Frequently Asked Questions
Anarcho-communism is the wing of the anarchist tradition that wants common ownership of the means of production with distribution by need, but without the transitional state that orthodox Marxism insists on. Carlo Cafiero crystallized the position at the 1880 Jura Federation congress; Peter Kropotkin gave it mature form in The Conquest of Bread (1892). The bet is that the communist program of from-each-to-each has only ever failed when a state administered it, and that you fix this by deleting the administrator.
Only if you take 'communism' to mean what the Bolsheviks did with it after 1917. The word originally meant common ownership and distribution by need, with no necessary commitment to state power, and that is what Kropotkin, Cafiero, and Goldman defended. They argued the state was the part that always corrupted the program. The Marxist-Leninist tradition disagreed, which is why the 1872 Hague Congress split the international workers' movement in two.
Both aim at a stateless, classless society; they disagree about which institution does the heavy lifting on the way there. Anarcho-syndicalism (Rudolf Rocker, the CNT) treats the revolutionary trade union as the basic vehicle of struggle and the post-revolutionary unit of production. Anarcho-communism (Kropotkin, Malatesta) is more skeptical of unions as such, preferring federated communes and neighborhood assemblies. The Spanish Revolution of 1936 ran on both at once, with the CNT and FAI working in tandem.
Kropotkin's blueprint in The Conquest of Bread is federated communes that hold productive property in common, produce for use rather than exchange, and distribute by need rather than by wage. Decisions are made through neighborhood and workplace assemblies; coordination across regions runs through federations of delegates with limited mandates. The contemporary working approximation is the Rojava Autonomous Administration in northeastern Syria, which has run on libertarian-municipalist lines (Murray Bookchin's update of Kropotkin) for about four million people since 2012.
It has worked at meaningful scale, briefly. Nestor Makhno's army held a free territory of seven million Ukrainians from 1918 to 1921 before the Bolsheviks crushed it. The CNT-FAI collectivized much of Catalonia and the Levante during the Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939, running industry and agriculture on anarcho-communist principles for nearly three years until Franco's victory. Rojava has been running since 2012. The structural pattern is impressive local construction followed by military defeat by a hostile state, which is the tradition's unsolved problem.
Carlo Cafiero presented the founding statement at the 1880 Jura Federation congress, arguing against the collectivist line then dominant inside the anti-authoritarian International. Joseph Dejacque anticipated most of the platform in 1859. Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) is the figure most associated with the mature tradition; his Conquest of Bread (1892) and Mutual Aid (1902) are the canonical texts. Emma Goldman, Errico Malatesta, and Alexander Berkman built out the rest. Murray Bookchin updated it for the post-war world.
The standing critique from inside the libertarian-socialist family is that abolishing both prices and central planning at the same time leaves the coordination problem of matching production to need unsolved at industrial scale. Robin Hahnel has made this case most carefully. The tradition's answer is that federated solidarity, mutual aid, and shared standards substitute for prices in most cases, and that the continent-scale coordination problems (semiconductor fabs, vaccine pipelines, transcontinental rail) are smaller than critics assume. The honest acknowledgment is that those harder cases have not yet been demonstrated at scale.
The diagnostic is whether you hold three commitments at once: that productive property should be held in common, that distribution should follow need rather than ability to pay, and that no state should administer either rule. If you find Kropotkin's pairing of those three convincing, you are inside the tradition. The honest follow-up is whether your version handles the harder cases (coordination at continental scale, defense against hostile states, the gendered division of care work) better than the historical record suggests.
Related Ideologies
Democratic socialists want public housing run by an accountable state; you want cooperative housing held by the people who live in it. What joins you is a shared aim: more non-market housing, fewer evictions. Concrete campaigns (rent stabilisation, just-cause eviction laws, public money for community land trusts) serve both traditions even where the endgames diverge. Most tenant-organising in US and European cities today rides on exactly this alliance.
An unlikely pairing that holds up on the ground. Civic conservatives prize the same institutions of mutual care anarcho-communists defend, just under other names: the church-basement food bank, the volunteer fire company, the neighborhood association. Disaster relief, above all in rural and small-town America, keeps getting coordinated through this de-facto alliance. Occupy Sandy in 2012, the mutual-aid networks across Appalachia through the opioid years, the parallel systems that ran beside FEMA during COVID-19.
Social liberals want climate action through the institutions that exist; anarcho-communists want it through the institutions that ought to. The two work best together on city- and bioregion-level adaptation: urban heat resilience, distributed renewable buildout, regional food systems. The federal channel moves too slowly, while the local one has room for reformers and movement people at once. Portland, Barcelona, and several Bay Area cities have run versions of this alliance.
Distributism wants productive property spread widely on grounds of natural law and traditional society; anarcho-communism wants the same on grounds of class analysis. They are most useful together on concrete policy for worker-owned cooperatives: cooperative law modeled on the Italian and Spanish statutes, conversion of closing firms to employee ownership, tax incentives for forming co-ops. Mondragón in the Basque country is the textbook case each tradition claims as its own proof.
Where Anarcho-Communism sits on the map
The quiz places Anarcho-Communism in the Libertarian Left region, one of the nine on its map. The region page covers what those traditions share and who tends to land there.
See all 81 ideologiesAnarcho-Communism compared
Side-by-side comparisons of Anarcho-Communism with the traditions it is most often confused with or argued against.
All ideology comparisonsGuides that cover it
- Libertarian vs AnarchistLibertarians want the state minimised, and anarchists want it abolished. Their split on means, ends and history is sharper than the family resemblance suggests.
- The Political Spectrum ExplainedThe political spectrum is not a single line. It is at least two axes (economic and authoritarian) and arguably three. Here is how the modern map actually works.
- Most Accurate Political QuizA quiz can be precise, valid, reliable, or honest. Most are not all four. Here is how the better political quizzes get there, and what 57 dimensions buys.
More on Anarcho-Communism
Are you a Stateless Communist?
Take the quiz and find out where you actually stand among 81 political ideologies.
Take the Quiz