The twentieth century has become the era of the development of various social theories that express the desire of thinking members of society to improve social relations. According to most philosophers, people of art, and sometimes ordinary townsfolk, mankind has entered a civilized impasse, the way out of which seemed to someone simple, and to someone - almost impossible.
Most thinkers were in agreement that relations between members of society, based primarily on coercion and material interests, lead to the degeneration of the human race. The oppression of some sections of the population by others will take place as long as the state exists, and exploitation is inevitable in conditions of commodity-money relations — in this the Social Democrats and Marxists were in solidarity.
At the turn of the century, the most paradoxical and radical ideas became popular, in particular those that called for the eradication of the root of all ills - power as such, expressed in the state social order.
The word "anarchy" itself gives a general idea of who anarchist is. The prefix “an” in Greek corresponds to Russian “not” or “without”, and “archie” means power. So, this is a person who denies the hierarchical structure of society management that has been formed over many centuries, representing, regardless of the degree of totalitarianism, a pyramid on top of which there is a monarch-autocrat, tyrant-usurper or democratically elected president.
When asked about who such an anarchist, most people who grew up in the Soviet era would surely answer: “So this is Papandopulo!” Someone would recall Nestor Makhno, whose image, formed by the art of socialist realism, was no less caricatured. The explanation for such a biased attitude towards the theory of anarchy and the free development of personality is simple.
The usual scene from a Soviet historical film about the events of the civil war: the black flag of the anarchists with the slogan “Anarchy is the mother of order!” Fluttering over a crowd of outcasts. A decisive Bolshevik commissar appears, who, not paying attention to the threats, wins an ideological victory after a short speech. Who is an anarchist listening to the communist and taking his side? Usually this is a slaughtered peasant who does not understand anything in politics, confused and flattered by beautiful promises. After the Bolshevik opened his eyes, he immediately goes over to the side of the Red Army.
For all the similarities of the goal formulated in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” and expressed in the final destruction of the state, the Marxists claimed that it would come as a result of the socialist revolution and subsequent construction. In other words, the suppression apparatus will die out as soon as it strengthens as much as possible. This is the main difference between the Russian Marxists in the person of Trotsky and Ulyanov (Lenin) from the Bakuninists, Kropotkins or Tolstoyans.
Like many social phenomena, anarchism was divided into several movements. Most of them have a negative attitude to market relations, but some have a different opinion on this issue. In the question of who is an individualist anarchist and how does he differ from an anarchist-syndicalist or anarchist-communist, the main criterion is the attitude to private property.
At the present stage, in many countries of the post-Soviet space, the role of the state is often reduced to collecting taxes and protecting the interests of the so-called ruling elites. The absence or extreme scarcity of social guarantees, miserable social security, the inability and unwillingness of the authorities to deal with these issues raise great doubts in part of the population about their need. In such conditions, then in one, then in another independent country, its own union of anarchists is formed. Its founders are aware of the low political prospects of the movement led by them, but a certain number of supporters of anarchy are always found. As a rule, they treat anarchy as an unreal, but beautiful dream.