Back to Homepage





The Anarchist Economical-Political Map - Democracy on the EP-Map

The System Theory of Anarchist Political Economy and Social Organization Research


The usual left vs. the right dimension alone is completely insufficient to provide an adequate picture of the economic-political landscape.
The two-dimensional economic-political map presented here gives an adequate picture of the economic-political landscape.


Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". In short an-arch-y = [(an = without - arch = ruler(s)) - y = system (included optimal order and law) and management, as, say, in monarch-y]. Anarchy and anarchism are efficient and fair system and management without top heavy societal pyramid economical and/or political/administrative - in income and/or rank, i.e. significant horizontal organization - real democracy. Real Democracy always means Real, i.e. including Green, Democracy. Anarchy and anarchism = liberal social-democracy.

NB! Anarchism, the libertarian and democracy, and degrees of this, is 100 % a question of influence on decisions. All other things are only relevant as far as they affects the influence on the societal decisions. To be more precise: anarchism, the libertarian and democracy is a question of influence on the societal decisions by the People = the Bottom of the societal pyramid, the decisions usually and mainly taken by the Top of the societal pyramid, i.e. the Bureacracy (authorities) broadly defined in privat and public sector.

The degree of democracy = influence on the societal decisions by the People = the Bottom of the social pyramid, mainly taken by the Bureaucracy (= authorities broadly defined in private and public sector) - the Top of the social pyramid, measured relatively as a percent degree between 0 % and 100 %, that is a precise measure on how much the People govern = democracy, i.e. the degree of it. Democracy, and more or less of it, is central to societal politics broadly defined, both economical and political/administrative, and in reality Real Democracy (NB! i.e. always including Green) and Full Democracy as an ultimate aim, is the one and only policy in the interest of the People, i.e. People's Politics. Real Democracy has a degree of democracy equal to 50 % or more, both A. economical and B. political/administrative, and Full Democracy has 100 % degree of democracy. The degree of democracy = the libertarian degree = the anarchist degree (within anarchy & anarchism), i.e. 100% - the authoritarian degree. Zero, 0 %, influence by the People on the societal decisions, means no tendency of democracy at all, zero degree of democracy, and the most ultra-authoritarian and totalitarian systems (extreme ultra-fascism, see map), i.e. 100% authoritarian = 100% authoritarian degree; the authoritarian degree is 100% - the degree of democracy = libertarian degree, in this 100% ultra-authoritarian case = 0 % degree of democracy = libertarian degree.

Totalitarian systems are all economic-political systems to the left, middle and right of the EP-Map, with more than ca. 67 %, exact 666,666 ... per thousand - authoritarian degree, i.e. ultra-authoritarian hell systems. Typically, the role of 1. propaganda (= lies, untrue information, also Orwellian "1984" Newspeak type lies and manipulations of the language) in dealing with the non-totalitarian world, and the use of 2. terror, are essential to this form of archy/rule/government. Totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone's life, sometimes as a prelude to try world domination. 1. Cultural, i.e. intellectual, spiritual, and artistic initiative is dangerous to totalitarianism, as 2. mere political opposition. The consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity by the totalitarian rulers springs from 1. their natural resentment against everything they cannot understand, and  2. total domination does not allow for free initiative (an important anarchists principle) in any field of life, for any activity that is not entirely predictable by the ruler(s).

Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty. Important strategic aspects are the use of 1. ultra-authoritarian controlled front organizations, 2. fake governmental agencies, and 3. esoteric false doctrines as 4. a means of concealing the ultra-authoritarian reactionary-radical nature of totalitarian aims and means, from the non-totalitarian world. Individual isolation and loneliness are important preconditions for totalitarian domination. The purpose of all these manipulations broadly defined is to gain economical and political/administrative power including money, as much as possible for the totalitarian ruler(s)/arch(s). [Inspired by Hannah Arendt (1906-1975): The Origins of Totalitarianism.]]

The Anarchist Economic-Politcal Map describes & maps mainly all types of economic-political systems of the world along two dimensions, A. the economical and B. the political/administrative, and sheds light on the authoritarian degree = 100% - the libertarian degree & 100% - the degree of democracy, of the systems in general, including 1. marxism, 2. fascism (including populism) 3. the third alternative (Frisch) - anarchy & anarchism, and 4. liberalism, and 16 different types of systems within these 4 main forms. The map consists of 4 Quadrants, one for each of these four main forms of systems, and 16 Sectors for different types of systems within these four main forms, four Sectors for each Quadrant.

This system theory is also about 1. calculating the societal degree of democracy = libertarian degree = anarchy degree (within the quadrant of anarchism on the map), from A. the degree of economical democracy (socialism vs capitalism defined in terms of influence by the People) and B. the degree of political/administrative democracy (autonomy vs statism defined in terms of influence by the People), and 2. presenting political-econometric indicators for empirical, practical statistical estimation of these variables. The degree of democracy = libertarian degree = 100 % - the authoritarian degree, see the EP-map below. The degree of democracy is 100%, and the authoritarian degree is 0%, at the top of the map, the democratic ideal = full democracy. The degree of democracy is 100% = libertarian degree is 100% = anarchy degreee is 100%, i.e. the democratic ideal, full democracy, is also the libertarian and anarchist ideal, where the People have all and everything to say, equal to 100% influence on the societal decisions by the People, the decisions mainly taken by the Bureaucracy = Top of the societal pyramid.

This system analysis also includes political-econometric research, indicators for A. the degree of economical democracy (socialism vs capitalism defined in terms of influence by the People) and B. the degree of political/administrative democracy (autonomy vs statism defined in terms of influence by the People) aggregated to the societal democracy degree = libertarian degree, for a whole system, say, for a whole country or an organization. There are several political-econometric indicators for practical statistical measurement of influence by the People in democratic perspective, among these are two indexes; 1. the Rank-difference-index - RDI indicating how top-heavy the political/administrative rank-pyramid is, and 2. Gini-index for income, indicating how top-heavy the economical pyramid is. Top-heavyness of a societal pyramid in this connection contributes to less influence by the People it is assumed, but there are also some other indicators in this political-econometric research, see chapter V. B. below.

The research has also, via using the political-econometric indicators combined with the best of the bad lot of UN, other international plus national statistics, and some well educated guess, calculated preliminary estimates of the influence by the People, the Bottom (of the social pyramid), on the societal decisions, mainly taken by the Bureaucracy, the Top (of the pyramid), relatively as a percentage degree between 0 % and 100 %, = the degree of democracy, for almost all of the countries in the world, and also ranked the countries according to democracy degree (= libertarian degree). More information about this topic, including the concrete statistical indicators used, and so on, see chapter V. B. below and footnotes at ranking. NB! Authoritarian degree of more than 100%, i.e. for extreme evil authoritarian economic-political hell systems located below the map, is not impossible, but is just briefly mentioned in this document.


*) The stars indicate the position of the Norwegian economical-political system after the revolutionary change in 1994/95.

Fig. 1. Picture of the Anarchist Economical-Political Map

A mathematical precisation of the map is presented at the Formula of anarchism .
For practical statistical methods of estimation of the authoritarian degree etc. see the chapter V.B.
NB! We usually have used " , ", the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. " . " as decimal separator. The term "ca" is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.

Presisering av begrepet Revolusjon i tilknytning til det Økonomisk-Politiske kartet (ØP-kartet) - og GGS, GAIAN & GRETA THUNBERG m.v.

Et hvert skift i et økonomisk-politisk systems koordinater på ØP-kartet er per definisjon en revolusjon. Revolusjoner kan være av varierende størrelse, noen små, og av og til noe større. Revolusjon står i motsetning til reform, som er økonomisk-politiske endringer uten skift i system-koordinatene, dvs. endringer innenfor systemets rammer, uten å gå utover disse.

Et hvert skift i et økonomisk-politisk systems koordinater på ØP-kartet skjer nesten alltid ved en kontinuerlig prosess via infinitesimale skift i systemets koordinater, som integreres dynamisk over tid, til et signifikant samlet skift i systemkoordinatene, dvs. til en signifikant revolusjon. NB! En serie usignifikante revolusjoner kan altså resultere etter en tid, i en samlet signifikant revolusjon. Er revolusjonen en bevegelse nedover på ØP-kartet, kaller man den også en kontra-revolusjon.

Revolusjoner kan også skje ved diskontinuerlige, eventuelt store  - skift i system-koordinatene, uten at vi skal gå videre inn på dette her, utover å bemerke at slike ofte går fryktelig gærent, oftest på grunn av mangel på relevante oppfølgende organisasjons-strukturer.

GGS, The Green Global Spring Revolution, bl.a. støttet av GAIAN Freedomly Zen-Buddhists, andre frihetlige, Greta Thunberg & Co og flere, satser ikke på denne gærne strategien. Men på opplegget nevnt under «NB!» over, som skulle bli en suksess, forutsatt trigging av tilstrekkelige folkemasser til støtte for opplegget (til GGS). Og det det bli i tide til å avverge full blown climate-crisis, with Ragnarokk = FULLT HELVETE På GAIA, A.K.A. TELLUS OG JORDEN, OG KANSKJE MER. JHø.

Best regards and real democratic greetings from the networks of NøI-INDECO at and IJOR/IIFOR at

Join The Green Global Spring (GGS) - A bottom up pressure action for sufficient high degree of democracy, that will automatically also be sufficient green, via Cogrips-model and -policy - in due time before full blown climate-crisis. Click here!

Click here to experience and may be join: The GAIAN Freedomly Zen-Buddhism - A New Spirituality and Religion!

Translation tool Norwegian to English, French, German, Spanish, etc., and vice versa: Google Translate.






Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery". The words anarchy and anarchism are a bit problematic. Sorry to say, anglophone languages are very much twisted in an Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, to fool the people via the education to worship authority, compared to Nordic language, say,

A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also,

B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality).

Thus in English/American the words 'archein (Greek) = herske (Nordic)' is translated to B. "rule" = to be an arch etc., but "rule" also is used as A. 'regel' = "rule" (i.e. rule(s) in the meaning of relatively fixed way(s) to settle things, disputes and conflicts in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means = regel/regler). And thus, due to using one word to mean two very different things, i.e. A. and B, the anglophones are forced in an authoritarian way to think very much false and wrong about realities, with respect to anarchy, freedom and authority, that the Scandinavian people are not to the same extent. See the point! Anglophones are very much fooled by the authorities in this way, thus you probably cannot easily think free, but like a slave via psychological ruling, to think authority = ruler is necessary to keep order. In Norwegian a situation "an (without) arch(y)" "uten hersker" may very well considered to be with 'regler' because "hersker" = rules, and "regler" = rules, are quite different words. This is very difficult to understand with an anglophone basis.

C. Furthermore the Greek word "an" is not meaning "without" in general, but just as "an" in anaerobe and similar words, i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. management in the meaning of coordination related to anarchy.

Thus the whole thing gets often mixed up in the anglophone sphere, the language falsely forcing people to think that rule and rulers are necessary to settle things in an orderly way.

D. To fix this linguistical/language problem in a simple way, we mainly use the word "rules" in the meaning of one or more rules in case A, and the words "rule" and "ruling" in case B, unless something else is mentioned. We will now present a brief definition of anarchy:

The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride, etc; i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc.", from Greek "archein", "to rule, to be first"; and "archos", "ruler" i.e. in a coercive, repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling. The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Bestiality is especially the hall-mark of systems with more than 666 per thousand (ca 67%) authoritarian degree, see map above. [The term “ca” is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.] Thus "Anarchy" doesn't mean "without coordination, management, administration, etc.". Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers. NB! Remember D. Anarchy and anarchism also of course have and use regulations and regulatory means when necessary and optimal, i.e. significant selfregulation. That anarchy, means an-arch-y, i.e. management and coordination without ruler(s), not just "without rule", a vague term that superficially may be interpreted and manipulated in a lot of inconsistent ways, i.e. non-authoritarian as well as authoritarian, must never be forgotten. "An" means "without" as in an-aerobe, etc, "arch" means "ruler(s)" broadly defined, and "y" in this connection stands for system, management, coordination, as in monarch-y, oligarch-y, etc. The "an" is connected to "arch", not "y". Thus (an-arch)-y means without arch, but not without system, management, coordination, it means (an-arch)-system, management, coordination. In short an-arch-y = (an = without arch = ruler(s)) y = management.

And thus anarchy means a) coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), downwards to the bottom, i.e. in a_coercive_manner. b) Thus, anarchy is higher forms of economical and political/administrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management  from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy,  from "the top downwards to the bottom".

The bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called authority or authorities, the State as a social concept or in a societal perspective - as well as government. Thus anarchy is a way of organizing society where there is management and coordination without ruling and rulers, tyranny and slavery, i.e. the tendencies towards State, authority, authorities, government, bureaucracy and similar are insignificant or zero. The opposite of anarchy is different types of archies, i.e. ruling and rulers, authority, authorities, State in a societal perspective, government - economical and/or political/administrative. Archies may be mainly monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

Thus, the State, administration of State, government, authority/ies, a.s.o. must not be mixed up with public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, 'res publica', as the negation of the private sector and sphere, because State, goverment etc. in this context are about special forms of organization (or disorganization), i.e. all systems where the influence on the societal management and coordination goes mainly from the top towards the bottom, slavery and tyranny - chaotic included. Thus public sector, services and utilities, central/confederal/federal or municipal included, organized significant horizontally, are anarchist - and thus not the State, authority/ies etc. or a part of it. The concept of 'central' is here referring mainly to general matters, things concerning the whole country or all of the citizens, and must not be mixed up with centralist, centralism or centralization, the negation of decentralist, decentralism and decentralization.

Anarchism is political systems and organizations coordinated as  anarchy in the above meaning and manner, but also the political tendency advocating anarchy understood this way, and the scientific knowledge about anarchy and the ways to reduce non-anarchist tendencies.

Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. Real democracy a.k.a. liberal social-democracy broadly defined, is always including green. NB! Liberal social-democracy, remember Bakunin's Social-Democratic Alliance in the 1. International, must not be mixed up with marxist socialdemocracy, see EP-map above.

A bit simplified: Society is private sector plus public sector, both significantly horizontally organized in anarchy.

* Real democracy means one vote per head, participatory, plus anarchist basic rights that secure that the majority cannot decide that the minority must slave for them one way or the other, or worse. Thus the case that the majority "two wolves" decide that the minority "lamb" should be dinner, or similar is avoided. The anarchist rights can be brought for the anarchist law and order system, in case of disputes.

In some cases, say, at which side on the road we should drive, right or left, simple majority > 50% is ok. In other cases general consent - a lot for, and no-one against, is necessary. In some cases 2/3 or 3/4 majority is ok.

General consent is many for and no one against. Via discussion, a consensus culture and negotations the anarchists try to achieve general consent, but this is not always possible. In case where a only a small minority is against, a resolution is decided by close to general consent. In other cases with different opinions regular voting may be the solution. Free fraction rights are directly applicable in all cases except for regulations and enforcement of the statutes. From a congress the following my be the case: The resolutions were decided with general consent or close to general consent.

As for private sector, based on markets, there is one dollar (or labor notes credit) one vote, and it is real democratic, anarchist, only if the income-distribution is significantly horizontally organized (and the economy is efficient). If the income-distribution is significantly hierarchical it is economical plutarchy, not anarchy/ism

As for public sector, it will be organized according to *.

Thus anarchy is real democracy, in both private and public sector. Marxism, fascism and liberalism are different forms of state/government/authority/archy. [Statesystems are typically authoritarian (> 50% authoritarian degree), atypically semilibertarian.]

And thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included. We need to distinguish aggressive coercion from defensive coercion.

A social, economic-political system with free and fair elections of mandated representatives or delegates, usually called democracy, may function more from the top downwards, significant vertically organized, centralist or the opposite, from the bottom upwards, significant horizontally organized, federalist, i.e. anarchy. Thus all anarchies are democracies but everything called democracy is not necessarily anarchist or anarchy. Many so called representative democracies may work more from the top downwards than the opposite, from the bottom upwards, and thus are not real democracies, anarchies, but archies. Thus anarchy is always democracy but not all democracies are anarchist, i.e. some democracies are archies, anarchy is as mentioned real democracy. Anarchy is just a minor part of, a subset of, the total amount of democracy, because not all democracies are anarchies, real democratic. A lot of conditions must usually be fulfilled to secure that a democracy is a real democracy, i.e. anarchy. A lot of people's organizations broadly defined, a free press, i.e. not the 4th power of the State, dialog and free, matter of fact, criticism, all organized significantly according to anarchist principles, are necessities. The existence of a sufficient amount of real alternatives, and a general balance of strength, significant stopping power in the meaning of domination, economical and political/administrative in public and private sectors, may also be mentioned.

Horizontal organization, a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down approach, economically and political/administrative, means organization without ruler(s) - arch(s), i. e. not without management, but 1. organization with significant small income and rank differences, 2. empowered workers with significant influence and freedom within a framework, and 3. real democratic control one way or the other. It is not a system where the management takes orders from the workers, unless the case with 100% flat organization. A horizontal organization has a degree of flatness, an anarchy degree, between 50 % and 100 %, the anarchist ideal. Workers mean the frontline in an organization.

A real scientifical, i.e. a non-dogmatic anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to populist/fascist and relativist, marxist dialectical and liberalist more or less metaphysical way of thinking, is another important thing. By real scientifical, we mean using the natural scientifical method broadly defined, thinking principally and that hypothesis may be rejected, also taking into account realistic future scenarios related to different alternatives and actions, costs and benefits. Thus thinking, say, if this and that are the conditions, and these are the alternative actions, what are the probable alternative outcomes, - and then decide what actions are best, real democratic i.e. what is in the interest of the less benefitial majority of the population, the people vs the authorities and upper classes. "Best arguments win" and to get "competence effectively and fair through in the system" are benchmarks in this context. An efficient and fair dialog in the public room, as indicated with free and matter of fact criticism, working horizontally and/or from the bottom, the people and grassroots - upwards - is a must. To criticize the present proposals and situations without having a clearly better realistic alternative, is quite useless. For higher degrees of anarchy, usually different forms of co-operatives and federalist direct democracy organized according to anarchist principles are important parts of the economic-political system.

The concepts and different perspectives of anarchism are defined in real terms with the Economic-Political map, the IFA-principles and human rights, the Oslo-Convention, etc., and as anarchy vs other -archies, - i.e.

In anarchism hierarchy is usually defined as

a) "the power or rule of a hierarch or hierarchs", in the meaning of economically and/or political/administrative rulers and ruling, i.e. economical and political/administrative hierarchy respectively - significant and/or

b) such rule by priests or other clergy, church government, or

c) the group of officials in such systems.

However the word hierarchy in the today also usual meaning of

d) "any group of persons or things arranged in order of rank, grade, class, etc." is also sometimes used, and

e) thus also hierarchy in the meaning of any tendency towards or of hierarchy defined as point a).

The negation of e) is 100% of anarchy, the anarchist ideal, and the negation of a) is significant anarchy, the anarchy degree > 50% .

1. The economical dimension - the percentage degree of socialism, i.e. the degree of economical freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. - in short economical democracy vs plutarchy, significant economical hierarchy (capitalism - theft, broadly defined). Democracy means, quite simplified, "one person - one vote", i.e. equal votes for all in the elections, also direct democracy. Markets however mean "one dollar (or other means of payment) - one vote". Thus markets are only economically democratic, i.e. not plutarchical, as far as money or other means of payment, among other things, the purchasing powers, are significant equally distributed according to anarchist principles. And thus, markets are probably only anarchistic, i.e. real democratic, if they are publicly regulated in a libertarian way, with free contracts - not slave contracts, etc. (See also point 3.)

2. The political/adminstrative dimension - the percentage degree of autonomy, i.e. the degree of political/administrative freedom, solidarity and equality, etc. in short political/administrative democracy vs vertically organized political/administrative systems, i.e. statism broadly defined, significant political/administrative hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and/or ochlarchy (mob rule) included, in both public and private sector.

3. If a economical plutarchy, i.e. the relatively rich, take over significant political/administrative hierarchy in public and private sector, a political/adminstrative plutarchy is introduced. This is a form of populism/fascism. If significant political/administrative hierarchy, say, a military junta, take over significant economical hierarchy in public and private sector, another form of fascism/populism is established. Any combination of statism combined with plutarchy (capitalism) is a form of fascism. The statism may take the form of monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy and ochlarchy (mob rule, mafia, chaos, no human rights, no real law and order, real lawlessness, etc.) included, and principally also be based on political/administrative plutarchy, or combinations, in both public and private sector.

As mentioned, these concepts should be considered in real terms, not formal or symbolic terms. Anarchists are interested in what de facto and in reality, are going on in society, not formal or symbolic values, government, rule and hierarchies. Symbolic and formal things and positions are only interesting to the extent they influence realities.

The word libertarian(s) (libertaire, freiheitliches, frihetlig) is used synonymously with anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism, unless otherways defined.

Society is public sector plus private sector. This mix is a question of convenience (dependent on fulfilment of other principles, not one in in itself), and public sector should not be mixed up with the concept of government, i.e. vertically organized. Grassroots public service workers are not a part of the bureaucracy/government. The two sectors may be more or less horizontally vs vertically organized, i.e. relatively small vs large rank and/or income differences, etc.

With "society" we here usually mean a set and sum of social relationships among humans, meaning just a network of individuals and the relationships they generate. With "system" we usually mean society in this sense, plus the way to make decisions. These concepts include distribution of wealth, the accepted social norms, the structure of the political economy broadly defined, etc. This may be authoritarian, semilibertarian or libertarian, i.e. anarchist.

In short and a bit simplified: "Do not expect me to provide you with a system. My system is Progress, that is to say the need to work constantly toward discovering the unknown while the past is being exhausted." P. J. Proudhon wrote in a letter of December 1851. This does not mean anarchism is without system, it is a whole set of systems related to the economic-political map. Here the term "system" a bit simplified means just "the way things are decided", and thus practically certain a society must have a system or several systems, and a place on the economic-political map, EPM. This wide definition of systems includes chaotic systems, typically ochlarchy with rivaling polyarchy/oligarchy, and they are practically always connected to superiors and subordinates - significant, and are thus not anarchies. Narrowly defined, system includes order, and anarchy also have system in this sense. Related to the EPM the wide definition of system is relevant, and thus a chaotic system has a place on the map, although being without system narrowly defined.

This however means we, Proudhon, IIFOR and other anarchists, will 1. not provide you with a fixed, dogmatic system once and for all. 2. "Proudhon's system" at that time, as well as today's updated research front of anarchism, is a front of Progress: The research front, using the scientifical method of the natural sciences, is all of the time developing and improved as an accumulated capital of knowledge, consistent and with small -- and sometimes large -- breakthroughs and revolutions, in a progressive way.

Briefly defined State in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and/or inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized. Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.

These brief definitions are simplifications. Seen not so simplified, a horizontal organization is not necessarily per definition efficient, but empirical research tell us it is practically always so. A vertical organization is not per definition inefficient, but empirical research tell us it is practically always so. Also, an inefficient organization is empirically practically always a significant vertical organization, a State in a broad societal meaning. This is the general cases, there are probably exceptions in special cases, but here we concentrate on the general cases, thus the brief simplified definitions.

The results of the economic-political systems of the anarchies Norway, the Swiss Confederation and Iceland confirm the basic libertarian hypothesis that a horizontal structure, i.e. a significant autonomous and socialist system, is efficient and fair. Empirical data of other systems confirm that a top heavy structure, capitalist (economical plutarchist) and/or statist, is unfair and/or inefficient.

There are as indicated above an economic dimension, i.e. income (remuneration), and a noneconomic dimension, i.e. the political\administrative, constituting rank.

Although income often follows rank, it is not necessarily so. A bit simplified economic-political systems may be based on:

1. Small income differences [=socialism] vs large [= capitalism]; and

2. Small rank differences [=autonomy] vs large [= statism].

Thus, there are four main forms of systems and 4x4 = 16 subsystems. Anarchists have discussed and suggested ideals and principles as a leading star (top of the Economic-Political map), and anarchism is economic political systems more socialist than capitalist, and more autonomous than statist, i.e. relatively small income and rank differences. A systems place on the map will depend on the definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism. The Anarchist International (included IIFOR and IAT) has its own definitions, see below in chapter V. B, and the definitions are a bit more complicated than 1 and 2 above. The definitions can be discussed more, and AI is open for a debate on the definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism. Feel free to use your own definitions of socialism/capitalism and autonomy/statism releated to the map.

The superiors in rank and/or income in private and public sectors are for simplicity called the bureaucracy. The people are the total population minus the bureaucracy. A bit simplified: The state, defined as a social concept, that's just the bureaucracy. However, the political/administrative state, i.e. the part of the bureaucracy with subordinates in rank in their occupation (in private and public sector). This is the typical concept of state in anarchist science, i.e. in the meaning of statism. Differences in rank constitute the degree of statism. In this case the economic dimension of the hierarchy is left to the concept of capitalism, i.e. economical plutarchy. To be more precise: If the bureaucracy is practically not (insignificant) rulers, i.e. we have a "bottom up" approach and the system is not a top heavy pyramid, we have Anarchy, and not State. That is anarchism with more than or equal to 50% anarchy-degree.

It is important to understand that the word state related to anarchism is used about two different concepts: 1. the state as a general social or societal organizational concept, i.e. significant economical and/or political administrative hierarchy, and 2. the state as a purely political/administrative concept, statism, i.e. significant political/administrative hierarchy. Both these concepts is relevant for private as well as public sector, activities, services and enterprises. Thus, principally, as indicated above, the concepts of state related to anarchism, must not be mixed up with the concept of State defined as 3. central/federal/confederal public sector, or 4. the whole country, nation, society or system. Anarchism and anarchists are principally opposed to, and want alternatives to the state in the meaning of 1. and 2., but not opposed to the State in the meaning of 3. and 4., and this must principally never be mixed up.

However the anarchist principle of decentralization indicates that the bulk of public activities should be related to the communes, not a central/federal/confederal body. But taking all anarchist principles into account it will in general not be optimal to only have communal public sector, i.e. no central/federal/confederal public organization. However the central/federal/confederal public enterprises and decision organs may very well be spread to local commmunes all over the countries, say, a confederal decision may be taken by referendum or general consent in all the communes, and not necessarily located to a delegated council in the capital city (perhaps a capital city is not even necessary.)

The State broadly defined as a societal concept. The State as a broad societal concept is archy, i.e. x-archy, where x can be anything but not 'an', that is top heavy political/adminstrative and/or economical societal pyramid. Statism is one dimsension of the State and economical plutarchy, i.e. capitalism, the other. The State may also be an ochlarchy, etc. The State = government = archy must not be mixed up with public sector and the central administration. The public sector and the central administration, often wrongly called state or government in Orwellian "1984" newspeak, if significantly horizontally organized, i.e. without top heavy pyramid, are anarchist. A well functioning public sector and central administration are necessary for anarchy and anarchim. The State may be present in several forms both in private and public sector. Anarchist are against the State in general, both in public and private sector.

Anarchism is one of four main quadrants of the economic-political map, and economically based on socialism, i.e. the negation of economical plutarchy (capitalism), and political/adminstratively based on autonomy, i.e. the negation of statism. Furthermore, the other 3 quadrants represent liberalism, based on economical plutarchy without statism, fascism based on economical plutarchy with statism, and marxism based on statism without economical plutarchy.

The map indicates the degree of democracy concerning both the economic and the political/administrative dimensions, taking into account the 16 subsections, i.e. sectors, of the main quadrants:

1. The anarchist ideal at the top of the map, with individualist anarchism to the right, collectivist anarchism to the left, and social-individualist anarchism, a.k.a. liberal social-democracy (narrowly defined), close to the middle of the map.

2. Marxist collectivism close to the anarchist left; marxist social democracy close to the middle, and the more statist and authoritarian socialist left and state communism (leninism) located at the left corner and down, close to fascism, respectively. A large part of marxist collectivism and a part of the social democratic sector, are semilibertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too statist to be anarchistic.

3. Left, right and ultra-fascism (nazism and other very chaotic tendencies) are found at the bottom of the map, with left and right populism above towards the middle. Nazism is is a system similar to Adolf Hitler's totalitarian "national-socialism", i.e. with racist tendencies, a form of ultra-fascism on the economic-political map.

4. Liberalism, i.e. conservatism and the extreme right are authoritarian; social liberalism is close to the middle of the map, and individualism is close to the right corner of the anarchist quadrant. A part of the social liberal sector, and a large part of individualism are semi-libertarian, i.e. not significant authoritarian degree, but too capitalistic to be anarchist. Arch-conservative liberalism is totaliarian, as well as the extreme right-liberalism.

The closer to the anarchist ideal, the more democratic is the economic-political system.

NB! A semilibertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only anarchist (real democratic) systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian