There are many ways by which the origins of anarchism have been traced.
The most perennial approach coincides with the common practice of assigning a tradition's origins to the first known explicator of its ideas. This perennialist approach to history, which continues the millenias-old Cult of the Founder, would suggest that anarchism begins with the first expositor of anarchy, which would be the self-taught, commoner philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, if we give the title by name, or else the American inventor Josiah Warren. Anyone before that, like William Godwin, did not fully explicate or commit to the ends of anarchy, suggesting that Godwin, while having anarchic insights, was more of a proto-anarchist than an anarchist.
However, more recently, those considering themselves to represent social anarchism overall have tended to reject this idea, ignoring Warren and saying that while Proudhon may indeed be the first philosophical exponent of anarchy, it was not Proudhon who was responsible for anarchism, which is to be distinguished as an actual movement for the purpose of establishing anarchy. This perspective reckons that what is regarded by them as anarchism-proper, a social movement, was not brought about until Mikhail Bakunin and his promotion of anti-authoritarianism as anarchism. While I have disagreements with their arguments, much of it is in fact grounded in actual history, so it is important to see what is happening here for them to be able to make this argument without blushing.
Before Bakunin arose to combat Marx's state socialism, there really wasn't a differentiated movement for anarchism, because Proudhon's mutualism, which assumed anarchism (which could also be known simply as federalism), was pluralistic in its approach and did not try to differentiate itself as an entirely new ideology or movement so much as a means by which different perspectives can be reconciled and tolerated for mutual gains. As such, those influenced by mutualism, or who became engaged in mutualistic or federalistic endeavors, spanned a wide range from revolutionary communists to liberal republicans, with relatively few actually seeing mutualism or federalism itself as the aim. The Paris Commune, for instance, while primarily driven by Proudhonian ideas of federalism, was not mutualist in the sense that Proudhon's economics were religiously adhered to. Instead, private property was tolerated alongside mutualist cooperative economic projects and efforts at centralization by democrats and communists.
In general, Proudhon was more an influence on socialists overall than a new ideologue. Part of the reason for this was that mutualism had already been a practice, and one that had ancient roots, and had actually been responsible for the rise of all of the various political currents. Not only is mutualism a perennial force of proto-statism that has given rise to all forms of states, it has also been manifested in every collegia, societas, sodality, guild, coven, and etc. Proudhon's mutualism was unique in that-- in building upon the efforts of his predecessor Pierre Charnier, who himself wanted to recknon trade by way of a labor exchange-- it involved a syndicalist effort of mutual credit banking. So far as I can tell, and while Ketley's and Duncan's and other such friendly societies and mutual savings banks existed, Proudhon is the first true expositor of the idea of mutual credit banking, the idea that common goods and services should be monetizable as a means of exchange as granted by mutual guarantee.
But, as suggested, Proudhon's mutualism was not rigorously adhered to by near enough of his followers to constitute much more than a founding and early guiding force of organizations such as the International Workingmen's Association, which had been largely responsible for the Paris Commune, the IWA itself being more federalist than strictly mutualist. That is not to say that there were not Proudhonian mutualists, as indeed there are records of them, but that they were playing a role that might be identified by Marx a little later as a sort of vanguard, in that they were having an influence beyond the allegiances of mutualism itself, and so constituted a leading force despite their small numbers. At this time, these mutualists did differentiate themselves, but their projects were not defined by their differentiation, instead being seen more widely as federalists, radical republicans, and socialists more generally. Proudhon had already been dead by the time Henri Tolain founded the IWA, so the mutualists were operating as a sort of echo of Proudhon. Nonetheless, mutualism was behind the IWA, and, as such, even in its pluralistic form with poor definition, constituted an organized or organizing movement.
Eventually, Karl Marx and company, working with the Rothschilds and taking after Illuminati and neo-Babouvist communist philosophy, would gain influence over the IWA, and would be disputed by Mikhail Bakunin. Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian noble, nihilist, and anti-theist, fancied himself something of a Proudhonian, but by that really again meant more fondness toward his federalism and statements of anarchy than for his financial apparati (the mutual credit bank). Bakunin substituted collectivism for Proudhon's mutual credit ideas.
The dispute between Marx and Bakunin would do a number of things. Most importantly, it would establish a central, polarized conflict with two figureheads around which all discussion would be had, much as in the tradition of Hermeticism. This polarization would result in two electromagnetic-like “charges” to socialism, dividing it into positive and negative parts and allowing it to be conquered: state-socialism, or authoritarian socialism, which was represented by Marx, especially; and anti-state socialism, or libertarian socialism, represented by Bakunin and others, otherwise known as anarchism. While advocates of anarchy precede this moment, including even the radical individualist Anselme Bellegarrigue, who also distanced himself from Proudhon's mutualism, this is the moment generally taken to represent the beginnings of anarchism by social anarchists.
Bakuninism and Marxism would be the first real need to differentiate anarchism from other varieties of socialism, because before Marx the distinction to make was really between communists (Babouvists, Illuminati) and socialists (Ricardian socialists, utopian socialists), with all socialists being more-or-less libertarian, and authoritarianism being more of a communist tendency. The libertarian socialists, or anarchists, were the ones to merely continue with the original tradition of socialism, free from Marxist tainting. Marx introduced authoritarian socialism as a kind of co-option of socialist rhetoric for communist aims, by claiming a period of state control that he deemed to be socialism, which would evolve toward a communist condition wherein the state is made obsolete. This is a complete obfuscation of socialism, which had been a development from out of liberal associationalism. In reply to this obfuscation of socialism, Bakunin brought an obfuscation of federalism, aligning it with “anti-authoritarianism.” This is what red-and-black anarchists consider to be the origins of what they would regard as true anarchism, to which Proudhon is not a direct contributor, but a sort of begrudging philosophical anticipant that should be dismissed as an anti-Semite, misogynist, and money-crank. In contrast, and while the mutualists opposed hierarchy of persons, they recognized the merits of authorship and of natural authority resulting from ability.
I have referred to the earlier tendency as a form of proto-neo-anarchism, because it sets the stage for the neo-anarchists. These proto-neo-anarchists I still generally consider to fall within the category of classical anarchism, insofar as they expressed genuine anarchist sentiments and even conscientiousness sometimes, though I would not generally classify any collectivist or communist as being genuinely philosophically or politically anarchist, at least not without great compromise. Classical anarchism, then, need not be understood to be synonymous with advocacy of true anarchy, which is true only of mutualism alone. Instead, it includes the full range of thinkers from Anselme Bellegarrigue to Joseph Dejacque (another Illuminati communist, and an inspiration to pseudomutualist Shawn Wilbur).
In place of Proudhon, and even later mutualists like Benjamin Tucker, the proto-neo-anarchists and then neo-anarchists put not only Bakunin and Kropotkin, but increasingly more Jews than Gentile aristocrats such as these. This started most famously among proto-neo-anarchists with Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, but basically came to define more generally the leading elements of the neo-anarchists and anarchists of postmodernity. in individuals such as Fredy Perlman, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, David Graeber, and more.
While the proto-neo-, or classical, anarchists tend to look to Bakuninism (or sometimes even later in Kropotkinism) as the origins of anarchism, the neo-anarchists have a number of other approaches. One popular approach, following Peter Marshall, for instance, is to consider anarchism as a general anti-authoritarian sentiment that can be traced back to the ancient times and does not depend on any philosophical cohesion at all. Importantly, this still allows us to skip over the importance of Proudhon as the founder, and so very much does the same job as the take of proto-neo-anarchism in that regard. Instead, we can look back to ancient Taoists and Cynics and such-- however worthwhile their ideas may or may not be-- as anarchists, simply for expressing sentiments counter to authoritarianism from time-to-time. Another approach is to basically deny any tangible anarchy at all, and to treat anarchism more as an aesthetic or lifestyle choice, which has become predominant. By this standard, one merely needs to express anarchic-themed and anti-authoritarian (that is, in this case, anti-rationalist) statements of noblesse oblige from one's student mouth, such as by condemning Western values and working white people who are not confused about their gender or do not wish to “call a deer a horse.” This view does not ground anarchism in history or philosophy so much as a sentimental immediatism serving degenerate, Counter-Enlightenment ends, or, in other words, nihilism, complete destruction. Quite often the views coincide, such that the neo-anarchist tends to be an insufferable college faggot hellbent on making others call a deer (a man) a “horse” (a woman) and claiming that this stems from an anti-authoritarian tradition reaching back to before the Bronze Age.
Considering the cleft that exists between mutualism and proto-neo- and neo-anarchism, one might expect that the latter two would have little to no interest in mutualism. This is largely the case, except for purposes of damage control. Red-and-black anarchists will deride and derail mutualism, dismissing its worth typically by anchoring it conceptually to impious ideas such as anti-Semitism or mysogyny or else to money quackery. At the same time, they will rabidly defend mutualism as a part of the radical and socialist tradition that they want to be clear belongs squarely on the Left (albeit with uncomfortable adjustments) and does not belong to white nationalists, white supremacists, or white people who do not have white guilt for their white original sin. Mutualism is both hated and cannot be left to go about its own business. Neither the Marxists nor the proto-neo-anarchists and neo-anarchists want mutualism overall (although Shawn Wilbur and other scumbags of his ilk are now promoting a Lyotardian differend they call “neo-Proudhonian mutualism” that has been gaining traction as a variety of neo-anarchism), but they are also afraid of what might happen if mutualism were to fall into the hands of the elements that are generally considered to be Right-wing or conservative. As such, mutualism must be kept within the confines of Marxist-serving “Left Unity” efforts, however uncomfortably and begrudgingly to Jewish socialists, with exceptions made for people like me who fall through the cracks or are willing to risk thinking for themselves. My sort are to be deplatformed or worse.
Needless to say, I am not a proto-neo-anarchist or a neo-anarchist, and thankfully I can say with all honesty that I never have been. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I did not ever have tendencies in this direction, so I want to explore that with you some.
I got into anarchism because of its references in many punk rock songs. The first band to really connect anarchy and punk rock was actually the Sex Pistols, which was basically a manufactured boy band by Malcolm McClaren, the grandson of a wealthy Jewish diamond-dealer. This is the famed “Anarchy in the UK.” But the first band to really appear to take the message seriously was Crass, and this was the one to really get me, outside of skate punk bands like Propagandhi, early in my interest in punk rock.
Importantly, and to go on a bit of a tangent for a moment, Crass was not engaged with real anarchist philosophy, and had more in common with the fin de siecle. After all, the songwriter/drummer styled himself Penny Rimbaud after synarchist Arthur Rimbaud. Their “anarchism” was mostly closely related to peacenik anti-war campaigning and naturist sentiments common to European anarchism, with the most genuine expression closest to a real anarchism being a rejection of the Left/Right political paradigm, which was truly radical, and a proclivity to pacifism. Penny Rimbaud will be the first to admit that he does not concern himself with anarchist philosophy or principles, being much more of an immediatist, like neo-anarchist pedophile Hakim Bey. Strangely, “anarcho-naturalism,” of the sort Crass's politics most resemble, was also a popular grounds for pedophilia, such as that of faggot John Henry Mackay. This seems to have been a popular transgression of Stirnerite egotists. I imagine that egotist and immediatists are similarly responsible for NAMBLA being represented in Bound Together Books and in the Labadie Collection. Rimbaud falls squarely into the naturist camp, being a practitioner of nudism. It is worth mentioning that Shawn Wilbur, the Lyotardian neo-anarchist doing a job on Proudhon, has been majorly featured on the immediatism website and has been known to be friends with known pedophile Wolfi Landstreicher, the most recent translator of Max Stirner and an egoist himself. As it turns out, punk originally referred to a pederast's younger partner, often in a prison scenario. I was not aware of all of this gay and pedophile stuff at the time that I was getting into punk rock. Now that I am fully aware of the situation, I can't help but feel some shame having participated.
Crass was followed by many other bands dabbling some in anarchist politics but mostly in anarchist sentiments matched with fin de siecle aestheticism, symbolism, and even decadence, with the most extreme elements such as grindcore, thrash, and crust taking this to the extreme. Still, some honest anarchist ideas slipped through the cracks, not only in Crass, but also in bands such as Conflict, Subhumans, Oi Polloi, Aus Rotten, and others, though not always without their own degeneracies, and certainly accompanied by more of the Sex Pistols sort of commitments, with bands like The Exploited and other hardcore punk, street punk, and gutter punk bands expressing empty sentiments of teenage angst and rebellion. Later bands such as Fifteen, Propagandhi, the Broadways, Strike Anywhere, the (International) Noise Conspiracy, and more continued to express anarchist-adjacent ideas, almost always accompanied by some fin de siecle or with postmodernist degeneracy attached.
Anyhow, the nuggets of real anarchy, which I had to mine out, but which I came to associate as an identifying characteristic of punk-- that I could find sentiments in favor of anarchism across a fair sampling relative to other genres--, really stuck out to me. I decided to become a punk myself, as a result. I learned to play drums and played in punk bands, and I dressed the part with the crazy hair (in various styles, from liberty spikes to trihawks and mohawks to long hair and sometimes blue), piercings in my ears, lip, and nose, and studs in my belt, on my bracelet, and on my jacket. I took this all as a personal commitment toward a tribe of people I associated with anarchism, and with the understanding that the fashion was somewhat barbarian in appearance, which reminded me of the efforts of the barbarians to bring down Rome, something I subconsciously attached myself to. I was not aware of what was actually happening, and that my reaction was actually more rare than I had expected (or that I was joining a crypto-pederastic cult). You see, most punks did not actually start reading real anarchist philosophy, and by that I mean mutualism exclusively, and make a commitment thereto, like I had. Because punk was so characteristically anarchist by its aesthetic standards, I did not realize that others were not making the same kinds of commitments that I was, and, besides, it was the only subculture even mildly interested in the ideology of anarchism. There were in fact people who did try to learn about anarchism, afterall, and I had not yet figured out why that always meant a commitment to primitivism, communism, or egotism, and increasingly to sexual degeneracy, expecting that I just hadn't come across the right group of mutualist punks. This group did not and does not exist. I was dreaming, possibly even legitimately dissociating from reality in doing so.
Turns out, when looking back on it all, punk never had a genuine commitment to real anarchism. It was purely aesthetic neo-anarchism, with a minority sometimes having genuine and partially-informed anarchic sentiments. This sort of “anarchism” is not about organizing a directly-democratic industrial republic and a mutualist economy, but is more related to fashion, cosplaying, moral grandstanding, charity, and living an artful and symbolic life of passion. Importantly, these values cannot be made to complement mutualism, because they run directly counter to the cultural foundations that preceded it, those of the Radical Enlightenment, which focused instead on modesty, realism, tolerance, reciprocity, and rationality. In fact, when an attempt is made to mix the cultural elements of the fin de siecle Modernism or of its later development, postmodernism, with the politics of anarchism, complete degeneration takes place, as we can see with the so-called anarchists involved in neo-anarchism.
As it turns out, punk rock is more-or-less a psyop that is designed to do exactly this. It attracts people with moral sentiments and anchors those sentiments to cultural degeneracy, such as faggotry, anti-racism, philo-Semitism, and transvestism, and has no issue using the name of a childhood sex victim. This has the effect of pushing regular people out, while framing anarchism as a cultural, rather than economic, operation. Accompanying this, and as a result of their Maoist piety, punks have been able to enter the managerial class, being the major Bobos of today. Instead of working to abolish the state and capitalism, and so to end poverty and control altogether, they feel that they are being anarchists by engaging in queer activities, feeding the homeless, beating up Poor Whites having Poor White (“nazi”) politics, and supporting paternalistic and maternalistic social programs that allow the state and capitalism to continue under the color of benevolence. This is not anarchism, which is about establishing anarchy, the absence of hierarchy between people. It is instead a crude attempt at classcraft, which allows the noble neo-anarchist to present as a more noble soul, worthy of being heard and platformed, while the Poor White is a profane who shall not be given a platform. This sorting out of who is allowed and is not allowed to speak, based on arbitrary or subjective criteria, and enabling moral grandstanding, is the very definition of establishing governing classes of people. The neo-anarchists, that is, have established their class claim to nobility on their bleeding hearts and signalled passions, denying worth to Poor Whites who do not agree with their Counter-Enlightenment sentiments. This has much less to do with anarchism, and much more to do with the French Reign of Terror and the Maoist “struggle sessions.”
When the false epidemic was announced, it became clear who punks really were for the most part. Those bands that had adhered most closely to a realistic conception of anarchism, such as Conflict and the Subhumans, drew criticism when they expressed skepticism with the matter in any way, and punks everywhere were in general agreement that the state should have its way with the individual's body, so long as it was for reasons that allowed for moral grandstanding against those who held to a different view of science or politics. Punk, which had attracted a wide range of people with an interest in expressing rebellion through their lifestyles, had effectively funneled punks to push the agenda of the state. I was flabbergasted and horrified. I have been having a hard time listening to punk or thinking positively of punk ever since, and I have been feeling ashamed of the path that I chose earlier in life as led by the aesthetic attractors that had me believe that others were in it for the same reasons as myself. I have never been more sure in my life that I was hoodwinked by more-or-less empty sentiments, power chords, and barbaric fashion that was intended to be superficially associated with anarchism, but was just neo-anarchism, a means for the newest of the Bobos to follow their Yuppie forebears into the ranks of the managerial class, which Thomas Picketty has related to a sort of Brahmin caste.
So, what the hell happened to anarchism? Firstly, it was impeded by Marxism and taken by the proto-neo anarchists and turned into collectivism and communism by way of Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. Then, it was transformed completely or at least substantially into an aesthetic to signal one's noble obligation to protect faggots, transvestites, and Jews (especially), but also blacks and women. From who? From Poor White men, and this as a means of entry into the professional-managerial class, the 20% who work for the 1%. Look around you, and you will find that a significant portion of this class walks around in Converse All-Stars and Vans, has tattoos and piercings, and opposes fascism with all of its might. While perhaps not uniquely punk, you can bet each of these individuals is well-aware of punk, even if not the impact it has had on the way they present themselves and the way that they think. What they can agree on is that Bubba better not say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or anti-Semitic, or he'll be shown the door. But the local landlords, usurers, and bosses are always welcome.