Red vs. Green
Regional Variation of Anarchist Ideology in the United States

ABSTRACT Anarchism is a philosophy opposed to hierarchy and authority, and is used as a critical lens to analyze the whole of human society. As with members of all social groupings, anarchists differ from each other in many ways, one of which is their political ideology. At least two visibly distinct ideological variants of anarchism are distinguishable in the US—a red anarchism that emphasizes economic concerns and a green anarchism that focuses upon the environment. American anarchists have long assumed, based upon anecdotal evidence, that there are differences in ideological variant identification between those on the two US coasts. Using survey data, two distinct measures of ideology were formed and respondents were classified into four separate US regions. Although the majority of anarchists do not specify a particular orientation, Northeasterners were associated with red anarchism, while Westerners were associated with green anarchism. These differences may be created and/or reinforced by structural or organizational factors.

Introduction

During recent years, anarchists have appeared within North American social movements, seemingly from nowhere. The questions of who they are and where they have come from have been a source of speculation by the mass media[1] and by State agents.[2] Although there has been an active anarchist movement since the 1960s, it has been largely under the radar and not as visible as other movements. This invisibility changed when anarchists appeared front-and-center during the successful 1999 anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, Washington.

What are the ideological orientations of anarchists and how do these orientations differ? Despite some qualitative works,[3] there have been no serious, quantitative attempts—whether by authorities or activists themselves—to answer these questions, particularly in a geographic, historic, and sociological context. Given the ubiquitous presence of the red-and-black anarcho-syndicalist flag at many demonstrations and highly visible acts of property destruction carried out by the anarchistic Earth Liberation Front, anarchists and their ideological claims have been thrust front-and-center in the US polity.

This research aims to locate American anarchists within various geographical regions and classify them by their political ideological variants. First, I review anarchism’s recent history and the ideological variants connected to it. Then, I offer a hypothesis that argues that there is a measurable variation in particular anarchist variants based upon region in the US, followed by a description and analysis of data that supports my hypothesis. Finally, I discuss the findings and suggest possible factors that could contribute to these patterns, primarily structural and organizational in nature, drawn from a variety of secondary sources.

In the next sections, I explore the literatures that are relevant to this research. First the essential characteristics of anarchism and the anarchist movement are described. Second, I detail major ideological variants of anarchism in the US, including those that emphasize economic or environmental orientations. Third, research focused upon spatial variation in ideologies is reviewed.

Anarchism

To most political scientists, anarchism usually refers to a state of international relations without world government. For most economists—who operate on the premise that capitalism is the normative mode of economic activity—anarchism is a purely market-driven economy without government participation and regulation. To social movement participants the world over, however, anarchism has a longer, richer, and more left-leaning tradition. For these people and their organizations, anarchism is a radical political and social philosophy that advocates the elimination of all oppressive hierarchies and authority, particularly those found with the institutions of the state, capitalism, patriarchy, White supremacy, bureaucracy, militarism, and environmental domination. Anarchists advocate replacing these institutions with egalitarian, horizontal, and cooperative social relationships.[4] Those who adhere to such a philosophy often (although do not always) identify as ‘anarchists’.[5] The American anarchist movement qualitatively increased its visibility and organizing during the 1990s[6] and particularly after the anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) demonstrations in late 1999.[7]

However, anarchism has been around for a long time in the US. DeLeon, for example, argues that there is a distinctly anarchist ethic and culture within much of the American experience.[8] Self-identified anarchists like Benjamin Tucker, Henry David Thoreau, Emma Goldman, and Sacco and Vanzetti are commonly presented in American histories. Although many present-day anarchists appear to be partially aware of this history anarchism is conceived of as a living practice, not one etched in stone or carried out religiously from the ideology’s forbearers. In contrast to much of the organized, socialist Left in the US—which often identifies as Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite, Stalinist, or Maoist—it is clear that anarchism is not linked to the ideas of particular thinkers, but to a general praxis based around opposition to hierarchy and domination, and the right to selfdetermination.[9]

In recent decades, the traditional and core goals of anarchism—opposition to capitalism and the State—have been extended to deal with other institutions, such as patriarchy, White supremacy, heterosexism, and environmental destruction. Activism around these later issues, largely starting with the turbulent decade of the 1960s, coincides with the appearance of ‘new social movements’ (NSMs).[10] NSM theories suggest that recent social movements have shifted from strictly economic issues (traditionally found in the labor movement) towards social and cultural issues, partially as a result of a post-industrial economy. Recent research has shown that the anarchist movement’s relationship to NSM theory is less clear than other contemporary movements, as there is a sizable portion of anarchists who identify with labor movement-friendly ideologies and identify as working class.[11]

Anarchist ideological variants

Anarchism has a fluid and evolving ideology. There are no regulating organizations that endow the official title of ‘anarchist’ upon adherents. As such, anarchism is readily interpreted by different people in different ways. There is a relevant joke here: ‘Ask three anarchists to describe “anarchism” and you’ll get four, maybe five different answers’. Such is the nature of contested ideologies that lack a history of dogmatic adherence. Although there are values that most anarchists share, the ideology enables strong disagreements on a variety of issues—no anarchist ‘central committee’ exists to dictate a ‘party-line’. The following discussion details these matters for both the classical and modern-day anarchist movements.

The Russian anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin envisioned a society of collective ownership of farms, workshops, and factories.[12] In the US, Johann Most, Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, and others were prominent proponents of anarcho-communism. According to the ideas of anarchocommunism, society must be classless and voluntary associations will do all production collectively. This perspective differs from ‘mainstream’ communism in its rejection of all forms of hierarchy and the state. As such, anarchocommunists like Berkman became steadfast critics of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union for assuming the role of vanguard during the Russian Revolution, dissolving worker councils, and repression of dissenters including anarchists.[13]

A strain of anarchism related to anarcho-communism—one that was more viable and dynamic during the early 1900s—is anarcho-syndicalism. Key activists and theorists like Rudolf Rocker viewed the labor movement as a potentially revolutionary force capable of defeating capitalism by taking over the means of production from owners, running shops and factories collectively. Heavily indebted to collectivist anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin, anarcho-syndicalism found its way into the influential Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union in the US, which advocated ‘One Big Union’. Activists like ‘Big Bill’ Haywood and Eugene Debs helped found the IWW as a mass organization based on the principles of solidarity and internationalism; members from all different industries, occupations, ethnic backgrounds, and nationalities fought for better working conditions with the slogan ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’. The IWW was targeted by the first Red Scare (1917–1921), which arrested, convicted, and deported many key activists.[14] Internationally, the influence of anarchosyndicalism peaked during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, where vast areas of Spain were under the control of anarcho-syndicalist unions, militias, and collectives.[15]

As a consequence of these different trajectories (including ‘mutualists’, ‘individualists’, and other variants), some anarchists sought to establish commonground for the entire anarchist movement, based on the most essential principles of anarchism. The most famous advocate of an ‘anarchism without adjectives’ position was Ericco Malatesta: ‘Let us do away with all exclusivism of schools of thinking’.[16] In the US, Voltairine de Cleyre—originally a self-identified individualist—championed an anarchism that tolerated different visions of a post-state society.[17] The label of anarchism without adjectives, although itself not in common use today, may represent a symbolic position taken by anarchists who wish to avoid squabbles around well-staked-out arguments.[18]

Interestingly, anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are still major, visible tendencies within the international anarchist movement, although anarchosyndicalism has less influence within the labor movement than it did in the early1900s.[19] These two variants serve as the major ideological connections between the classical and present-day anarchist movement. The International of Anarchist Federations (founded in 1968) is an anarcho-communist federation consisting of nearly 100 local organizations throughout the world. The International Workers Association, an anarcho-syndicalist federation, was founded even earlier in 1922 and enjoys the membership of well-over 200 participating local organizations.[20] Advocates of both ideological variants are active in issues regarding economics, such as workplace union organizing, economic justice and economic human rights, and the formation of cooperatives. Anarchists who support either anarchocommunism or anarcho-syndicalism are often called ‘red anarchists’, in reference to their left-leaning (thus red) politics, but their rejection of party-based or vanguard-led socialism.

Although many (if not most) anarchists today share the general goals of the anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist goals, most do not consider themselves red and instead implicitly support the anarchism without adjectives position. Since the movements of the 1960s, a wide variety of new social movements have emerged, infusing anarchism with an increased diversity of perspectives and concerns. Most prominently, the feminist and environmentalist movements have radically changed people’s views about gender and the place of women in society, as well as the importance of protecting the environment for future generations. In both cases, there is a range of ideological positions, ranging from liberal to radical. Liberal feminists differ greatly from socialist-feminists and radical feminists. Liberal environmentalists differ wildly from radical environmentalists. Anarchists have occupied the radical wings of both these movements—with their proponents known as anarcha-feminists and eco-anarchists, respectively—and have introduced concerns from feminism and environmentalism into the anarchist movement.[21]

Eco-anarchist ideology implies a political emphasis upon the relationship that humans have to the natural environment, including the earth, air, water, and all plant and animal life. Anarchists believe that the central reasons for the continuous destruction of the environment are human actions, especially those of corporations, and are in large part the consequences of industrial capitalism and civilization. Modern societies use far greater resources than are ecologically sustainable and eco-anarchists thus believe that such patterns must be drastically reversed. ‘Green anarchists’, as eco-anarchists are sometimes called, engage in a variety of actions towards these ends. For example, the anarchistic organization Earth First! (EF!) engages in environmental defense of particular natural habitats, such as forests, by means of road blockades, tree-spiking, and tree-sitting. EF! activists demand ‘no compromise in defense of Mother Earth’, and possess identities constructed on the ‘ecological self’ and the ‘wild within’.[22] More clandestine, direct action organizations, such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) engage in illegal and often destructive campaigns against corporations, government agencies, or universities that they view as harming the earth or animals.[23] ELF, like their EF! forbearers, reject violence towards any living beings, and thus only target property.[24] Many eco-anarchists suggest that social life should be sharply scaled back to be more insync with nature, by reverting to a more pastoral lifestyle. Some greens, called ‘primitivists’, go further by suggesting that all of modern civilization is unsustainable and detrimental to the Earth—including contemporary technology—and thus humans should return to a hunter-and-gatherer existence.[25]

Another tendency related to green anarchism, but one that still has a distinct emphasis, is ‘post-left anarchism’, which rejects the concerns, strategies, and organizations of left anarchism, class-struggle anarchism, or red anarchism. Postleftists think that the Left is thoroughly stained by its association with authoritarian parties and Marxist-Leninism, which has been defeated with the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus, anarchists need to move beyond a critique of hierarchy that relies upon the same language as authoritarian leftists, and instead transition towards more inclusive, non-fragmented, less class-obsessed, and more informal organizations.[26] For some post-leftists, anarchism must be situated outside of the constraints of earlier anarchist ‘dogmas’—specifically the ideology of classical anarchism—in order to be more capable of fighting struggles and winning in a postmodern world where class is argued to have less salience for social movements. This strain of anarchism tends to not view itself as an ideological variant, but rather a praxis that has evolved beyond ideology’s perceived problematic characteristics of ideology, such as inflexibility, impracticality, or insincerity.[27] Perhaps influenced by individualist anarchism, some greens are also associated with what is called CrimethInc, a moniker under which different groups have published anarchist literature that often glorifies ‘dumpsterdiving’, ‘train-hopping’, and ritual employment-avoidance.[28]

The interplay between the red and green perspectives has been pronounced. Red anarchists criticize green anarchists of ignoring issues of class exploitation and favoring, perhaps nihilistically, an economic collapse that could harm a large majority of the Earth’s population. Greens are accused of disdaining organization to the extent that action is prioritized over praxis and chaos over coordinated campaigns.

In response, green anarchists charge red anarchists with the fetishization of formal organization (or what some call ‘organizationalism’) and for their efforts to work within the paradigm of labor unions, which greens charge as counterrevolutionary and regressive organizations. Reds are viewed by greens as ignorant of and indifferent to the destructive influence of the industrial economy upon the environment. Thus, greens charge reds with complicity with the system for placing greater emphasis on economics over ecology. Inglehart’s argument distinguishing between materialist and post-materialist values seems implicit in this dualistic argument.[29] The ‘jobs versus the environment’ dichotomy commonly used in public discussion appears to be extended, in a radical fashion, within the anarchist movement.

Both sets of criticisms have traction within their respective communities, which have produced lengthy polemics. Zerzan’s advocacy of a hunter-and-gatherer society[30] and early Earth First! Journal articles on ‘deep ecology’—welcoming viral outbreaks that would reduce human population levels—are lambasted in works by authors like Sheppard, Bufe, and Bookchin.[31] These authors view green anarchism—in particular primitivism and other ‘anti-civilization’ tendencies—as paramount to seeking genocide and ignoring that the majority of people in the world have material needs that must be met daily, usually from paid labor. Zerzan’s criticism of labor unions[32] and, by inference red anarchism in general, is a reflection on the problems of class-based organizing, especially within clientoriented unions, in a post-industrial society. Even attempts to integrate environmental concerns within labor or community activism fail to acknowledge that capitalism and cities are premised upon unsustainable resource extraction and pollution.

Red and green anarchisms, while separate and sometimes distinct within their own respective activist milieus, still very much view themselves as part of a larger anarchist movement. Both ideological variants borrow common symbols, such as the ‘circle-a’ and black flags that are diagonally split by solid red or green. Each variant also makes political appeals for solidarity to the broader anarchist movement and uses similar framing strategies to attract new members.

Regionalism

As with all movements or social groupings, anarchists differ in many ways, one of which is in terms of specific ideological matters.[33] Differences also exist in groups across spatial areas and these differences may be studied within the regions where they thrive. Anarchists have voiced the suspicion that there is a regional variation in anarchist ideology, but have lacked quantitative evidence to support such an argument. To demonstrate the existence of such variation and to understand the reasons for it is a geographic question:

The region is not simply given to society: it is constantly constructed, destroyed and reconstructed in changed form as a result of the interaction of local and non-local processes of social development. It is a product of geography and history ... Regional geography offers the opportunity to provide an account of the human world which places people and their places at the very centre of analysis.[34]

Regional geography urges a systematic look at the social and physical ways that regions differ from each other, and to offer potential explanations for those differences. Although many inanimate, people-created things (media, corporate branches, commodities for sale, etc.) are held in common across space, people themselves tend to differ, even if only in seemingly minor ways—dialect, ethnicity, electoral behavior, dominant musical preferences, and political ideologies. Usually there are historical factors that have led to the development of current spatial phenomena. Also, structural factors embedded within various social or natural environments perpetuate or inhibit the presence of social patterns—such as variations in anarchist ideology.

Yet, postmodernism offers a countering view of regionalism. What does a ‘region’ actually mean in an integrative, digitized, and consumption-oriented economy? Most importantly, meaning and significance begin to breakdown due to the technological advances in communication technologies, homogenizing culture, and the ability for trends to migrate with indifference across traditional regional boundaries.[35] Anarchists have, arguably, benefited more than most from the advent of the Internet. Thanks to the ability to network autonomously with other activists and anarchists, coordinate actions and campaigns, as well as to exchange information with and propagandize new adherents, anarchists have taken full advantage of the Internet’s democratizing technology.[36] Such usage could potentially blur the effect of spatial distance upon ideological variants—or it could work to diffuse it further than it otherwise naturally would.

Studying regional difference is a common practice in research on political ideological variants. For example, Medoff analyzed US states’ political ideology, on a liberal-conservative scale, but did not aggregate the states into regions. States were evaluated by how liberal the votes were by Representatives in Congress. Northeastern and Western states were the most liberal, with Southern states the most conservative.[37] Weakliem and Biggert rank Census Bureau classification regions (nine total) according to ‘liberalism of average opinion’ (p. 876)—again, people in Northeast states followed by the West are the most liberal in terms of support for civil liberties, social spending, helping minorities, and opposing laws that dictate ‘traditional’ moral values. The South was the least liberal region.[38] Andersen and Heath compared four US regions, four Canadian regions, and five British regions to a left–right spectrum and ideological voting behavior. Leftism was operationalized as an individual’s greater support for efforts to create equality in society (including efforts by government) and the view that government should do more things for people. Here, too, the South was the most right-leaning.[39] Given this precedence for research on regional variation in political ideologies, it is plausible to expect similar differences amongst more ideological variants, even the far more marginalized attitudes of anarchists. And, if such a variation does in fact exist, there must be a number of potential explanations. In the following section, I detail how such ideological variation is measured and then suggest structural and organizational factors that may contribute to it.

Data

This research aims to show that there is a quantitative association between geographic region and anarchist ideology, although not necessarily a causal relationship. Specifically, ‘red anarchists’ are expected to be primarily in the US Northeast and ‘green anarchists’ are expected primarily in the US West. This prediction is based on informal conversations and speculative writings by anarchists themselves.

For this study, data was extracted from a 2002 user survey of the prominent North American anarchist website www.infoshop.org, called ‘The Mid-Atlantic Infoshop’ (herein referred to as ‘Infoshop’). Previous research found that Infoshop is an online ‘nexus’ for anarchist information (and ‘counterpropaganda’) and other anarchist websites.[40] Consequently Infoshop is the most-interlinked anarchist website in the English language. Infoshop is likely to have a lower likelihood of sample response bias for its survey than other websites, because it is so frequently accessed by anarchists for a wide-variety of purposes. This makes Infoshop one of the best online sources of data on American anarchists. The survey had 956 responses, 703 of which were from individuals within the US. Respondents were self-selected and there is no way to ascertain the total population for this sample.

Some have raised concerns that research using Internet surveys involves a ‘digital divide’ bias. This refers to the varying access that members of different socio-demographic groups have to computers and the Internet. A National Telecommunications and Information Administration study shows that Whites and Asian-Americans, more affluent persons, and more educated persons tend to use computers and the Internet more than other race/ethnic groups, the less affluent, and less educated. Roughly equal numbers of men and women use the Internet.[41] But 75% of the Infoshop survey respondents were male and one-third of respondents described their economic background as ‘working class’. Thus, in terms of gender and class, the Infoshop survey is an atypical sample of respondents for Internet users, simultaneously under- and over-represented, respectively. This unexpected pattern could be due to the fact that more men than women identify as anarchists (or that fewer female anarchists responded to the survey) and the tendency among anarchists to view themselves as ‘working class’, regardless of actual social class background.

Although it is easy to recommend that web-surveys should not be used for research due to these concerns, there are compelling arguments for using such methods on marginalized populations not easily sampled and studied via other methods.[42] Due to the network structure of social movements, conventional sampling strategies are not suitable methods for acquiring participant data. Organization-administered surveys involve a number of shortcomings that webbased surveys could potentially compensate for. First, since anarchists participate in a variety of organizations, which are not all ideologically anarchist, and sometimes in projects or campaigns that lack clear organizational structures, it is thus unclear which organizations should have surveys administered to them. Second, anarchist organizations are remarkably fluid, often not requiring formal membership in order to participate. Who would be a permitted survey respondent would be contentious. Third, no non-organizational survey method exists for anarchists. They are not a large percentage of the general population and random sampling would likely garner very few respondents. For these reasons, utilizing the network structure of the Internet permits a more accurate reflection of the structure of anarchist social movements. Given that Infoshop is a very popular website, it is sensible to assume that its survey respondents would pull a large number of practicing anarchists in the US, as well as a diverse cross-section of the movement itself (which I think the results in the next section show). But, since the Infoshop respondents were technically not sampled at random, the following analysis cannot be said to generalize to all American anarchists. Thus, the results only reflect patterns for Infoshop respondents themselves—and the analysis only generalizes to anarchist Infoshop users—although I would expect similar findings in the greater anarchist movement.[43]

The survey respondents form a group that is mostly part of only one generation (late teens to middle twenties). A minority of middle age and older respondents skew the mean age (24 years old) to appear older than one might expect at first glance. The relative youthfulness of survey respondents should provoke caution from the reader. And as evidenced by a Bureau of Labor Statistics’ study, this age group also tends to have the lowest union membership[44]—an important avenue for organizing to many red anarchists. Infoshop’s younger respondent age could be explained in two ways. First, anarchism may be more of a youth phenomenon that people discard as they age (thus the survey reflects an existent reality of the movement). Second, older anarchists may not have the interest or skills to use the Internet at the same rate as younger anarchists (thus the survey has a sampling bias).

Geographical delineation in this study follows that of the U.S. Census Bureau.[45] Survey respondents from the US are grouped by state into four different geographic regions, including Midwest, Northeast, South, and West (Figure 1). See the map below for state-by-state classification.[46] Although the four regions contain varying numbers of states, the number of Infoshop respondents for each region is roughly equivalent. This differs from the actual US population where the South has nearly twice the number of residents as the Northeast.[47]

Although respondents could choose from a variety of radical left ideologies (of which anarchist variants were the majority), I exclude all non-anarchist respondents from the analysis, since they were not anarchist movement participants and not of interest to this study. Thus, respondents who identified

as such ideologies like ‘revolutionary’, ‘socialist’, or ‘ultra-leftist’ were not included. Although somewhat crude, all anarchist ideological variant responses relevant to this study of red and green anarchists have been classified into two categories (shown in Table 1).[48] In the first category are respondents who selected an anarchist ideological variant with an economic focus (a traditional social movement concern) herein classified as ‘red anarchism’. As previously mentioned, anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalist have been classified as red anarchists. Anarcho-communists believe in a collective ownership of society’s property.[49] A special variety of anarcho-communists, ‘Platformists’, are also categorized as red anarchists. Platformists are those who adhere to the

Economic (red)	Environmental (green)
Anarcho-communist Anarcho-syndicalist Platformist	Animal liberationist Deep ecologist Eco-anarchist Primitivist Social ecologist

Source: Ideology answers available from Infoshop, author’s classification.

---

‘Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists’, drafted in 1927.[50] Anarcho-syndicalists, those who believe in worker self-management and directownership of production, are also considered red.[51] These categories suggest certain beliefs or activities; for example, those expressing a red ideological variant are significantly likely to be union members.[52]

The second category includes respondents who chose an anarchist ideological variant that has an environmental focus (a concern of ‘new social movements’), herein classified as ‘green anarchism’. As described above, eco-anarchists and primitivists are the main ideological beliefs classified under green anarchists. Eco-anarchists believe in the primacy of defending the earth. Primitivists believe that civilization and technology are at the root of social and environmental problems.[53] The other green anarchist ideological variants (animal liberationism, deep ecology, and social ecology) are far less prevalent survey responses, but are included as ‘greens’ for the sake of consistency, since they too focus upon environmental issues.

Some anarchist theorists and philosophers may take exception to the classification of social ecology under the ‘green anarchist’ label; social ecology has long had an antagonistic relationship to deep ecology and primitivism.[54] But I include social ecology within green anarchism here because of the emphasis it places on environmental matters, along with other specific ideological variants, not because it accepts the same analysis of environmental problems or solutions. Social ecology considers the root of both environmental and human problems to be human-created hierarchy. The philosopher behind this ideological variant is Murray Bookchin, a prominent participant in the US Green movement (the nonelectorally oriented wing of the Greens). Bookchin wrote one of the most popular mid-twentieth century anarchist books in the English language, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, which combined environmentalism with radicalism in an increasingly non-industrial economy. Thus, ‘green anarchism’ in this article’s context is a term of convenience, not necessarily reflective of anarchist usage.[55]

The ideological variants chosen by Infoshop respondents represent their primary identity since only one choice was allowed when answering the survey. Although some respondents likely identify with multiple ideological variants, they were forced to select one, presumably their primary ideological variant.[56] Responses that identify with any specific ideological variant within either of the two categories were dummy-coded. For example, anarcho-syndicalists were coded green ¼ 0, red ¼ 1; eco-anarchists were coded green ¼ 1, red ¼ 0; and anarcha-feminists—who fit in neither category—were coded green ¼ 0, red ¼ 0.

Analysis

First, who are the red and green anarchists? Do Infoshop survey respondents reflect the concerns that one would expect of those who hold each particular ideological variant? Infoshop respondents were asked to choose their first and second ‘priorities for the anarchist movement’ from a list. There are statistically significant differences (based on t-tests, results not shown) between red anarchists and others, and between green anarchists and others. Red anarchists were more likely than all others to prioritize anti-capitalist organizing, cooperatives, organizing new federations, tenant organizing, and workplace organizing. Green anarchists were more likely than all others to prioritize radical ecology. Green anarchists were more likely than all others to choose as their second priority direct action, riots, and smashing the state. Unsurprisingly, both red and green anarchists’ priorities match the expectations that ought to derive from the previously described red and green ideological variants. Red anarchists strongly emphasize the role of organizing, especially in terms of economics, while green anarchists emphasize the importance of ecology and action.[57]

If the priorities of red and green anarchists match those expected of their ideological variant, the next question is: how do these ideologies vary across space? Bivariate correlation analysis was done on the Infoshop survey, comparing region to ideological variant. This method is employed to show statistically significant relationships between both red or green anarchists, and their residence in a given US region. The results show interesting relationships that have previously been unmeasured. Although long suspected by activists, the Infoshop survey provides quantitative evidence supporting the relationship between anarchist ideological variants and region.

Significant correlations between region and ideology were found in the West and Northeast regions. Northeastern US anarchists were positively correlated with the economically focused ideological variant of red anarchism. Western US anarchists were positively correlated with the environmentally focused ideological variant of green anarchism. Also, there was a significant negative relationship between Northeasterners and green anarchists, meaning that those in the US Northeast tended not to have an environmental ideology. Westerners also had a negative correlation to an economic ideological variant. This evidence supports the notion of a regional red–green split in the US anarchist movement. See Table 2 for the correlation coefficients.

Neither of the other two geographic regions, Midwest or South, had significant relationships to either ideological strain. This suggests that there was no clear, dominant tendency within these regions. The only other significant finding here is that anarchists without adjective (‘anarchist’, ‘anarchist without adjective’, or ‘anti-authoritarian’) are more likely to be found in the Northeast than expected at random.[58] See Table 3 for the percentages of ideology per region that reinforce the correlation results.

Region	Red	Green
Midwest	--.030	--.000
Northeast	0.212***	--.121*
South	--.067	--.048
West	--.102*	0.155***

Source: Inforshop.org, author’s analysis.

Note: *P , 0.05; **P , 0.01; ***P , 0.001.

---

Region	Count	Anarchist without adjective	Red anarchist	Green anarchist	Other ideology
Midwest	108	54.6	17.6	8.3	19.4
Northeast	96	37.5**	35.4***	2.1*	25.0
South	101	55.4	14.9	5.9	23.8
West	127	50.4	13.4*	15.0***	21.3

Source: Infoshop.org, author’s analysis. Chi-square significance tests between ideology and region.

Note: *P , 0.05; **P , 0.01; ***P , 0.001.

---

Given the significant differences between anarchist ideological variants and regional difference for the Northeast and West, are there conditions in either region that might be providing support for either red or green anarchists? The rest of the paper discusses two different types of factors that help to explain this relationship: structural factors and organizational factors.

Structural factors

Factors within the structural environment of a region first include historical factors, such as the period of westward expansion funded and campaigned for by the US government that entailed massive settlement of the Western portion of the United States, and the subsequent displacement of both indigenous inhabitants and ecosystem. Additionally, economic factors that contribute to the nature of each region’s economy are important. The West is the least industrialized area of the United States and has traditionally served as an extractive region for supplying raw resources to the industrial corporations based primarily in the Northeast and Midwest regions. The Northeast is itself the most urbanized region in the country, with the highest concentration of population—and thus the highest concentrated workforce—in the country.

Then there are the logical consequences of this economic primacy—the impact upon where the forests are, where the unions are, and so forth. For example, Western states account for 73% of all public lands surface area managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the US. ‘Eastern States’, in which the BLM considers the inclusion of more than just the Northeast, do not have any BLM administered lands.[59] Since much of green anarchism involves practices referred to as ‘eco-defense’—such as physically preventing corporate logging of public forests by ‘tree-sitting’—it is reasonable to assume that there must be large tracts of relatively untouched land around to be defended by activists. As Table 4 below shows, National Forest lands are clearly more prevalent in the West than the Northeast, by two orders of magnitude, in fact (NFS 2002).[60] This regional difference is likely the result of US economic development and ‘Westward expansion’ that industrialized the Northeast to a higher degree than the West, as opposed to there simply being more forests in the West—the forests of the Northeast have simply been mostly chopped down.

Table 4. Environmental and organizational characteristics per region.

Midwest	Northeast	South	West
Total acreage (millions)[61]	480.97	103.86	635.12	1043.27
National forests[62]	16	5	40	121
National forest acreage	10 729 580	1 660 127	13 718 455	161 675 516
National forests per acre (millions)	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.15
Population (millions)[63]	65.10	54.98	102.39	65.50
Employed (millions)	29.30	23.64	42.21	26.67
High-density b forestry workers per million people	325.94	477.71	1100.69	925.08
Low-density forestry workers per million people[64]	189.18	231.43	956.79	762.73
Percent unionized[65]	16.19	19.11	6.90	14.88
Sierra Club groups[66]	80	48	124	127
Sierra Club groups per million people	1.23	0.87	1.21	1.94
Sierra Club members	147 462	157 112	169 949	325 666
Sierra Club members per million people	2265.16	2857.62	1659.82	4972.00
IWW groups[67]	16	10	8	25
IWW groups per million people[68]	0.25	0.18	0.08	0.38
EF! groups[69]	13	7	23	24
EF! groups per million people	0.20	0.13	0.22	0.37
Red publications and presses	Anarcho-Syndicalist Review Philadelphia, PA Industrial Worker Philadelphia, PA Northeastern Anarchist Boston, MA	The Dawn Oakland, CA
Green publications and presses[70]	Fifth Estate Ferndale, MI			Earth First! Journal Tuscon, AZ

National forest acreage shows one environmental explanation. Another explanation could be offered by forestry workers who would be engaged in the harvesting of such timber. Table 4 shows the ratio of both low- and high-density forestry workers per region. In this case, the South has the greatest number of such workers per capita, followed by the West. The Northeast is lowest.

Although the Northeast has the fewest forestry workers, it has the highest level of unionization (strongly related to red anarchism) in the US (see Table 4), while the South has the lowest level—nearly one-third percent unionized in the Northeast.

Organizational factors

To address the presence of anarchists more directly, there are deliberate anarchist institutions that may aid in explaining the regional variation between ideologies in the US, rather than the incidental structural occurrences outside the anarchist movement discussed in the previous section. All manner of organizations and communication mediums may foster regional variation.

Anarchist organizations may be seen as responses to and as outgrowths of more moderate organizations. Fitzgerald and Rodgers indicate many differences between ‘moderate social movement organizations’ (MSMOs) and ‘radical social movement organizations’ (RSMOs), primarily in terms of organizational structure, ideology, tactics, communication, and assessment of success.[71] As seen above, unions are more prevalent in the Northeast, thus suggesting a higher percentage of pro-labor, economic-focused anarchists and organizations. The Infoshop survey clearly demonstrates that there are more individuals in the Northeast expressing a red anarchist ideology. Yet the above data on regional unionization does not suggest that Westerners do not deal with issues of class. Indeed, the anarcho-syndicalist union the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) remains active in the West, especially in Portland, Oregon. In fact, there are more IWW unions in the West than any other region, including the Northeast (see Table 4). It is difficult to state a clear historical predominance of the IWW in any one region—although the West is where the IWW was most active during the early-1900s.[72] Since the period of the 1920s—when the IWW and other radicals were repressed by the Palmer Raids[73]—the IWW has lost the majority of its membership, and has diversified its organizational approaches and the industries in which it organizes. Some IWW organizations are workplace unions, while others are general membership branches (GMBs) for people who adhere to anarcho-syndicalism and class struggle ideology, but do not necessarily work directly with a labor union.[74] With more IWW chapters found in the West as opposed to the Northeast, the ideological distribution appears somewhat contradictory and suggests that red anarchists may not be benefiting as much as expected from the organizations in their region. Or, IWW members may be older than average and/or less likely to use the Internet.

The existence of MSMO environmentalist groups—such as the Sierra Club— could also be associated with the location of green anarchists. The Sierra Club tends to be reformist in politics, recreational in behavior, and not all members are likely to consider themselves members of the environmental movement. Table 4 shows the number of Sierra Club groups in all four US regions compared to the general population. As expected, this MSMO follows the already suggested pattern of difference between the two US coasts: the West has the greatest per capita Sierra Club membership and the Northeast has the lowest. Other research has also noted such a relationship between established movements, supportive political sentiment, and more radical activism.[75]

The perceived strategic shortcomings of certain MSMOs may spur the formation of more radical organizations. The anarchistic environmentalist organization Earth First! (EF!) is one such radical organization that is on record for (in fact, formed as based on) its critique of reformist environmentalist organizations for not doing enough to protect the environment.[76]

It is plausible for anarchistic organizations to be in the same areas as MSMOs. This seems true in the case of the Sierra Club and EF!. As evidenced in Table 4, Northeastern anarchists do not necessarily neglect issues of the environment— there are a number of (EF!) collectives throughout the region. The geographic presence of these organizations should be taken with a large grain of salt, since the number of collectives may be misleading—it does not suggests the size of the collective (which could be two or over 100 people) or its level of activity. Predictably, Western EF! collectives dominate the US, both in terms of raw number and per capita.

An EF! spin-off, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), is also heavily rooted in the West region. The ELF is a clandestine direct action moniker under which people engage in destructive ‘monkey-wrenching’ activities (usually arson), usually against corporations involved in resource extraction, development, and genetic engineering. Thirty-nine percent of ELF actions occurred in the ‘Pacific Northwest/West Coast’ and another 11% in the ‘West/Southwest’ regions. Only 18% total occurred in the Northeast.[77]

The prevalence of anarchistic organizations in a region is important to consider because of the easy in-roads these organizations facilitate for anarchists in the formation of their ideological beliefs. Organizations have resources that allow them to do outreach into their local communities, to attract and socialize new members, and to engage in regular social and political activities that draw sustained attention and activity. Due to the young mean age of the Infoshop survey respondents (24 years old), it is likely that these anarchists have had less time to fully and maturely develop their beliefs independent of social factors. Thus, people may adopt ideological variants from the organizations and other anarchists available to them. Organizations help to socialize individuals who come into contact with them and can even assist in the formation of ideological orientations. Longer term and more stable organizations often provide support for social movement growth and diffusion. Consequently, the relative stability of EF! compared to the IWW (in recent years, at least)—organizations in the same anarchist ‘social movement industry’—is of primary importance.

Similarly, large regional organizations may also provide stability and easier induction into an ideology. For example, the continent-wide federation called the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists is located in the Northeast US and Eastern Canada, and has 19 member collectives.[78] Although ‘communist’ in name, members also express some pro-syndicalist sympathies for worker selforganization. The Federation is based on the aforementioned anarcho-communist Platform. An ideologically similar federation called Northwest Anarchist Federation formed in the US West, including collectives from Seattle, Portland, and Victoria, BC.[79]

Regional clustering is important to consider, such as the concentration of green anarchists around the influential personality of primitivist writer John Zerzan in Eugene, Oregon. Yet, anarchists are notoriously independent and share a common ‘anti-hero’ tendency. If Zerzan’s presence is important, it likely stems from the organizational structures and actions he has helped influence, not his residence in Eugene itself.

Finally, print magazines and publishing groups are a good measure of a social movement organization’s support base, since media can act as the vehicle that circulates the ideas of a movement.[80] The coasts again feature predominantly the expected strain of ideological media outlets. For example, the red anarchist journal Anarcho-Syndicalist Review from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is usually filled with updates on current strikes throughout the world, historical essays on past syndicalist campaigns, and theoretical pieces discussing unions and anarchism. The green magazine called Earth First! Journal is published in Tucson, Arizona and features stories about ongoing campaigns against corporations who harm the environment, government inaction to prevent such harms, and letters-to-the-editor debating radical environmentalist strategy. Until just recently, there was no ideological publication that crossed-over between the coasts; the Northeast did not publish a green publication and the West did not publish a red publication.[81] Yet, in 2004, The Dawn published from Oakland, California—which focused some attention on unions, workers, and strikes from an anarchist perspective—was the first periodical to violate this trend (although it is not currently publishing). There may have been earlier periodicals that violate this norm, but they are also not currently in print. These media organizations are listed in Table 4.

Conclusions

This study has presented strong evidence that suggests a regional variation of anarchist ideology, even given sampling and statistical limitations. There may be long-lasting regional differences of both anarchist and non-anarchist origins that explain this variation. The one major exception to the predominant pattern is the smaller number of IWW chapters found in the Northeast. Additionally, given the various supportive institutions and environmental contexts that exist on either coast, it seems unlikely that these differences in ideology will drastically change in the near future. Assuredly, many anarchists internalize the values from the existing institutions and organizations in their activism preferences.

Anarchists tend to be thoroughly self-critical. The anarchist movement is renowned for the level of its self-critique as well as its ability to adapt to changing political situations. Gordon emphasizes that the open-ended nature of anarchist practice facilitates this adaptation as well as the opportunity to grow and learn better ways of organizing.[82] Consequently, I suspect that the US anarchist movement—to the extent it is a movement concerned with the interests and deficits offered by existing movement organizations and institutions—considers these differences when organizing. On one hand, labor organizing in a region that is ‘green’ (or conversely, environmental organizing in a ‘red’ region) may pose greater difficulties or learning curves. On another hand, there are greater opportunities for such efforts in these areas. Anarchists usually prioritize organizing amongst ‘common’ people, since anarchist goals are rarely to merely attract other anarchists to a particular cause. The region that an activist resides in ought to suggest the tools they wish to utilize in their organizing.

However, this research is by no means definitive. It also does not mean to suggest that there are no ideological micro-trends within the Midwest and South regions. Also, causality has also not been established. To what extent the various structural and organizational factors actually lead to greater numbers of ideological adherents is a question left unanswered. Nor does this study suggest an absence of potential growth for either green anarchism in the Northeast, red anarchism in the West, or an applied synergy of the two strains. With increased communications—particularly via the Internet—ideological and geographic boundaries may blur. Castells refers to the ‘space of flows’ that facilitate this process via the Net, such as personal interaction, purposive, horizontal communication, networks of solidarity and cooperation, the facilitation of social movements, and linkages between people and institutions.[83]

Although red and green anarchisms are presented as non-overlapping ideologies, some scholars have observed areas of congruency. A synthesis has been explored by Jeff Shantz[84] and others,[85] resulting in a red–green perspective called ‘green syndicalism’. This perspective considers the degree to which an organized working class can control the environmental conditions and consequences of its labor. Through ‘green bans’ (where workers incorporate environmental demands) and coalitions between labor and environmentalists (like the IWW-EF! Local 1), working people have and could continue to successfully influence corporate practices that harm the environment. The survey used in the current paper did not allow for the possibility of such compound ideologies.

Future research may wish to focus upon other explanatory factors for this geographic variation, particularly via a multivariate regression model or multilevel modeling. Or, research may focus upon the organizational behavior of anarchist organizations (of both red and green varieties), and contrast them with organizations professing an ideology of ‘anarchism without adjectives’. Since red and green anarchists constitute a minority of the movement compared to anarchists without adjectives, it would be worth exploring how ‘regular’ anarchists incorporate economic and environmental concerns in their activism.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank those in attendance for their thoughtful critiques. Additional thanks to Richard Clark, Matthew Lee, Chuck Munson, Suzanne Slusser, and Ben Stabler for their thoughts and assistance.

Notes and References

Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the East Lakes Division of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) conference in 2004 and the North Central Sociological Association (NCSA) conference in 2005.

[1] M. Elliott, ‘The new radicals’, Newsweek, December 13 (1999), pp. 36–39; J. Kahn, ‘Anarchism, the creed that won’t stay dead’, New York Times, August 5 (2000).

[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism in the United States in 1999 (Washington, DC: FBI, 1999). www.fbi.gov; R. Borum and C. Tilby, ‘Anarchist direct actions: a challenge for law enforcement’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28 (2005), pp. 201–223.

[3] F. Dupuis-De´ri, Psyschology of Rational Crowds: The Movement for Global Justice, Anarchism, and ‘Affinity Groups’ (Centre de Recherche en E´thique de L’Universite´ de Montre´al, 2004); C. O’Hara, The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise (San Francisco, CA: AK Press, 1999); B. O. Sheppard, Anarchism and the Labor Movement, Z-Net, August 5 (2002). www.zmag.org

[4] C. Ward, Anarchy in Action (London: Freedom Press, 1996); B. Epstein, ‘Anarchism and the antiglobalization movement’, Monthly Review 53 (2001), pp. 1–14; D. Graeber, ‘The new anarchists’, New Left Review, 13 (2002), pp. 61–73; Anarchy FAQ, An Anarchist FAQ, Version 10.0 (2004). www.anarchyfaq.org

[5] Some anarchists identify with the less loaded term ‘anti-authoritarian’ that avoids the controversial word ‘anarchist’.

[6] C. Day, ‘Love and rage in the new world order’, in R. San Filippo (Ed.), A New World in Our Hearts: Eight Years of Writings from the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2003), pp. 55–64.

[7] W. Finnegan, ‘After Seattle; anarchists get organized’, The New Yorker, April 17 (2000); C. Crass, Collective Liberation on My Mind (Montre´al: Kersplebedeb, 2001); Graeber, op. cit., Ref. 4. A quantitative growth in the international anarchist movement can also be seen between 1997 and 2005; see D. M. Williams and M. T. Lee, ‘“We are everywhere”: an ecological analysis of organizations in the anarchist Yellow Pages’, Humanity & Society, 32 (2008), pp. 45–70.

[8] D. De Leon, The American As Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1978).

[9] U. Gordon, ‘Anarchism reloaded’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 12 (2007), pp. 29–48.

[10] J. L. Cohen, ‘Strategy or identity: new theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements’, Social Research 52 (1985), pp. 663–716; C. Offe, ‘New social movements: challenging the boundaries of institutional politics’, Social Research 52 (1985), pp. 817– 868; A. Touraine, The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

[11] D. M. Williams, ‘Anarchists and Labor Unions: an analysis using new social movement theories’,WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society (forthcoming).

[12] P. Kropotkin, Fields, Factories, and Workshops Tomorrow (London: Freedom Press, 1974).

[13] A. Berkman, What is Anarchism? (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2003).

[14] R. K. Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980).

[15] R. J. Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (London: Janus, 1998); M. Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868–1936 (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1997).

[16] M. Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism (London: Freedom Press, 2001), p. 175.

[17] V. De Cleyre, ‘The making of an anarchist’ in Dark Star (Ed.), Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2002), pp. 37–40.

[18] See the following for an example of the commonness of this perspective: P. Gelderloos, ‘A survey of the USanarchist movement’, Social Anarchism, 40 (2007), pp. 9–16.

[19] Gordon (op. cit., Ref. 9) correctly notes that the organizational visibility of some anarchist tendencies might be misleading observations that only rely on websites where a ‘presence’ may appear to be larger than in reality.

[20] Anarchist Yellow Pages (2005) ayp.subvert.info

[21] Although not discussed here, see the following for more on anarcha-feminism: Dark Star Collective (Ed.),Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2002).

[22] T. Ingalsbee, ‘Earth First! Activism: ecological postmodern praxis in radical environmentalist identities’,Sociological Perspectives, 39 (1996), pp. 263–276.

[23] B. Taylor, ‘Religion, violence and radical environmentalism: from Earth First! To the Unabomber to theEarth Liberation Front’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 10 (1998), pp. 1–42.

[24] N. Molland, ‘The spark that ignited a flame: the evolution of the Earth Liberation Front’, in S. Best and A. J.Nocella(Eds),IgnitingaRevolution:VoicesinDefenseoftheEarth(Oakland,CA:AKPress,2006),pp.47–58.

[25] J. Zerzan, Future Primitive and Other Essays (New York: Autonomedia, 1996).

[26] B. Black, Anarchy after Leftism (Columbia, MO: CAL Press, 1997).

[27] J. McQuinn, ‘Leaving the left behind. Prologue to post-left anarchy’, Institute for Anarchist Studies onlineforum (2001).

[28] CrimethInc, Days of War, Nights of Love: Crimethink for Beginners (Atlanta, GA: CrimethInc, 2001).

[29] R. Inglehart, The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977).

[30] Zerzan, op. cit., Ref. 25.

[31] B. O. Sheppard, Anarchism vs. Primitivism (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003); C. Bufe, Listen Anarchist! (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 1998); and M. Bookchin, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1995).

[32] J. Zerzan, ‘Organized labor versus “The Revolt against Work”: the critical contest’, Telos, 21 (1974), pp. 194–206.

[33] Other differences include organizational structures, social constituencies, tactical preferences, goals, andframing strategies.

[34] R. Lee, ‘The future of the region: regional geography as education for transformation’, in R. King (Ed.),Geographical Futures (Sheffield, UK: The Geographic Association, 1985), pp. 77–91, 85.

[35] Cf. M. Castells, ‘Grassrooting the space of flows’, in J. O. Wheeler, Y. Aoyama, and B. Warf (Eds), Cities in the Telecommunications Age: The Fracturing of Geographies (New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 18–30.

[36] C. Atton, ‘Reshaping social movement media for a new millennium’, Social Movement Studies, 2 (2003), pp. 3–15; L. Owens and L. K. Palmer, ‘Making the news: anarchist counter-public relations on the world wide web’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20 (2003), pp. 335–361; J. Shantz, ‘Seize the switches: TAO communications, media, and anarchy’, in A. Opel and D. Pompper (Eds), Representing Resistance: Media, Civil Disobedience, and the Global Justice Movement (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), pp. 209–223.

[37] M. H. Medoff, ‘The political implications of state political ideology: a measure tested’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 56 (1997), pp. 145–158.

[38] D. L. Weakliem and R. Biggert ‘Region and political opinion in the contemporary United States’, Social Forces, 77 (1999), pp. 863–886.

[39] R. Andersen and A. Heath, ‘Social identities and political cleavages: the role of political context’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 166 (2003), pp. 301–327.

[40] Owens and Palmer, op. cit., Ref. 36.

[41] National Telecommunications and Information Administration, A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, 2002). www.ntia.doc.gov.

[42] N. S. Koch and J. A. Emrey, ‘The internet and opinion measurement: surveying marginalized populations’,Social Science Quarterly, 82 (2001), pp. 131–138.

[43] In order to ascertain anarchist’s perception of the relationships between ideological variants and region, onecould conduct face-to-face surveys, or analyze the content of movement print and web-based media. But, such data would only correspond to the perceptions of anarchists about this issue, not necessarily the actual, empirical patterns.

[44] Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘Union Members in 2003. Press Release’ (2004). www.bls.gov

[45] Census Bureau, ‘Census regions and divisions of the United States’ (n.d.) www.census.gov

[46] State classifications per region, according to Census Bureau, ibid.: Midwest (IN, IA, IL, KS, MN, MO, NE, MI, ND, OH, SD, WI), Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT), South (AL, AR, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MI, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV), and West (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY).

[47] According to Census Bureau, ‘Annual estimates of the population for the United States and States, and forPuerto Rico’ (2003). www.census.gov, in July 2002, these regions had the following populations: Midwest (65.10 million), Northeast (54.98 million), South (102.39 million), and the West (65.50 million).

[48] Other (non-red, non-green) possible anarchist ideology choices included: anarcho-feminist, anarcho-punk,anarcho-situationist, Christian anarchist, communalist, individualist, insurrectionist, libertarian municipalist, mutualist, philosophical anarchist, practical anarchist, social anarchist.

[49] Berkman, op. cit., Ref. 13.

[50] For more on ‘the Platform’, see A. Skirda, Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968 (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2002).

[51] R. Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism (London: Phoenix Press, 1990).

[52] Williams, op. cit., Ref. 11.

[53] Zerzan, op. cit., Ref. 25.

[54] See the following for more details: M. Bookchin and D. Foreman, Defending the Earth: A Debate between Murray Bookchin & Dave Foreman (Montre´al: Black Rose Books, 1991).

[55] Incidentally, the consequences for including social ecology within ‘green anarchism’ are in fact irrelevant,since no survey respondents chose it.

[56] Only allowing respondents to select one ideology has implications for analysis, but must be accepted as alimitation of the survey.

[57] Apparently action that is divorced from organizing. Riots, for example, usually imply a lack of coordinatedorganization.

[58] Again, this raises the curious question of if or how results might change had respondents been able to selectmultiple ideological variants.

[59] Bureau of Land Management, ‘Tables 1–3. Mineral and Surface Acres Administered by the Bureau of LandManagement’ (2002) www.blm.gov

[60] It should be noted that many green anarchists, like Earth First!ers, consider the Forest Service to be one oftheir key opponents in environmental destruction for its complicity in selling the right to harvest from national forests to timber companies.

[61] K. J. Fitzgerald and D. M. Rodgers, ‘Radical social movement organizations: a theoretical model’, The Sociological Quarterly, 41 (2000), pp. 573–592.

[62] See J. Kornbluh, Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology (Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr Publishing, 1998).

[63] Murray, op. cit., Ref. 14.

[64] Williams, op. cit., Ref. 11.

[65] C. J. Beck, ‘On the radical cusp: ecoterrorism in the United States, 1998–2005’, Mobilization: An International Quarterly Review, 12 (2007), pp. 161–176.

[66] T. W. Luke, ‘Ecological politics and local struggles: Earth First! as an environmental resistance movement’,Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 14 (1994), pp. 241–267.

[67] Beck, op. cit., Ref. 65.

[68] NEFAC, ‘NEFAC Collectives/Membres de la NEFAC’ (2004). makhno.nefac.net ¼ node/view/145

[69] NAF, ‘The Northwest Anarchist Federation’ (2005). Date accessed: February 12, 2006. www.anarkismo.net

[70] J. D. McCarthy and M. Zald, ‘Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory’, American Journal of Sociology, 82 (1977), pp. 1212–1241.

[71] There are many more anarchist journals and presses in the US, but they usually lack a specific ideologicalfocus. This assessment is based on the author’s analysis of anarchist journals and presses.

[72] Gordon, op. cit., Ref. 9.

[73] Castells, op. cit., Ref. 35.

[74] J. Shantz, ‘Green syndicalism: an alternative red–green vision’, Environmental Politics, 11 (2002), pp. 21–41; J. A. Shantz and B. D. Adam, ‘Ecology and class: the green syndicalism of IWW/Earth First Local 1’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 19 (1999), pp. 43–72.

[75] Cf. G. Purchase, Anarchism & Environmental Survival (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 1994).

[76] Census Bureau, ‘Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000’ (2000). www.census.gov

[77] National Forest Service, ‘Land Area Report as of September 30, 2002. Table 4: Areas by State’ (2002). www.fs.fed.us

[78] Census Bureau, op. cit., Ref. 45.

[79] Census Bureau, ‘Statistics of U.S. businesses: industries by employment size of enterprise’ (2002). www.census.gov

[80] Census Bureau, op. cit., Ref. 45.

[81] Sierra Club, ‘Activist Network Serving Environmental Leaders (ANSEL)’, March (2005).

[82] IWW, ‘IWW Branches in the United States’, (2004). iww.org

[83] The measurement of IWW groups per million people (and not per million workers) is used here, since the IWW is open to non-worker members in the ‘general membership branches’.

[84] Earth First!, ‘Earth First! Directory’. August/September (2001).

[85] AYP, op. cit., Ref. 20; author’s ideological classification.