The Pervasive Nature of Heterodox

Economic Spaces at a Time

of Neoliberal Crisis: Towards a
Postneoliberal Anarchist Future
Richard J. White
Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK;
richard.white@shu.ac.uk

Colin C. Williams
School of Management, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK;
c.c.williams@sheffield.ac.uk

Abstract: Re-reading the economic landscape of the western world as a largely noncapitalist landscape composed of economic plurality, this paper demonstrates how
economic relations in contemporary western society are often embedded in noncommodified practices such as mutual aid, reciprocity, co-operation and inclusion. By
highlighting how the long-overlooked lived practices in the contemporary world of
production, consumption and exchange are heavily grounded in the very types and
essences of non-capitalist economic relations that have long been proposed by anarchistic
visions of employment and organization, this paper displays that such visions are far from
utopian: they are embedded firmly in the present. Through focusing on the pervasive
nature of heterodox economic spaces in the UK in particular, some ideas about how to
develop an anarchist future of work and organization will be proposed. The outcome is to
begin to engage in the demonstrative construction of a future based on mutualism and
autonomous modes of organization and representation.
Keywords: anarchist geographies, heterodox economics, crisis, postneoliberalism
[I]t becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production and
exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed to
guarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. Instead of order they bring forth
chaos; instead of prosperity, poverty and insecurity; instead of reconciled interests, war;
a perpetual war of the exploiter against the worker, of exploiters and of workers among
themselves. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes
to seek a new organization (Peter Kropotkin 2002 [1880]:36).
An anarchist society, a society which organizes itself without authority, is always in
existence, like a seed beneath the snow (Colin Ward 1982:14).

Introduction
Once more we find ourselves bearing witness to another crisis of neoliberalism
(Castree 2010; Hart 2010; Wade 2010). It is crisis which, at the very least, signals
that (t)he free-market project is on the ropes (Peck, Theodore and Brenner
Antipode Vol. 44 No. 5 2012 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 16251644

C 2012 The Authors. Antipode 
C 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01033.x

Antipode

1626

2010:94) and perhaps even that the global capitalist system is approaching an
izek 2011:x). Despite this, the thesis of commodification
apocalyptic zero-point (Z
which asserts that, the market is becoming more powerful, expansive, hegemonic
and totalizing as it penetrates deeper into each and every corner of economic life
(Williams 2005:1) continues to exert a powerful and popular influence in mainstream
economic thought and practice (Cahill 1989; Shiva 2005).
The central argument of this paper is that to move purposefully towards postneoliberal (anarchist) futures the blind faith given to the orthodox neoliberal
economic model needs to be radically critiqued. As Fournier (2008:534) observed,
an escape from the economy is at least as much a question of decolonising the
imagination as one of enacting new practices. Strategies for economic change,
to be successful, must simultaneously address both the economic practice and the
economic imagination. To focus on one, but not the other, would be irrational given
their complementary relationship. As Hardt and Negri (2001:386387) argue:
The bizarre naturalness of capitalism is a pure and simple mystification, and we have to
disabuse ourselves of it right away . . . The illusion of the naturalness of capitalism and the
radicality of the limit actually stand in a relationship of complementary. Their complicity
is expressed in an exhausting powerless.

To realise this, this paper identifies itself closely with that body of work in economic
geography and cognate fields, which through an attention to space, place and
difference, rejects the tendencies towards formalism and homogeneity inherent
within orthodox economics(and) has begun to theorise the proliferative nature
of economic life (Leyshon 2005:860). Over the last 20 years, this re-reading
has gained significant influence within geography and other critical approaches
toward the economic by conceptualising, capturing and understanding the rich,
complex, multiple and diverse economic landscapes of contemporary society
(Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; Leyshon, Lee and Williams 2003; Samers
2005; Williams 2005, 2007, 2011).
One of the most impressive interventions to de-centre capitalism and develop
transformative projects of non-capitalist development has been the work of GibsonGraham (1996, 2006a, 2006b). More widely, there have been complementary
(eco)feminist campaigns to recognise the value of unpaid work (for example,
Benston 1969; England 1996; Katz and Monk 1993; McDowell 1983; McMahaon
1996); an unpacking of the nature of monetary exchange to rework the social
nature of the economic (eg Crang 1996; Crewe and Gregson 1998; White 2009);
and attempts to highlight non-traditional neglected sites of consumption such as
alternative retail spaces (Crewe, Gregson and Brooks 2003); garage sales (Soiffer
and Hermann 1987); car boot sales (Gregson and Crewe 2002, 2003); charity
shops (Williams and Paddock 2003); and local currencies (eg Cahn 2000; Lee
1996; North 1996). This radical commitment to re-reading the orthodox neoliberal
approaches to the economic has led to diverse, multiple and heterogenic modes
of economic conceptualisation, representation, meaning and materialisation being
identified and represented. This in turn has resulted in far richer contemporary
economic landscapes emerging, within which the capitalist mode of production in
is seen to be highly uneven and incomplete.

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1627

This paper further exposes the misleading representations of the economy

by orthodox (neoliberal) economic interpretations, by critically addressing the
commodification thesis. Drawing on empirical evidence from a selection of western
economies (the heartlands of commodification), it brings a range of vibrant, creative,
heterodox, and non-commodified crypto-economic practices in our contemporary
economic landscapes to the fore. Crucially, it argues that many of these practices
are ideologically orientated toward anarchist-based visions of work and organisation
and discusses the implications of this recognition for anarchist thought and
practice. In doing so the intention is to reconsider future possibilities of work and
organisation.
At a time when anarchist praxis is once again growing in importance as a
socio-political mobilizer both within the academy and beyond, the paper argues
that many non-commodified economic practices that occupy pervasive roles in
production, exchange, and consumption are the very types of non-capitalist
economic relations that have long been proposed by classical anarchistic visions
of work and organisation. One of the important implications for anarchism is to
show that post-neoliberal visions grounded in anarchist thought and praxis are
far from utopian: indeed they are deeply rooted within contemporary society. The
aim for anarchism to build a concrete utopia, and embed future possibilities within
present praxis is crucial, and was certainly central to the work of Peter Kropotkin,
one of the most outstanding and influential anarchists of the last century:
As to the method followed by the anarchist thinker, he (Kropotkin) wrote in 1887, it
is entirely different from that followed by the utopists . . . He studies human society as
it is now and was in the past . . . tries to discover its tendencies, past and present, its
growing needs, intellectual and economic, and in his ideal he merely points out in which
direction evolution goes (Cleaver 1994:120).

The opening section of the paper will focus on the body of critical economic
literature that has sought to map the limits to capitalism and promote a heterodox
reading of the economic. This will then be followed by a discussion of how
the key outcomes emerging from this critical reading of economics resonates with
anarchist-inspired visions of human engagement, work and organisation. Following
this, some empirical evidence will be provided of the plurality of economic practices
evident within western societies. This will be achieved both inter-nationally (using
time-budget studies) and intra-nationally (through a household work practices
survey conducted in an array of UK communities) so as to reveal at the human
scale the current pervasiveness of diversity and difference in livelihood practices
in order to open up the future to alternative neoliberal hegemony. Following an
evaluation of the reasons for the pervasiveness of these non-commodified economic
spaces in the contemporary western world, some provisional proposals of economic
practices and economic imagination about how to develop an anarchist future
of work and organisation will emerge. Importantly the proposals engage with both
economic practices and the economic imagination. The hope is that this will instigate
further discussion and exploration about how best to engage in the demonstrative
construction of a non-commodified anarchist future based on mutualism, pluralism,
autonomous modes of organisation and representation.

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1628

Anarchist Economics and the Pervasiveness

of Heterodox Economic Spaces in Contemporary
Western Society
The Nature and Meaning of Anarchism
Despite its distinct, long and impressive history, anarchism has been the victim of
malicious characterisation and misrepresentation in popular circles (see Amster et al
2009). Emma Goldman (1979:48) for example considered there to be two principal
(and flawed) objections to anarchism:
First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful ideal. Second, Anarchism stands for
violence and destruction; hence it must be repudiated as vile and dangerous. Both the
intelligent man and the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough knowledge of the
subject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation.

However to interpret a true nature and meaning of anarchism is highly

problematic in much the same way as defining and locating an authentic version
of Marxism is. As Castoriadis (1987:9) argued, to speak of Marxism has become
one of the most difficult tasks imaginable . . . Of which Marxism, in fact, should
we be speaking? In order to make some constructive headway, an appeal to
the (pluralistic) natures and meanings of anarchism will be interpreted in the
first instance by engaging with the historical roots of classical anarchism, and
understanding the wider context in which it came to prominence.
The emergence of classical anarchism is closely situated within the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century. Viewed in this context, the rise of anarchist thoughts
and ideas were seen as a direct response to the feverish rise and expansion of the
modern state and industrial capitalism (Goodway 1989). Importantly the emerging
contribution and role of anarchism has often been framed with critical reference to
its relationship with Marxism (see Guerin 1989). For example, Carter (1989:177)
argued that:
Anarchism and Marxism have, since the middle of the nineteenth century, strenuously
competed for the minds of the Left. The major strength of anarchist theory has
corresponded with the most obvious weakness of Marxism, namely the prediction
(successful in the cases of anarchism, unsuccessful in the case of Marxism) of the nature
of a post-capitalist society brought into being by a revolutionary party seizing control of
the state.

On many levels, the seeds of the highly contested nature(s) of anarchism and
Marxism can be traced back the difficult relationships that developed between
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the first to invoke the word an-archy); Michael Bakunin,
and Karl Marx. As Kenafick (1990:10) observed:
Bakunin had many discussions with Marx . . . and though greatly impressed by the
German thinkers real genius, scholarship and revolutionary zeal and energy, was repelled
by his arrogance, egotism and jealously . . . But at this period of the early eighteen forties
their differences had not yet matured and Bakunin no doubt learned a good deal from
Marx of the doctrine of Historical Materialism which is so important an element in both
these great Socialistic thinkers work.


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1629

The events at the Congress of the International at the Hague in 1872 is frequently
cited as a decisive moment in the acrimonious schism that has inspired often (bitter)
relations between Anarchism and Marxism, for it was here that:
This meeting . . . was packed by the Marxists in a manner which later Communist
tactics have made only too familiar. The equally familiar tactics of character-assassination
were also resorted to by Marx, to his every lasting discredit, and Bakunin and his
closest friends and Collaborator, James Guillaume, were expelled from the International
(Kenafick 1990:14).

The subsequent momentum and development of anarchist thought to thought and

practice is in many ways a testimony to its protean and pluralistic appeal. Thus, as
Marshall (1993:3) argues:
It would be misleading to offer a neat definition of anarchism, since by its very nature
it is anti-dogmatic. It does not offer a fixed body of doctrine based on one particular
world-view. It is a complex and subtle philosophy, embracing many different currents
of thought and strategy. Indeed anarchism is like a river with many currents and eddies,
constantly changing and being refreshed by new surges but always moving toward the
wide ocean of freedom.

McKay (2008:18) makes another crucial and related point when arguing that
anarchism is:
A socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very
important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you.
Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and
flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so
does anarchism.

It is important that any understanding of anarchism does not overemphasise

the (common) belief that anarchism is simply anti-government. In appealing to its
etymological roots to elicit a definition this imbalance is evident here:
What we are concerned with, in terms of definition, is a cluster of works which in
turn represents a cluster of doctrines and attitudes whose principal uniting feature is
the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. A double Greek root is
involved: the word archon, meaning a ruler, and the prefix an, indicating without; hence
anarchy means the state of being without a ruler. By derivation, anarchism is the doctrine
which contends that government is the source of most of our social troubles and that
there are viable alternative forms of voluntary organization. And by further definition
the anarchist is the man (sic) who sets out to create a society without government
(Woodcock 1986:11).

A more nuanced and critical understanding of anarchism would properly

recognise that anarchist thought has mobilised not only around opposition to the
state and capitalism, but in opposition to all forms of external authority and thus all
forms of domination. This argument is well represented here by Goodway (1989:2):
Anarchists have traditionally identified the major social, economic, and political
problems as consisting of capitalism, inequality (including the domination of women
by men), sexual repression, militarism, war, authority, and the state. They have


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1630

opposed parliamentarianism, that is, liberal or bourgeois democracy, participation in

representative institutionsas any kind of means for rectifying these ills.

Only through acknowledging such diversity and critical intersections can the
richness and diversity of the movements which are anarchistincluding anarchistcommunism, individualist anarchism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism,
pacifist anarchism and Christian anarchismbegin to be appreciated. As Ward
(2004:3) argues, this helps account for more recently emerging varieties of
anarchist propaganda, (such as) green anarchism and anarcha-feminism. Like those
who believe that animal liberation is an aspect of human liberation, they claim that
the only ideology consistent with their aims is anarchism.
However, and despite the many advantages in maintaining an inclusive approach
to anarchism, there have been unintendedand unwantedconsequences. For
example by including any form of anti-authoritarianism as overtly anarchist, this
has led to a mis-appropriation of the anarchist ideal, as is evident in the debates
surrounding the oxymoronic notion of anarcho-capitalism for instance (see McKay
2008:section F). Attempts to address any overly inclusive interpretation of anarchism
must be careful not to go too far. Such is the accusation levied against Walt and
Schmidt (2009) who in arguing that class struggle anarchism (syndicalism) is the
only coherent expression of anarchism, consequently excluded such luminary figures
as Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Tucker, and Tolstoy from the anarchist tradition.
To better understand the nature of anarchism, effort must also be made to
ascertain what it stands for, rather than just stands against. Goodway (1989:23),
for example, argues that:
(W)hat anarchists advocate are egalitarianism, co-operation (mutual aid), workers
control (self-management), individualism, freedom, and complete decentralization
(organization from the bottom up). As means, they propose direct action (spontaneity)
and direct democracy (wherever possible, for they are ultra-democrats, supporting
delegation against representation).

Focusing on anarchist economics, Cahill (1989:244) argues that: The economics

of anarchism must be (1) decentralized, (2) equalitarian, (3) self-managing and
empowering, (4) based on local needs, and (5) supported by other autonomous
units in a non-hierarchical fashion.
Finally, McKay (2008:21) rightly draws attention to the fact that anarchism is, and
always has been:
More than just a means of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in
struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other words, it provides a
means of achieving a new system based on the needs of people, not power, and which
puts the planet before profit.

Similarly, Bookchin (1989:274) considered that in its greatest moments, anarchism

was always a peoples movement as well as a body of ideas and visions.
To sum up, when addressing the nature and meaning of anarchism, it is imperative
that anarchism is not reduced:
to the mere use of the word anarchism, but rather might highlight and propose social
relations based on cooperation, self-determination, and negating hierarchical roles. From


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1631

this perspective, one can find a much richer and more global tradition of social and
political thought and organization that while not raising a black flag in the air is very
useful for expanding the scope of human possibilities in a liberatory direction (Shukaitis
2009:170).

Even if packaged definitions of anarchism are elusive, we can be certain that many
of the findings emerging from a diverse economies approach have much to offer
anarchist-oriented critiques of economy and society. This includes the advocacy of
a move away from capitalocentric economic discourse (Gibson-Graham 2006a);
from thin to thicker readings of economic exchange (White and Williams
2010; Zelizer 1997); emphasising voluntary co-operation and mutualism (Burns,
Williams and Windebank 2004; Williams and Windebank 2001); and engaging
with the complex economic geographies present within the local (White 2009).
Moreover, the desire to explore non-capitalist alternative economic practices within
contemporary society has a great precedence in anarchism, and is certainly evident
in Kropotkins extensive body of work. As Cleaver (1994:122) observes:
(Kropotkins) work fascinates not because it gives us formulae for the future but because
it shows us how to discover tendencies in the present which provide alternative paths
out of the current crisis and out of the capitalist system. As that system has developed
in the years since he wrote, some of the alternatives he saw were absorbed and ceased
to provide ways forward. Others have survived. Others, inevitably, have appeared. Our
problem is to recognize them, to evaluate them and, where we find it appropriate, to
support their development.

Ward (1982:5) similarly asserts that:

Many years of attempting to be an anarchist propagandist have convinced me that
we win over our fellow citizen to anarchist ideas, precisely through drawing upon the
common experience of the informal, transients, self-organising networks of relationships
that in fact make human community possible, rather than through the rejection of
existing society as a whole in favor of some future society where some different kind of
humanity will live in perfect harmony.

It is toward unearthing these informal and self-organising networks of relationships

across the contemporary economic landscape to which the paper now turns.
Before doing so, a contextual point is necessary. The central evidence base
below is focused on the western economies, the so-called heartland of our
commodified world. When analysed from a global economic perspective, this
geographical focus is obviously partial and incomplete. However, such a focus
challenges head on the conventional wisdom of the natural and inevitable trajectory
of economic development. The popular assumption imagines that the economic
landscapes of the advanced economies are highly commodified, and that significant
non-commodified spaces are mostly found in under-developed or transitional
economies of the majority world. This is certainly evident in policy approaches to
global economic development. For example, the International Labour Organization
(ILO 2008, 2010) under the agenda of decent work, has included extensive
research on the informal sector of Latin America (ILO 2002a), Central America (ILO
2002b) and other non-western countries to help enable an economic transition
to formalization (ILO 2007). However, the focus here upon western economies

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1632
Monetised

Formal paid
job in in
private
sector

Formal paid job

in public/third
sector

Informal
employment

Monetised
community
exchanges

Formal
unpaid
work
in
public/third
sector

Off-theradar nonmonetised
work
in
organisation

One-to-one
nonmonetised
exchanges

Monetised
family
labour

Formal

Informal

Formal
unpaid
work
private
sector

in

Nonexchanged
labour

Non-monetised

Figure 1: A typology of work practices

illustrates that non-commodified spaces are still at the core (rather than the margins)
of even the advanced, and commodified economies. The clear implication
is that non-commodified spaces cannot be depicted as the mere vestige of a
disappearing past [or as] transitory or provisional (Latouche 1993:49), located in
the so-called periphery or margins of the global economic landscape, but persist in
the very heartlands of our commodified world.

Economic Typologies
Given the richness and complexity of economic exchange in society, some of
which is memorably captured in Gibson-Grahams (2006b:70) economic iceberg
model, any attempts to conceptualise the relationship(s) between different types
of economic space will be inevitably crude in their execution.1 Recognising this,
economic representations have become increasingly nuanced in the hope of better
capturing the diversity of economic lived practice. One of the most promising of
these is the use of a total social organisation of labour approach (TSOL) designed
to capture the multiplicity of labour practices that exist on a horizontal spectrum,
moving from formal to informal work practices, which are cross-cut by a vertical
spectrum that moves from wholly monetised to wholly non-monetised practices
(see Williams 2011). This representation of different (but inter-linked) spheres of
work (see Figure 1) has been influential.
In an orthodox (neoliberal) reading of economic development, the assumption
is that the world is becoming increasingly commodified (Polanyi 1944; Scott 2001)
with work becoming increasingly concentrated in formal paid jobs in the private
sector. The thesis is that this sphere is expanding at the expense of all other
spheres. However, when evidence is sought to corroborate this grand narrative
of commodification, the most worrying and disturbing finding . . . is that hardly
any evidence is ever brought to the fore by its adherents either to show that a
process of commodification is taking place or even to display the extent, pace or
unevenness of its penetration (Williams 2005:23). Instead, quite the opposite has
been found.

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1633

Table 1: Allocation of working time in western economies

Country

Paid work
(min per day)

Non-exchanged work
(min per day)

Time spent on
non-exchanged work
as% of all work

293
283
297
265
265
282
304
268
297

204
155
246
209
232
206
231
216
230

41.0
35.3
45.3
44.1
46.7
42.2
43.2
44.6
43.6

Canada
Denmark
France
Netherlands
Norway
UK
USA
Finland
20 countries

Source: derived from Gershuny (2000:Table 7.1)

Table 2: Unpaid and paid work as a% of total work time across 20 countries, 1960present
19601973
Country
Paid work
Subsistence work

19741984

1985present

Min per
day

% of all
work

Min per
day

% of all
work

Min per
day

% of all
work

309
237
546

56.6
43.4
100.0

285
212
497

57.3
42.7
100.0

293
235
528

55.4
44.6
100.0

Source: derived from Gershuny (2000:Table 7.1)

The Inter-National Persistence of Non-commodified

Work Practices
At the inter-national level, the results generated by time-budget studies have been
particularly influential (Gershuny 2000). As Table 1 indicates, across 20 countries,
an average of 43.6% of working time is spent engaged in unpaid domestic
work (ie non-exchanged labour), which seriously calls into question the extent of
commodification of the so-called advanced western economies.
Neither is there evidence that there has been a definite transition over time
towards commodified work or even monetised transactions (see Table 2). Indeed
paid work, when taken as a percentage of total working time across the 20 countries,
is decreasing over time.

Evaluating the Intra-national Persistence of Non-commodified

Work Practices
To evaluate the intra-national persistence of non-commodified work practices,
evidence is drawn from 861 face-to-face interviews undertaken across a range
of deprived and affluent urban and rural English localities (see Williams 2011).
The term deprivation, as understood here, is based upon a range of indices
(including income levels, employment, health, education, skills, housing, crime and
the environment) used by the UK government to form their Index of Deprivation to

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1634
Table 3: UK localities studied
Locality type

Area

Number of interviews

Affluent rural
Affluent rural
Deprived rural
Deprived rural
Deprived rural
Affluent suburb
Affluent suburb
Deprived urban
Deprived urban
Deprived urban
Deprived urban

Fulbourn, Cambridgeshire
Chalford, Gloucestershire
Grimethorpe, South Yorkshire
Wigston, Cumbria
St Blazey, Cornwall
Fulwood, Sheffield
Basset/Chilworth, Southampton
Manor, Sheffield
Pitsmoor, Sheffield
St Marys, Southampton
Hightown, Southampton

70
70
70
70
70
50
61
100
100
100
100

rank Englands wards relative to each other. Although there is no standard definition
of neighbourhood, it is generally viewed as an appropriate scale to help focus
attention on those areas where comparative deprivation/affluence are apparent.
Drawing on data generated by the UK governments Index of Multiple Deprivation
(ODPM 2000), a maximum variation sampling was used to select localities amongst
the highest and lowest ranked in terms of multiple deprivation (see Table 3).
The rural localities studied, for example Grimethorpe, St Blazey and Wigton, have
much higher proportions of low-income households, unemployment and lower
educational attainment levels than Fulbourn and Chalford.
The interviews undertaken in these localities were semi-structured. Having
gathered necessary socio-demographic background data (age, gender, household
income, employment status, work history), the interview then focused on the type
of labour that a household had called upon to undertake up to 44 domestic tasks.2
For each task, the respondent was asked whether the task had been undertaken; if
so who had carried out the work (and why), and whether or not it was done on a
paid or unpaid basis (and why). Then the same tasks were addressed but this time
asking the respondent if they (or other members of their household) had done work
for other households and, if so, under what basis.
The finding is that participation rates in monetised labour are not extensive (see
Table 4). In lived practice, less than a fifth of respondents in deprived localities
had participated in paid formal labour over the previous 12 months. In affluent
localities, this figure was higher but still accounted for less than 50% of the
respondents. Moreover, when these findings are taken in conjunction with nonexchanged labour and non-monetised informal community exchanges then what
emerges is an economic reality in which private sector formal labour is marginal,
and is of significance only to a small minority of the population.
When focusing on the labour practices employed by households to complete the
tasks investigated, Table 5 again suggests only a shallow and uneven penetration
of formal market labour. Hence, only a limited commodification has taken place in
these English localities. Indeed, just 16% of tasks when last undertaken had used
formal market labour.

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1635

Table 4: Participation rates in different labour practices

% Respondents in last 12
months participating in:

Deprived
urban

Affluent
urban

Deprived
rural

Affluent
rural

16

48

19

49

20

27

18

25

5
60

7
21

6
63

8
30

19

28

21

30

52

70

54

73

99

100

100

100

Monetised labour
Formal paid job in private
sector
Formal paid job in public and
third sector
Informal employment
Monetised community
exchange
Monetised family labour
Non-monetised labour
Formal unpaid work in
private sector
Formal unpaid work in public
and third sector
Off the radar/non-monetised
work in organisations
One-to-one non-monetised
exchanges
Non-exchanged labour
Source : Colin Williamss own English localities survey

Table 5: Type of labour practices used to conduct 44 domestic tasks by locality type
% Tasks last conducted
using:
Monetised labour
Formal paid job in private
sector
Formal paid job in public and
third sector
Informal employment
Monetised community
exchange
Monetised family labour
Non-monetised labour
Formal unpaid work in
private sector
Formal unpaid work in public
and third sector
Off the radar/non-monetised
work in organisations
One-to-one non monetised
exchanges
Non-exchanged labour
Total
2

Deprived
urban

Affluent
urban

Deprived
rural

Affluent
rural

All
areas

12

15

18

22

16

2
3

8
1

<1
4

4
1

2
3

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

76
100
102.89

72
100
29.87

67
100
89.76

63
100
28.88

70
100

Note: 2 >12.838 in all cases, leading us to reject H o within a 99.5% confidence interval that there are
no spatial variations in the sources of labour used to complete the 44 household services.
Source: Colin Williamss own English localities survey


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1636

The results also indicate the uneven permeation of formal market labour and
the existence of contrasting work cultures across populations. For example, lowerincome populations are less monetised than higher-income ones. The household
work practices of higher-income populations are also less reliant upon community
exchange between close social relations (monetised and non-monetised). Self-help
(self-provisioning) is still very dominant, with little work being sourced within the
market realm.
When the multifarious labour practices are taken into account alongside the
evidence generated though time budget surveys, the empirical case to support
the commodification thesis is weak. This understandingthat the commodification
thesis is a popular mythis one which should give much inspiration to those
anticipating and advocating a post-neoliberal economic future. The implications
are considerable and transformative. To paraphrase the Community Collective
(2001:34):
If we no longer understand capitalism as necessarily expansive and naturally dominant,
we retain the imaginative space for alternatives and the rationale for their enactment. In
reconconceptualizing the economy differently we can then enact a different economy.
More specifically, in de-naturalizing capitalist dominance we represent noncapitalist
forms of economy (including ones we might value and desire) as both existing and
emerging, and as possible to create.

If this discussion encourages anything, it is one which will re-appraise the

conventional readings of the economy from an anarchist perspective. The economic
landscape of the western world should be more properly understood as a largely
non-capitalist landscape composed of economic plurality, wherein relations are
often embedded in non-commodified practices such as mutual aid, reciprocity,
co-operation and inclusion.
This raises an important question:Why are non-commodified spaces so
pervasive? And it is this question that (classical) anarchist readings concerning the
nature of humans, and their relationship with others, are particularly well equipped
to answer. The slim volume of research that has explored this question explicitly
cites several key reasons for its persistence. For example, Williams and Windebank
(2001) found that the main motivations for conducting non-commodified practices
are economic necessity, ease, choice and pleasure.
When contrasting higher and lower income neighbourhoods in a UK study
of Sheffield and Southampton, Burns, Williams and Windebank (2004:chapter 3)
found that economic necessity was the primary reason why lower-income urban
neighbourhoods engaged in this form of activity, cited by 44% of the respondents.
For higher-income households this accounted for just 10% of non-commodified
tasks with other non-economic rationales such as ease, choice and pleasure coming
to the fore instead. Thirty seven percent of higher-income neighbourhoods, and
18% of lower income neighbourhoods used non-commodified practices because
this was easier than contacting and employing formal labour in the private sector.
Elsewhere, households preferred to use non-commodified practices because the
tasks would be completed to a higher standard and/or would be more individualised
than if commodified labour was used. This preference was closely linked to engaging


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1637

in non-commodified practices because it was a pleasurable experience (the rationale

for 32% of non-commodified tasks in affluent neighbourhoods and 14% in deprived
neighbourhoods) (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004:5758). To engage in do-ityourself projects (like decorating or other home improvement tasks) was something
particularly worthwhile and rewarding. Of course this simple pleasure in undertaking
the non-routine tasks, in direct contrast to formal work, has been highlighted in
many anarchist writings. As Ward (1982:95) noted:
(A man or women) enjoys going home and digging in his garden because he is free from
foremen, managers and bosses. He is free from the monotony and slavery of doing the
same thing day in day out, and is in control of the whole job from start to finish. He is
free to decide for himself how and when to set about it. He is responsible to himself and
not to somebody else. He is working because he wants to and not because he has to. He
is doing his own thing. He is his own man.

This spirit of this argument is also captured by Berkmann (1986 [1929]:336):

The need of activity is one of the most fundamental urges of man. Watch the child and
see how strong is his instinct for action, for movement, for doing something. Strong
and continuous. It is the same with the healthy man. His energy and vitality demand
expression. Permit him to do the work of his choice, the thing he loves, and his application
will know neither weariness nor shirking. You can observe this in the factory when he is
lucky enough to own a garden or patch of ground to raise some flowers or vegetables on.

Given this body of evidence, what can be meaningfully and constructively taken
forward to help inform discussions and debate that are concerned with harnessing
a post-neoliberal anarchist future?

Towards a Post-neoliberal Anarchist Future

Suppose our future in fact lies, not with a handful of technocrats pushing buttons to
support the rest of us, but with a multitude of small activities, whether by individual or
groups, doing their own thing? Suppose the only plausible economic recovery consists
in people picking themselves up off the industrial scrapheap, or rejecting their slot in
the micro-technology system, and making their own niche in the world of ordinary
needs and their satisfaction. Wouldnt that be something to do with anarchism? (Ward
1982:13).

The above analysis has re-asserted the centrality of non-commodified spaces in an

age of neoliberal economic crisis. Many alternative forms of social co-operation and
ways of being not only persist in the contemporary world, but occupy a central place
in many household and community livelihood practices. Moreover, many of these
practices are empowering and desirable in that they are harnessed through choice,
and not economic necessity. It is hoped that this will encourage anarchist-based
visions of post-neoliberal futures to assert themselves confidently from within
these current economic landscapes, and help a secure bridge to be established
between the contemporary world and that of a future (post-neoliberal) world.
This bridging between what is and what could be is of critical importance for
many reasons, but particularly given that: The problem of transcending capitalism
is the search for the future in the present, the identification of already existing

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1638

activities which embody new, alternative forms of social co-operation and ways of
being (Cleaver 1994:129).
This brings us to an important consideration: What . . . will it be like to live in
a world dominated more and more by household and hidden economies and less
by the formal economy? (Ward 1982:13) What possible new or alternative cryptoeconomic-anarchist spaces, might emerge from different modes of engagement,
exchange and participation? It is to this consideration that we now turn.

Enabling Crypto-Economic Spaces to Emerge and

Thrive
By seeking to unpack economic plurality, this paper has begun to critically
undermine the commodification thesis. There exist large swathes of noncommodified spaces of production, exchange and consumption in both higher and
lower income communities. This opens up alternative economic routes for moving
purposefully toward a post-capitalist society.
Crucially, however, attempts to sketch what crypto-economic spaces are possible,
or desirable, must consciously avoid the temptation of unnecessarily imposing an
overly narrow, singular, or best interpretation of what that economic future should
be. Indeed plurality, diversity, and heterodox approaches to the future should be
positively encouraged and embraced. As Baldelli (1972:82) argues:
In an anarchist society there will be positive freedom, freedom as power, but only in
association with others, not over or against them. There is only one way to avoid making
the individual powerless against society, and that is a plurality of societies within society,
and a plurality of powers within or in accompaniment to each society. This double
plurality should provide ample room for each individual to choose from a fair variety of
possible destinies.

To this end, and situated firmly in the anarchist tradition, we would like to outline
a two-pronged complementary approach that will enable crypto-economic spaces
to emerge and thrive. The first concerns the role of education, and the second
focuses on the social and structural barriers to participation in non-commodified
practices.

Liberating Education
From William Godwins (1986 [1793]) polemic about the evils of national education
to the present day, anarchists and other dissident thinkers, notably Friere (1972)
and Illich (1971), have invested a great deal of attention toward the role of (statecontrolled) schools and education. As Ward (1982:79) argues: Ultimately the social
function of education is to perpetuate society: it is the social function. Society
guarantees its future by rearing its children in its own image. At a fundamental level,
encouraging the recognition and development of crypt-economic spaces depends
on the ability of contemporary society to unshackle itself from the current straitjacket
of neoliberal economic thought and discourse, and instead be inspired to envisage
multiple possibilities of a post-neoliberal future. Education thusas it always has
becomes a critical key, not only in inspiring greater critical thought and engagement

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1639

through engaging with heterodox economics, but also with re-inserting this in
broader political frameworks. Undoubtedly educationboth compulsory and at
higher levelsmust give serious consideration as to how best to incorporate these
broader economic and political frameworks of reference and understanding.
We would argue strongly that a core element of geography must (at all levels) turn
towards its anarchist roots once more, dedicate resources not only to de-mystifying
the anarchist tradition, but where relevant and possible, engaging directly with
the (new) challenges and critiques that anarchism extols as a political and social
ideology. Anarchist studies must strive to be, in the words of Shukaitis (2009:169),
more than the study of anarchism and anarchists by anarchists, weaving a strange
web of self-referentiality and endless rehashing of the deeds and ideas of bearded
nineteenth-century European males.
Pepper (1988:339340) suggests two ways to introduce the subject of anarchism
into the geography classroom:
First pupils could be informed of some of the principles underlying various forms
of anarchism (e.g., decentralism, self-reliance, anti-specialism, anti-urban/ pro-rural,
egalitarianism), and asked to speculate on what changes would occur in Britains
geography if these principles were applied.

Indeed the crisis of both neoliberal economics and the state demands that the need
to radicalise and re-think approaches to these domains is taken up, and the current
vogue for the business as usual model, or the oxymoronic call for sustainable
capitalism is firmly critiqued, exposed and rejected. As Pepper (1988:350) argues,
getting children to critically consider the contemporary (economic, social, political)
landscapes should:
Wean pupils away from a-historicism: that is, the distressing tendency to see the
future as inevitablei.e., over-conditioned by the presentand only imaginable in
terms of extrapolation from present assumptions (of gigantism, capitalism, technological
determinism, etc.).

Importantly, with respect to the economic the evidence base presented here
which constructively builds upon the critical interventions and interpretations arising
from other dissident/heterodox economistsacts as another excellent point of
discussion and departure from conventional neoliberal economic dogma.

Barriers to Participation in Non-commodified Practices

In addition to influencing hearts and minds through pedagogic intervention as a
strategy to ensure possibilities for crypto-economic spaces to emerge and thrive,
close attention must also be placed to addressing the structural and social barriers
to participation in non-commodified work practices.
If a post-capitalist world is to be constructed, then a greater awareness of the
structural and social barriers that prevent greater participation in non-commodified
practices is required. Put broadly, and again drawing on previous research in the
UK (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; White, 2009; Williams and Windebank,
2001) the nature of these barriers are uneven, and not only reflect (a combination)
of a households lack of money, time, skills, and social networks, but also several

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1640

social taboos that include being a burden to others; false expectations, being
taken advantage of and being unable to say no to others. More understanding
through empirical research is thus required regarding how individuals can exist
better outside the capitalist money economy. A nuanced bottom-up approach to
understanding these barriers from the household and community level is desirable
if they are to be successfully addressed.
There must certainly be a holistic and sensitive, reflective approach in place,
one which is committed to recognising the critical intersections that operate in
society. Without doubt the anarchist gaze should continue to focus on the sites
of production and re-production at the human scale (Sale 1980), including those
dominant spaces of education, housing, employment and the family in particular.
With respect to the family, any intervention may take on new and unpredictable
forms. As Ward (1982:129) argues:
Family life, based on the original community, has disappeared. A new family, based on
community of aspirations, will take its place. In this family people will be obliged to know
one another, to aid one another and to lean on one another moral support on every
occasion.

It is also important to put the local, the community and the individual, at the heart
of change, a point made by Norberg-Hodge (1992:181) in her study of Ladakh
society:
The fabric of industrial society is to a great extent determined by the interaction of
science, technology, and a narrow economic paradigmand interaction that is leading
to ever-greater centralization and specialization. Since the Industrial revolution, the
perspective of the individual has become more limited while political and economic
units have grown larger. I have become convinced that we need to de-centralize our
political and economic structures and broaden our approach to knowledge if we are to
find our way to a more balanced and sane society. In Ladakh, I have seen how humanscale structures nurture intimate bonds with the earth and an active and participatory
democracy, while supporting strong and vital communities, healthy families, and a
greater balance between male and female. These structures in turn provide the security
needed for individual well-being and, paradoxically, for a sense of freedom.

A Final Thought
The anarchist sees the question of change as an immediate one, not something to be
postponed until practical pressing matters are dealt with in an effective, but amoral, way
(Cahill 1989:235).

That many seemingly entrenched obstacles can be overcome by direct actionby

ordinary people taking responsibility for changing their own situationcan be
witnessed on many levels, and in many places. Indeed there has been a great
deal of evidence of good (anarchist-based) practice arising via the work that
(radical) geographers have undertaken, particularly those focused on engaging with
autonomous communities (eg Pickerill and Chatterton 2006). There is no doubt
that many new and exciting strategies of resistance have yet to be explored, or
properly understood, and not least from within the western world. This was a point

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1641

of considered reflection by Chatterton (2010:898) while working with the Zapatista

autonomous municipality of Morelia:
I began to think about the inspiring struggles and people I had met back home in
the UK over the last few years. People ripping up genetically modified crops, breaking
into warehouses to hold raves or military bases to dismantle jet fighters, blocking road
developments or holding parties in the middle of motorways. The silent army of people
organising free language classes for migrants or solidarity events against the poll tax,
developing open source software, hacklabs and alternative news media. Under the bright
inspiring lights of the Zapatista struggle, I had begun to forget just how many people
continue to resist neoliberalism, the deadlock of consumer-led market fundamentalism
and the patronising deadhand of representative democracy in a wealth of untold ways;
often putting their own liberty on the line to struggle for a better, more equal society
where everyone has a say in how it is built.

Critical academics and activists alike should take great heart and inspiration
that we can perceive clear (anarchist) spaces and methods of social and
economic organisation that are being continually produced and re-produced in the
contemporary world. Given this, it would seem rational that any approaches which
look to pursue post neoliberal economic futures should try wherever possible to
locate non-commodified practices at the heart of these new worlds. As Burns,
Williams and Windebank (2004:28) observe: Community self help should not be
seen as an off-the-wall radical philosophy. It is for the most part what we do already.
And this is where the rub lies for anarchists must begin to construct the world as
anarchists want it to be, but do it in the world-as-it-is (Cahill 1989:243).
Anarchist visions aside, it is also important to reflect and consider what strategies
and tactics can be used to successfully promote anarchist-inspired praxis. This
may prove the greater challenge. As Goldman (1979:48) noted, as the most
revolutionary and uncompromising innovator, Anarchism must meet needs with the
combined ignorance and venom of the world it aims to reconstruct. One significant
step forward would be the wider re-integration of a re-vitalised and re-energised
anarchism within the contemporary theory and praxis of human and economic
geography. It is disappointing to reflect on the fact that direct engagement with
anarchist ideas and practice within geography have been neglected, or overlooked
in favour of other radical geographies (Marxist and feminist critiques for example),
for much of the twentieth century. As Blunt and Willis (2000:2) note: Anarchist
ideas have inspired enormous change within the discipline, but as yet, they have
spawned only the outlines of a tradition of geographical scholarship and there is
plenty of scope for further elaboration. If this paper has contributed in some small
way toward a (re)turn to anarchist geography, opened up some new opportunities
and possibilities to unleash our economic imaginations, helped suggest ways to
move beyond authoritarian methods of social organisation, and move purposefully
toward a post-neoliberal future, then it will have achieved its purpose.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the four anonymous referees for their constructive insights
and valuable suggestions that have helped strengthen the original version of the paper
significantly.


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1642

Endnotes
1

On a related point, an important gap in heterodox economics literature concerns the lack
of a poststructuralist anarchism intervention. This would be another potential exciting and
worthwhile endeavour, and one that has begun to be of influence elsewhere (eg Jeppesen
2011; Koch 2011; May 1994 2011; Mueller 2011; Newman 2011).
2
The tasks included aspects of house maintenance (outdoor painting, indoor painting,
wallpapering, plastering, mending a broken window and maintenance of appliances), home
improvement (putting in double glazing, plumbing, electrical work, house insulation, putting
in a bathroom suite, building a garage, building an extension, putting in central heating
and carpentry), housework (routine housework, cleaning windows outdoors, spring cleaning,
cleaning windows indoors, doing the shopping, washing clothes and sheets, ironing, cooking
meals, washing dishes, hairdressing, household administration), making and repairing goods
(making clothes, repairing clothes, knitting, making or repairing furniture, making or repairing
garden equipment, making curtains), car maintenance (washing car, repairing car and car
maintenance), gardening (care of indoor plants, outdoor borders, outdoor vegetables, lawn
mowing) and caring activities (daytime baby-sitting, night-time baby sitting, educational
activities, pet care).

References
Amster R, Deleon A, Fernandez, L A, Nocella II, A J and Shannon D (eds) (2009) Contemporary
Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. London: Routledge
Baldelli G (1972) Social Anarchism. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Benston M (1969) The political economy of womens liberation. Monthly Review 21(4):1327
Berkmann A (1986 [1929]) Lazy men and dirty work. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist
Reader (pp 334338). Glasgow: Fontana Press
Blunt A and Willis J (2000) Dissident Geographies. Harlow: Pearson
Bookchin M (1989) New social movements: the anarchic dimension. In D Goodway (ed) For
Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 259274). London: Routledge
Burns D, Williams C C and Windebank J (2004) Community Self-Help. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Cahill T (1989) Co-operatives and anarchism: A contemporary perspective. In D Goodway
(ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 235258). London: Routledge
Cahn E (2000) No More Throw-Away People: The Co-operative Imperative. Washington DC:
Essential Books
Carter A (1989) Outline of an anarchist theory of history. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism:
History, Theory and Practice (pp 176197). London: Routledge
Castoriadis C (1987) The Imaginary Institution of Society. London: Polity
Castree N (2010) Crisis, continuity and change: Neoliberalism, the left and the future of
capitalism. Antipode 41(s1):185213
Chatterton P (2010) Autonomy: The struggle for survival, self-management and the common.
Antipode 42(4):897908
Cleaver H (1994) Kropotkin, self-valorisation and the crisis of Marxism. Anarchist Studies
2(2):119135
Crang P (1996) Displacement, consumption and identity. Environment and Planning A
28(1):4767
Crewe L and Gregson N (1998) Tales of the unexpected: Exploring car boot sales as marginal
spaces of contemporary consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
23(1):3953
Crewe L, Gregson N and Brooks K (2003) Alternative retail spaces. In A Leyshon, R Lee and C
C Williams (eds) Alternative Economic Spaces (pp 74106). London: Sage
England K (ed) (1996) Who Will Mind Baby? Geographies of Child Care and Working Mothers.
London: Routledge
Fournier V (2008) Escaping from the economy. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy 28(11/12):528554
Friere P (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a Postneoliberal Anarchist Future

1643

Gershuny J (2000) Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Gibson-Graham J-K (1996) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political
Economy. Oxford: Blackwell
Gibson-Graham J-K (2006a) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political
Economy (new edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Gibson-Graham J-K (2006b) A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press
Godwin W (1986 [1793]) The evils of national education. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist
Reader (pp 267270). Glasgow: Fontana Press
Goldman E (1979) Anarchism: What it really stands for. In A K Shulman (ed) Red Emma Speaks
(pp 4763). London: Wildwood House
Goodway D (1989) Introduction. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and
Practice (pp 122). London: Routledge
Gregson N and Crewe L (2002) Second-Hand Worlds. London: Routledge
Gregson N and Crewe L (2003) Second-Hand Cultures. Oxford: Berg
Guerin D (1989) Marxism and anarchism. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory
and Practice (pp 109126). London: Routledge
Hardt M and Negri A (2000) Empire. Harvard: Harvard University Press
Hart G (2010) D/developments after the meltdown. Antipode 41(s1):117141
Illich I (1971) Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row
ILO (2002a) Decent Work in the Informal Sector: Latin America. Geneva: International Labour
Office
ILO (2002b) Decent Work and the Informal Economy in Central America. Geneva: International
Labour Office
ILO (2007) The Informal Economy: Enabling Transition to Formalization. Geneva: International
Labour Office
ILO (2008) Bringing Focus to ILO Country-level Contributions: A Guidebook for Developing and
Implementing Decent Work Country Programmes Version 2. Geneva: International Labour
Office
ILO (2010) World of Work Report 2010: From one crisis to the next? Geneva: International
Labour Office
Jeppesen S (2011) Things to do with poststructualism in a life of anarchy: Relocating the
outpost of post-anarchism. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp
151159). London: Pluto
Katz C and Monk J (1993) Full Circles: Geographies of Women over the Life Course. London:
Routledge
Kenafick K J (1990) Bakunin: Marx, Freedom and the State. London: Freedom Press
Koch A M (2011) Poststructualism and the epistemological basis of anarchism. In D Rousselle
and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 2340). London: Pluto
Kropotkin P (2002 [1880]) Anarchist morality. In R N Baldwin (ed) Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism:
A Collection of Revolutionary Writings (pp 79113). New York: Dover
Latouche S (1993) In the Wake of Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-Development. London:
Zed
Lee R (1996) Moral money? LETS and the social construction of local economic geographies
in southeast England. Environment and Planning A 28:13771394
Leyshon A (2005) Diverse economies. Antipode 37(5):856862
Leyshon A, Lee R and Williams C C (eds) (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London:
Sage
Marshall P (1993) Demanding the Impossible: a History of Anarchism. London: Fontana
May T (1994) The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press
May T (2011) Is poststructuralist political theory anarchist? In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds)
Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 4245). London: Pluto
McDowell L (1983) Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1(1):5962
McKay I (2008) An Anarchist FAQ, Vol. I. Edinburgh: AK Press

C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Antipode

1644

McMahon M (1996) From the ground up: Ecofeminism and ecological economics. Ecological
Economics 20:163173
Mueller T (2011) Empowering anarchy: Power, hegemony and anarchist strategy. In D
Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 7594). London: Pluto
Newman S (2011) Post-anarchism and radical politics today. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds)
Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 4668). London: Pluto
Norberg-Hodge H (1992) Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. London: Rider
North P (1996) LETS: A tool for empowerment in the inner city? Local Economy 11(3):284293
ODPM (2000) Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Peck J, Theodore N and Brenner N (2010) Postneoliberalism and its malcontents. Antipode
41(s1):94116
Pepper D (1988) The geography of an anarchist Britain. The Raven 1(4):339350
Pickerill J and Chatterton P (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: Creation,
resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography
30(6):730746
Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon
Sale K (1980) The Human Scale. London: Secker & Warburg
Samers M (2005) The myopia of diverse economies, or, A critique of the informal
economy. Antipode 37(5):875886
Scott A J (2001) Capitalism, cities and the production of symbolic forms. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 26:1123
Shiva V (2005) Earth Democracy, Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. London: Zed
Shukaitis S (2009) Infrapolitics and the nomadic educational machine. In R Amster, A Deleon,
L A Fernandez, A J Nocella II and D Shannon (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies (pp
166174). London: Routledge
Soiffer S S and Hermann G M (1987) Visions of power: Ideology and practice in the American
garage sale. The Sociological Review 35:4883
The Community Collective (2001) Imagining and Enacting Non-capitalist Futures. http://www.
communityeconomies.org/site/assets/media/old%20website%20pdfs/Papers/on
%20rethinking%20the%20economy/Imagining%20and%20Enacting.pdf (last accessed
15 July 2011)
Wade R (2010) Is the globalization consensus dead? Antipode 41(s1):142165
Walt L and Schmidt M (2009) Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and
Syndicalism. Edinburgh: AK Press
Ward C (1982) Anarchy in Action. London: Aldgate Press
Ward C (2004) Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press
White R J (2009) Explaining why the non-commodified sphere of mutual aid is so pervasive in
the advanced economies. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29(9/10):457
472
White R J and Williams C C (2010) Re-thinking monetary exchange. Review of Social Economy
68(3):317338
Williams C C (2005) A Commodified World? Mapping the Limits of Capitalism. London: Zed
Williams C C (2007) Rethinking the Future of Work: Directions and Visions. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan
Williams C C (2011) Geographical variations in the nature of community engagement.
Community Development Journal 46(2):213228
Williams C C and Paddock C (2003) The meanings of informal and second-hand retail
channels. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 13(3):317
336
Williams C C and Windebank J (2001) Revitalising Deprived Neighbourhoods: An Assisted Selfhelp Approach. Aldershot: Ashgate
Woodcock G (1986) Anarchism: A historical introduction. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist
Reader (pp 1156). Glasgow: Fontana Press
Zelizer V A (1997) The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Poor Relief, and Other
Currencies. Princeton: Princeton University Press
izek S (2011) Living in The End Times. London: Verso
Z


C

2012 The Authors. Antipode


C

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.