Bu çalışmanın temel varsayımı Bolşevik İhtilali’nin gerçekleşmesiyle 19. yüzyıl boyunca radikal solun merkezinde yer alan anarşizmin bir durgunluk evresine girdiği ve Sovyetler Birliği ’nin yıkılmasıyla oluşan siyasi ortamda anarşizmin kendisine yeni bir yaşam sahası bulduğudur. 1871 Paris Komünü ’nde yaşanan başarısızlıkla umutsuzluğa kapılan anarşistler şiddete başvurmuşlardır ve özellikle Soğuk Savaş ’ın başlamasıyla beliren politik yapıda anarşizm gerçekçi gözükmekten uzaklaşmıştır. Bu ve benzeri sebeplerden ötürü anarşizm rasyonel olmaktan uzak, yıkıcı bir eğilim olarak algılanmıştır. Sovyetler Birliği’nin yıkılışı anarşistlerin önüne yeni kapılar açmıştır. Önyargılarla mücadele etmek zorunda kalan günümüz anarşistleri, anarşizmin merkezinde yer alan insan doğasının iyiliğine, baskının olmadığı bir dünyada yaşamanın öncelikli hedef olduğuna ve ahlâkî gelişmeye dayanan bir hayata verilen öneme dair görüşlerini tam olarak ifade edememişlerdir. Gelinen noktada anarşizmin temel başarısızlığının bu olduğu söylenebilir. Bu görüşlerimizi detaylandırmak amacıyla çalışmamız anarşizmi “Klasik Anarşizm " ve “Yeni Anarşizm " şeklinde ikiye ayırarak incelemektedir. “Yeni Anarşizm"i “Klasik Anarşizm"den ayıran en net farklılık günümüz anarşizminin post-yapısalcılığın anarşist harekete kattığı kazanımlar ile mücadeleyi tek bir sahada değil yaşamın her alanında görmesidir.

The main assumption of this essay is that anarchism, which had been at the center of revolutionary left during the 19th century, entered into a stagnation period after the Bolshevik Revolution and it found new opportunities in recently emerged political atmosphere after the downfall of Soviet Union. Anarchists started resorting to violence desperately, because of the unsuccessful 1871 Paris Commune and it gradually turned out to be unrealistic, especially during the Soviet Union. Because of these reasons, anarchism is percieved as a philosophy which is irrational and destructive. Because of the Bolshevik Revolution in the First World War, Marxism dominated the left-world and it did not give any chance to different ideas to express themselves.The First World War was like a preparation to the second one and as a result during the Cold War we witnessed a two-colored world: On one side the capitalist world dominated by the U.S.A, and on the other side the communist world dominated by U.S.S.R. This bipolar world did not let any other different voice to be heard. However after the collapse of U.S.S.R, the war between industrialized powers seemed unthinkable and anarchism reemerged from where it had been at the end of the 19th century. Therefore, briefly, we can assume that after the formidable, bloody 20th century we have again a suitable condition, which may raise anarchism to the center of revolutionary left. However present anarchists face several problems. Contemporary anarchists, who have to struggle with stereotypes, are not able to clearly express the central ideas of anarchism concerning the goodness of human nature, living in a world in which there is no repression, and importance of moral development in our life. That is the main failure of anarchism. To express these ideas in detail, this essay elaborates on anarchism by dividing it into two categories as “Classic Anarchism” and “New Anarchism”. In doing so, it is aimed to show new tendencies of anarchism and some problems that anarchism has to sort out. In the first part of this work, the term anarchy is examined. The term is a combination of the prefix an referring negativity and arche which means ruler. Therefore, anarchy connotes a social state in which there is no governing person, and in anarchist view, it is plausible to envisage a society where governing elites are not needed. In the second part, the founders of anarchist philosophy are to be fleshed out. In that sense, William Godwin can be seen as the first person who uttered anarchist’s ideas, although he used the term negatively. After explaining Godwin, Max Stirner is expatiated. Stirner, who lived in the same period with Marx, is one of the most “unique” writers in the 19th century and highlights excessively the importance of individualism. After Stirner, the essay dilates French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s ideas. In his intellectually productive lifetime, Proudhon became a well-known writer in France and he is the first person who declared that he was an anarchist. After mentioning Proudhon, the other distinguished anarchist Michael Bakunin is exposited. Bakunin came to prominence during the tempestuous 19th century Europe. However, he should be considered as an action-motivated person but not theorist, since he prefered to be behind the barricades instead of being in library rooms. Nevertheless he is an important figure in the history of anarchism. Then, Peter Kropotkin’s ideas are elucidated. “Mutual aid”, the term coined by Kropotkin, is used to extend anarchist ideas showing that nature is based on mutual aid but not “natural selection”. Lastly, Spanish Civil War is mentioned explaning Goldman’s and Durruti’s role in it. In the third –and the last- part, new tendencies in the 21st century anarchism and the problems that anarchists have to solve are indicated. In that sense, contemporary anarchists, such as Kaufmann, McElroy, Bookchin.. etc. and new curiosity in academic field on anarchism are mentioned.