{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026701119724375538, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.384615384615385, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Perennial Appeal of Anarchism

Anarchism has again become a central concern of political theorists in both Europe and North America. In the wake of histories, monographs, pamphlets, conferences, and the inevitable anthologies, it seems proper to search for the roots of anarchism's persistent appeal. Historians and political theorists alike have tended to classify anarchism as outdated, utopian, and generally confused. Like the often comical and sometimes tragic Levellers in England, anarchism has been treated as a growth on the side of nineteenth-century political history. Malignant, definitely; but rarely fatal. For the French historian, Jean Maitron, anarchy means disorder, disorganization, and failure. The British commentators, George Woodcock and James Joll suggest that anarchists are idealists out of touch with reality. Their nineteenth-century ideas are rooted in the beginnings of industrialization and cannot be reconciled with the development of large-scale industry.' Anarchism should be dead. However, the appeal of anarchist hopes and ideals seems clearly to be growing. Anarchist writings are now being discussed in class as well as