{"id":423,"date":"2026-10-01T06:32:53","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T06:32:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/?p=423"},"modified":"2026-10-01T06:32:53","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T06:32:53","slug":"precursors-of-syndicalism-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/precursors-of-syndicalism-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Precursors of Syndicalism II"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A dicussion of the International Working People’s Association and The \u201cChicago Idea\u201d. It appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review<\/em> No. 76 (Summer 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Precursors of Syndicalism II<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The first instalment<\/a> of Precursors of Syndicalism<\/em> (ASR<\/em> No. 75, Winter 2019) sketched the rise of syndicalist ideas within the First International. Championed by Bakunin, the idea of the International as a militant union for economic struggle was the majority trend within it and Marx preferred to destroy the organisation when it did not endorse his position of transforming it into parties pursuing political action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Syndicalist ideas reappeared in America in 1883, with the creation of the International Working Peoples\u2019 Association<\/a> (IWPA). Created by former Marxists who had come to reject political action in favour of direct action, its legacy was secured in the fight for the Eight Hour Day which started on the 1st<\/sup> of May 1886 and the bombing of a squad of policemen who were breaking up a peaceful IWPA rally<\/a> on the 4th<\/sup> called to protest the killing of picketers the day before. After a red scare, eight anarchist militants were arrested and given a kangaroo trail, resulting in three imprisoned and five sentenced to death. Louis Lingg committed suicide in prison, while Albert Parsons, August Spies, Adolph Fischer and George Engel mounted the gallows in spite of international protest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1893, Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld signed pardons for the imprisoned anarchists \u2013 Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab, Oscar Neebe \u2013 recognising them as victims of \u201chysteria, packed juries, and a biased judge\u201d and noting that the state \u201chas never discovered who it was that threw the bomb which killed the policeman, and the evidence does not show any connection whatsoever between the defendants and the man who threw it.\u201d He also faulted the city of Chicago for failing to hold Pinkerton guards responsible for repeated use of lethal violence against striking workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commemoration of the Chicago Martyrs on the anniversary of their judicial murder on November 11th<\/sup> became an International custom in anarchist circles. As Kropotkin<\/a> put it at one such meeting: \u201cWere not our Chicago Comrades right in despising politics, and saying the struggle against robbery must be carried on in the workshop and the street, by deeds not words?\u201d (\u201cThe Chicago Anniversary,\u201d Freedom<\/em>, December 1891) Like Bakunin<\/a>, the Chicago Anarchists held, to quote Lucy Parsons, \u201cthat the granges, trade-unions, Knights of Labor assemblies, etc., are the embryonic groups of the ideal anarchistic society.\u201d (\u201cLucy E. Parsons on Anarchy\u201d<\/a>, Albert Parsons (ed.) Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis<\/em> [Honolulu: University of the Pacific, 2003], 110)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As with the syndicalists, the Internationalists rejected the ballot-box and embraced direct economic struggle, arguing that the groupings workers formed in the fight against exploitation would be the basis for ending it by workers control of production. They summarised their position towards the end of the manifesto<\/a> agreed at the IWPA Pittsburgh Congress in 1883:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cFirst<\/em>: Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means, i.e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and international action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSecond<\/em>: Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative organisation of production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThird<\/em>: Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organisations without commerce and profit-mongery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFourth<\/em>: Organisation of education on a secular, scientific, and equal basis for both sexes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFifth<\/em>: Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSixth<\/em>: Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a federalistic basis.\u201d (Anarchism,<\/em> 78)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This free society would be based on \u201cthe decentralisation of power\u201d with \u201cno political parties, no capitalism, no rings, no kings, no statesmen and no rulers\u201d for \u201c[a]ll political power must necessarily become despotic, because all government tends to become centralised in the hands of the few, who breed corruption among themselves, and in a very short time disconnect themselves from the body of the people.\u201d (Lucy Parsons, Anarchism<\/em>, 110-1) In short, the federal socialism which has been the aim of anarchism since Proudhon using the tactics advocated by anarchists since Bakunin<\/a>. As one historian correctly summarised:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe \u2018Chicago idea,\u2019 in its essential outlines, anticipated by some twenty years the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism, which, in a similar way, rejected centralized authority, disdained political action, and made the union the center of revolutionary struggle as well as the nucleus of the future society. [\u2026] This is not to say, however, that anarcho-syndicalism originated with Parsons and his associates. As early as the 1860s and 1870s the followers of Proudhon and Bakunin were proposing the formation of workers\u2019 councils designed both as a weapon of class struggle against the capitalists and as the structural basis for the libertarian millennium. A free federation of labor unions, Bakunin had written, would form \u2018the living germs of the new social order, which is to replace the bourgeois world.\u2019\u201d (Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy<\/em> [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984], 73)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It should be sufficient to leave it here, but sadly not. Since the 1970s there has been a tendency to suggest that the Chicago Anarchists were not, in fact, anarchists. This seems to have started in 1976 with Carolyn Ashbaugh\u2019s biography Lucy Parsons: American Revolutionary<\/em> (recently reprinted by Haymarket Books) which proclaimed that she, like the other Chicago Internationalists, were syndicalists rather than anarchists (that this simply expressed a shocking lack of understanding of anarchism has previously been show in \u201cLucy Parsons: Anarchist Anarchist\u201d<\/a> [ASR<\/em> No. 60, Summer 2013]). This was followed by Bruce Nelson\u2019s Beyond the Martyrs: a social history of Chicago\u2019s anarchists, 1870-1900<\/em> (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988) which suggested this \u201cwas not an evolution from socialism to anarchism but from republicanism, through electoral socialism, to revolutionary socialism.\u201d (171) More recently, Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic at least claimed they had created a \u201csynthesis between anarchism and Marxism.\u201d (Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History<\/em> [Oakland: PM Press, 2008], 11)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The latter base their claims on the historian James Green who suggested that the Chicago Anarchists had \u201cturned away from electoral competition and adopted Karl Marx\u2019s strategy of organising workers [\u2026] building class-conscious Trade Unions as a basis for future political action.\u201d They \u201cfaithfully adhered to the lesson they had learned from Karl Marx: that socialism could be achieved only through the collective power of workers organised into aggressive Trade Unions.\u201d Thus the \u201cInternationals of Chicago invented a peculiar, in some ways, American brand of revolutionary socialism they called anarchism.\u201d (Death in the Haymarket: A Story of Chicago, the First Labor Movement and the Bombing That Divided Gilded Age America<\/em> [Anchor Books, 2007], 50, 130, 131)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are a few problems with this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first, and most obvious, problem is that Marx advocated no such thing. Yes, Marx supported unions but he did not think the workers movements should be limited to, or even based on, them. Instead, he argued for the creation of workers\u2019 parties and the use of \u201cpolitical action\u201d in the shape of standing for elections. Indeed, in 1870 he explicitly mocked Bakunin\u2019s programme for advocating the ideas Green proclaims as Marx\u2019s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe working class must not occupy itself with politics<\/em>. They must only organise themselves by trade-unions. One fine day, by means of the Internationale<\/em> they will supplant the place of all existing states.\u201d (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Anarchism, and Anarcho-Syndicalism<\/em> [Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974], 48)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here are all the elements the historians use to proclaim the Chicago Anarchists anything other than anarchists \u2013 the dismissal of electioneering, the embrace of economic struggle, unions replacing the state \u2013 and all are rejected. Can we expect Green to have known that? Yes, for he is discussing anarchists and expressly comparing their ideas to Marx. Yet he was a historian, surely Marxists would know better? There is a long, long history of Marxist attacks on syndicalism \u2013 social-democratic and Leninist \u2013 which echo Marx\u2019s attack on Bakunin, namely that it ignores the necessity for political<\/em> organisation (workers\u2019 parties) and political<\/em> action (electioneering). Sadly, no:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe \u2018anarchism\u2019 that Spies, Parsons, and their comrades espoused had little in common with the \u2018anarchism\u2019 of Karl Marx\u2019s political opponent, Michael Bakunin, but was more akin to a revolutionary socialist vision of a new society that would replace capitalism.\u2019 (Patrick M. Quinn, \u201cJames Green\u2019s Death in the Haymarket,\u201d Against the Current<\/em>, November\/December 2006)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This brings us to the second issue, namely that Green makes no attempt to define anarchism nor any real mention of the political ideas of the Chicago Internationalists. This makes evaluating his claims difficult for the average reader, which means they will draw their own conclusions on what constitutes anarchism and what anarchists believe. Given the popular image, almost all will agree with Green when he seems to imply it is throwing dynamite as the sole tactic for social change \u2013 a few violent actions and some violent rhetoric is remembered, unlike the much more violent rhetoric and actual violence of the business class and its state. That Bakunin never advocated individual terror is as irrelevant as his actual syndicalism. Equally, it would remiss not to note that the Chicago Anarchists killed no one, unlike the Pinkerton and state forces which regularly killed strikers \u2013 indeed, it was this need for self-defence which contributed to the dynamite rhetoric which so many equate to their anarchism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Green does not even provide the six-point conclusion of the Pittsburgh Manifesto which, with its federalism, is hardly Marxist. Likewise, the IWPA was as decentralised and federalist as the socialist society it sought to create, a position much at odds with Marxist orthodoxy. A federal militant union International was what Bakunin advocated and what Marx opposed in favour of a centralised International based on political parties. At least he quotes from Pittsburgh Manifesto, for he does not even mention Albert Parson\u2019s book Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis<\/a><\/em>.Parsons included articles by Peter Kropotkin, \u00c9lis\u00e9e Reclus and Dyer Lum on anarchism. This, in itself, suggests a clear awareness by Parsons of what the term meant and that his use of Anarchist was neither invented nor used in ignorance. Yes, Parson did include in his book an analysis of wage-labour by quoting Marx. However, this analysis was one most anarchists then \u2013 as now \u2013 would agree with: labour is<\/em> exploited by capital, the surplus-value produced by the many is<\/em> appropriated by the few. Bakunin praised Marx\u2019s economic analysis and attacked him not on the critique of capitalism nor the goal of a socialist society but rather the means<\/em> advocated: political action and seizing state power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Nelson warned that this subject \u201cshould not be approached with twentieth-century labels,\u201d (153) he like the others did so. All these historians show an unawareness of anarchism is a branch of socialism and as expressed by Kropotkin in the work Parsons included in his book. Thus anarchism is \u201cthe no-government system of socialism\u201d and \u201cprivate ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth\u201d with \u201ca complete negation of the wage-system.\u201d (\u201cThe Scientific Basis of Anarchism,\u201d<\/a> Anarchism<\/em>, 111) Like the Chicago Anarchists, Bakunin called himself a revolutionary socialist, as did Kropotkin who also happily used the term communist. The issue between the two schools of socialism was, as the Chicago Anarchists repeatedly explained, the State and in this they echoed Proudhon:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cLouis Blanc represents governmental socialism, revolution by power, as I represent democratic socialism, revolution by the people. An abyss exists between us.\u201d (Les Confessions d\u2019un r\u00e9volutionnaire <\/em>[Garnier: Paris 1851], 177)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The idea that \u201csocialism\u201d or \u201ccommunism\u201d referred purely to Marxism is of recent origin, one favoured and encouraged by Marxists themselves. Similarly, the notion that anarchism was \u2013 or is \u2013 solely concerned with the state is simply untenable once you move from the dictionary or general accounts of anarchism like the one Green utilised (James Joll\u2019s The Anarchists<\/em>) to actual anarchist writings and movements. Thus Green\u2019s comments that the Chicago Internationalists \u201cthought of themselves as socialists of the anarchist type \u2013 that is, as revolutionaries who believed in liberating society from all state control, whether capitalist or socialist\u201d (129) \u2013 would apply to all<\/em> anarchists, even those who eschewed insurrection and the violent rhetoric of the IWPA. As anarchists were and are socialists, aiming for an anti-state, federal, self-managed socialism, Green comments are confused, at best. As Adolph Fischer put it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cA number of persons claim, that an anarchist cannot be a socialist, and a socialist not an anarchist. This is wrong [\u2026] every anarchist is a socialist but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist.\u201d (Anarchism<\/em>, 78)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So to suggest Parsons, Spies, etc. were Marxists when they had come to the same conclusions as that of his political opponent in the First International, Bakunin, which Marx had so furiously attacked and combatted is simply wrong. It should also be noted that while some Marxists claim the Chicago Anarchists as their own, Marxists at the time did not. Green makes no mention that Marx\u2019s daughter Eleanor expressed the opinion \u201cthat we are not Anarchists, but are opposed to Anarchism [\u2026] strengthens our position in asking justice for the condemned men.\u201d (\u201cThe Chicago Anarchists,\u201d To-day,<\/em> November 1887) Engels said nothing about the events publicly beyond signing a petition for clemency, a somewhat strange position to take if they were Marxists (in private letters, on the very few occasions he refers to them at all, he never suggests they were anything other than anarchists).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, someone can draw the exact same conclusions as Bakunin did and which Marx explicitly and repeatedly denounced yet be denied the anarchist label. Is it too much to ask historians writing on a subject to gain some<\/em> understanding of the politics involved before putting pen to paper? As for the Marxists who make the claim, suffice to say it is a strange admiration which suggests the Martyrs had no idea what the word on their lips when they died meant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Chicago Internationalists called themselves anarchists for a reason. They underwent an evolution from political socialism to anti-political socialism, from Marxism to revolutionary Anarchism. This can be seen by the writings of later anarchists. Emma Goldman<\/a> \u2013 regardless of what Ashbaugh and a host of Leninist regurgitators assert \u2013 advocated syndicalism and noted \u201cthat in this country five men had to pay with their lives because they advocated Syndicalist methods as the most effective, in the struggle of labor against capital\u201d (Syndicalism: the Modern Menace to Capitalism<\/a><\/em>). On the twenty-first anniversary of the Chicago events, her Mother Earth<\/a><\/em> argued as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBitter experience has gradually forced upon organized labor the realization that it is difficult, if not impossible, for isolated unions and trades to successfully wage war against organized capital; for capital is<\/em> organized, into national as well as international bodies, co-operating in their exploitation and oppression of labor. To be successful, therefore, modern strikes must constantly assume ever larger proportions, involving the solidaric co-operation of all the branches of an affected industry \u2013 an idea gradually gaining recognition in the trades unions. This explains the occurrence of sympathetic strikes, in which men in related industries cease work in brotherly co-operation with their striking bothers \u2013 evidences of solidarity so terrifying to the capitalistic class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSolidaric strikes do not represent the battle of an isolated union or trade with an individual capitalist or group of capitalists; they are the war of the proletariat class with its organized enemy, the capitalist regime. The solidaric strike is the prologue of the General Strike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe modern worker has ceased to be the slave of the individual capitalist; to-day, the capitalist class<\/em> is his master. However great his occasional victories on the economic field, he still remains a wage slave. It is, therefore, not sufficient for labor unions to strive to merely lessen the pressure of the capitalistic heel; progressive workingmen\u2019s organizations can have but one worthy object \u2013 to achieve their full economic stature by complete emancipation from wage slavery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat is the true mission of trades unions. They bear the germs of a potential social revolution; aye, more \u2013 they are the factors that will fashion the system of production and distribution in the coming free society.\u201d (\u201cThe First May and the General Strike,\u201d Mother Earth<\/em>, May 1907)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Given the all-too-common Marxist myth that Goldman was some kind of \u201clifestylist\u201d libertarian who was unaware of the class nature of society and the need for class struggle, it is worth noting that her actual position was well-known at the time as can be seen by leading British Syndicalist Tom Mann\u2019s comments that her journal had \u201c[f]or nine years [\u2026] voiced in clear terms the necessity for \u2018working class solidarity,\u2019 \u2018direct action in all industrial affairs\u2019 and \u2018free association.\u2019 I subscribe to each of these with heart and mind [\u2026] I am the more grateful to the editor and conductors of Mother Earth<\/em> for labouring so thoroughly to popularise principles calculated, as I believe, to emancipate mankind, intellectually and economically.\u201d (\u201cMother Earth<\/em> and Labour\u2019s Revolt,\u201d Mother Earth<\/em>, March 1915)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once we know the actual politics of revolutionary anarchism, we see how wrong Nelson was to suggest that if Kropotkin and Bakunin \u201cepitomized nineteenth century anarchism\u201d and \u201cimmigrant anarchism [is identified] with Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, then the membership of Chicago\u2019s IWPA was not anarchist\u201d (171, 153) His account, like that of Ashbaugh and Green, may contain useful research but sadly within a context so flawed that many, even most, of the conclusions have to be dismissed or, at best, taken with copious caveats and corrections. Otherwise we would have to conclude that Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Peter Kropotkin along with Lucy Parsons and the Chicago Martyrs did not understand what anarchism is\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We end with Albert Parsons\u2019 article on the IWPA\u2019s position on unions from the English-language IWPA paper The Alarm<\/em> on 4th<\/sup> of April 1885. While extracts have been included by many writers, including Dave Roediger in an article entitled \u201cAlbert R. Parsons: The Anarchist as Trade Unionist\u201d in Haymarket Scrapbook<\/em> (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1986), this is the first time as far as we are aware that it has appeared in full since originally published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The International<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Albert Parsons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Alarm<\/em>, 4 April 1885<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

If it be true as lately asserted by many, that the communist anarchists known as the (Black) International, have decided upon a vigorous warfare against Trades Unions as an important branch of their tactics, it is much to be regretted. Such a course of action would not only be economically unsound but is suicidal as well \u2013 Labor Enquirer<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The ALARM takes pleasure in setting its contemporary, from whose columns the above extract is taken, right on the attitude of the International Working Peoples\u2019 Association towards Trades unions. We have ourselves observed paragraphs of a similar nature floating around through the labour press, and we gladly avail ourselves of this opportunity to answer the charge. The Communist Anarchists or Internationalists, as our organisation is alternatively called, have on some occasions found it necessary to criticise adversely the tactics, propaganda and aims of some Trades unions. In Chicago, not long since, the Trades assembly was challenged to a \u201cjoint debate\u201d upon the subject of the relations of capital and labour, and the most practical method to achieve labour\u2019s economic emancipation, the International holding adverse views to those of the Trades assembly. These facts taken together have, with the aid of ignorant or designing leaders, who seem to be actuated in the matter by a desire for \u201cplace and fame,\u201d been taken up and an attempt made to create a false impression with regard to the International.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in order to place the matter fairly before our contemporaries of the Trades Unions it will be necessary to publish in this connection the action of the Pittsburgh Congress held in October 1883, where the following resolution was adopted as the official declaration of the International upon that subject, viz:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

WHEREAS. We view in Trades Unions based upon progressive principles, the abolition of the wages system, the cornerstone of a better societary structure than the present one, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHEREAS. Furthermore, these Trades Unions are an army of despoiled and disinherited brothers, who are destined to overthrow the present economic system for the purpose of free universal co-operation, be it<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolved<\/em>. That we, the International Working Peoples\u2019 Association, extend to them our brotherhood and our aid in their struggle against the ever-growing despotism of private capital, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolved<\/em>. That while we are in full sympathy with such progressive unions, we will attack and seek to destroy all those organisations who stand upon reactionary principles, since they are the enemies of the cause of labour\u2019s emancipation and a detriment to humanity and progress.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The International recognises in the Trades Unions the embryonic group of the future \u201cfree society.\u201d Every Trades Union is, nolens volens<\/em> [whether willing or not], an autonomous commune in the process of incubation. The Trades Union is a necessity of capitalistic production, and will yet take its place by superseding it under the system of universal free co-operation. No, friends, it is not the unions but the methods which some of them employ, with which the International finds fault, and as indifferently as it may be considered by some, the development of capitalism is hastening the day when all Trades Unions and Anarchists will of necessity become one and the same.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A dicussion of the International Working People’s Association and The \u201cChicago Idea\u201d. It appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review No. 76 (Summer 2019)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52,2,51,18,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-albert-parsons","category-anarchisthistory","category-lucy-parsons","category-syndicalism","category-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=423"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":424,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423\/revisions\/424"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}