Back to Homepage The Formula of Anarchism
NB! We usually have used " , ", the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. " . " as decimal separator. The term "ca" is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.
(1) DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
This is the general Formula of Anarchism related to the Economic-Political map. The degree of anarchy*) is defined for the Quadrant of Anarchism on the EP-map. In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the anarchist quadrant **):
(2) LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
In general, for the whole map ***), the authoritarian degree is used, i.e. 100% minus the libertarian degree.
AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100% - 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]% <=>
AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[ 1 - [1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]]% <=>
(3) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
(4) The degree of autonomy is 100% - the degree of statism and the degree of socialism is 100% - the degree of capitalism
From (3) and (4) we get:
(5) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(STATISM%/100)2+(CAPITALISM%/100)2]/2) 1/2]%
If the authoritarian degree is not significant, i.e. less than 50%, outside the anarchist quadrant, the term semilibertarian system is used.
Systems within the anarchist quadrant have the degree of both autonomy and socialism > 50%, the liberalist quadrant autonomy and capitalism > 50%, the marxist statism and socialism > 50% and the fascist statism and capitalism > 50% .
If the degree of capitalism is significant, > 50%, the system is economical plutarchy.
The degree of statism is connected to political/administrative hierarchy, that may be real monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy, and/or political/administrative plutarchy, i.e. if the degree of statism is significant, > 50%.
Very significant capitalism and/or statism also include the archies of rivaling "states within the state" (chaos), the tyranny of structurelessness (disorganization) and ochlarchy broadly defined.
If a system has insignificant degree of statism and capitalism, both < 50%, i.e. the degree of both autonomy and socialism are significant > 50%, and the system is anarchy and anarchism.
The area of the map, i.e. 100%, is divided of course with 25% for each of the main quadrants, marxism, anarchism, liberalism, and fascism. Furthermore the area of the systems with the least 1/3 authoritarian degree is Pi(100/18) = ca 17.4 % at the top of the map.
The anarchist and semilibertarian systems to the left and right, i.e. from above the middlepoint and less than 50% authoritarian degree cover an area of Pi(100/8) = ca 39,25 %. The democratic systems all in all, i.e. less than ca 67% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(200/9) = ca 69.78 %. Of this the area between about 43,75 % and 66,67 % authoritarian degree is significant parliamentarian democracy, and the area with less than 43,75% authoritarian degree is significant direct democracy. The democracy, parliamentarian or direct, may be real, i.e. libertarian and anarchist - within the anarchist quadrant of the economical political map, or not, i.e. semilibertarian, also called semi-democratic, or authoritarian semi- or pseudo-democracy - outside the anarchist quadrant.
NB! A semilibertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only anarchist systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian in general: Libertarian both 1. economically and 2. political/administrative and 3. in average measured by the libertarian degree, significant. And thus either a system is anarchist and also libertarian, or authoritarian economically and/or political/administrative.
And thus the ultra-authoritarian, totalitarian systems, with more than ca 67% (i.e. 66.6 666... %) authoritarian degree cover 100 - Pi(200/9) = ca 30.22 %. Thus, the systems with more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree have a lot more room, ca 30% of the map, than the most anarchist systems with ca 17 % of the area. This may indicate it is much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.
The significant direct democratic systems including semilibertarian cover about 30 % of the total area. The totalitarian systems at the bottom of the map also cover about 30 % of the area. The parliamentarian systems all in all cover about 40 % of the area, of which about 30 % are authoritarian systems and about 10 % are semilibertarian or anarchist systems, i.e. with average authoritarian degree < or = 50 %.
Graphical representations of the formulas are found at, click on: http://www.anarchy.no/anarcho4.html and http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html
As anarchy and anarchism are equal to real democracy we may also write the formulas in the following way:
REALDEMOCRACY
A brief note on the political ecocirc equations between the degree of realdemocracy, socialism vs capitalism and statism vs autonomy, say, to get more logical answers in IIFOR's investigations about democracy.
(1) DEGREE OF REALDEMOCRACY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
This is the general Formula of realdemocracy. The degree of realdemocracy is defined for significant societal democracy, i.e. both more than a) 50% economical democracy, socialism, on a scale from 0% to 100%, i.e. significant socialism, and b) 50% political/administrative democracy, autonomy, on a scale from 0% to 100%, i.e. significant autonomy.
All realdemocratic systems are found within the Quadrant of realdemocracy defined by [ 50% to 100% AUTONOMY; 50% to 100% SOCIALISM].
In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the realdemocratic quadrant:
(2) LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
In general, for the whole map, the authoritarian degree is used, i.e. 100% minus the libertarian degree.
AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100% - 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]% <=>
AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[ 1 - [1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]]% <=>
(3) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
(4) The degree of autonomy is 100% - the degree of statism and the degree of socialism is 100% - the degree of capitalism
From (3) and (4) we get:
(5) AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100[([(STATISM%/100)2+(CAPITALISM%/100)2]/2) 1/2]%
If the authoritarian degree is not significant, i.e. less than 50%, outside the realdemocratic quadrant, the term semilibertarian system is used.
Systems within the realdemocratic quadrant have as mentioned the degree of both autonomy and socialism > 50%. Similar the systems within the liberalist quadrant have the degree of both autonomy and capitalism > 50%, the marxist quadrant statism and socialism > 50% and the fascist quadrant statism and capitalism > 50%.
If the degree of capitalism is significant, > 50%, the system is economical plutarchy.
The degree of statism is connected to political/administrative hierarchy, that may be real monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy, and/or political/administrative plutarchy, i.e. if the degree of statism is significant, > 50%.
Very significant capitalism and/or statism also include the archies of rivaling "states within the state" (chaos), the tyranny of structurelessness (disorganization) and ochlarchy broadly defined.
If a system has insignificant degree of statism and capitalism, both < 50%, i.e. the degree of both autonomy and socialism are significant > 50%, and the system is realdemocracy.
The four quadrants all together define a large quadrant, called the economical political systems' world map, accounting for all possible societal systems.The area of the Economical Political map, i.e. 100%, is divided of course with 25% for each of the main quadrants, marxism, realdemocracy, liberalism, and fascism. Furthermore the area of the systems with the least 1/3 authoritarian degree is Pi(100/18) = ca 17.4 % at the top of the map.
The realdemocratic, also called libertarian systems, and the semilibertarian systems to the left and right, i.e. from above the middlepoint of the Economical Political map defined as both 50% autonomy, statism, socialism and capitalism and less than 50% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(100/8) = ca 39,25 %. The democratic systems all in all, i.e. less than ca 67% authoritarian degree, cover an area of Pi(200/9) = ca 69.78 %. Of this the area between about 43,75 % and 66,67 % authoritarian degree is significant parliamentarian democracy, and the area with less than 43,75% authoritarian degree is significant direct democracy. The democracy, parliamentarian or direct, may be real, i.e. libertarian and realdemocratic - within the realdemocratic quadrant of the economical political map, or not, i.e. semilibertarian, also called semi-democratic, or authoritarian semi- or pseudo-democracy - outside the realdemocratic quadrant.
NB! A semilibertarian system is either 1. economically or 2. political/administrative authoritarian (buth not both), i.e. capitalist/economical plutarchy or statist respectively, significant, but in average, measured by the authoritarian degree, not significant authoritarian. Thus only real democratic systems are libertarian, i.e. not authoritarian in general: Libertarian both 1. economically and 2. political/administrative and 3. in average measured by the libertarian degree, significant. And thus either a system is real democratic and also libertarian, or authoritarian economically and/or political/administrative.
And thus the ultra-authoritarian, totalitarian systems, with more than ca 666 per thousand = ca 67% (i.e. 66.6 666... %) authoritarian degree cover 100 - Pi(200/9) = ca 30.22 %. Thus, the systems with more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree have a lot more room, ca 30% of the map, than the most realdemocratic systems with ca 17 % of the area. This may indicate it is much more easy to create hell than heaven on earth.
The significant direct democratic systems including semilibertarian cover about 30 % of the total area. The totalitarian systems at the bottom of the map also cover about 30 % of the area. The parliamentarian systems all in all cover about 40 % of the area, of which about 30 % are authoritarian systems and about 10 % are semilibertarian or realdemocratic systems, i.e. with average authoritarian degree < or = 50 %.
The realdemocratic, libertarian systems are sometimes referred to as the third alternative, mentioned by Ragnar Frisch in several articles. As the word pseudo-democracy is a bit derogative, the more neutral word semi-democracy may sometimes be used as a synonym. However as pseudo-democracy is not real-democracy, the word pseudo-democracy is probably quite correct.
Practical examples:
The Norwegian system's estimated coordinates after the EU-referendum in 1994 and in the following years were ca 55% socialism and ca 52% autonomy, i.e. significant within the Quadrant of Anarchism. Thus, the degree of anarchy is defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(52 %/100))2+(1-(55%/100)) 2]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-0.52)2+(1-0.55) 2]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0.48)2+(0.45)2]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0.2304+0.2025]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0.21645)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-0.465241872] = 100[0.534758127] = ca 53%
Thus, as mentioned, the degree of anarchy for the Norwegian system in 1994/95 was about 53%. This is significant anarchist, however far from the ideal ca 100% anarchy at the top of the EP-map. The form of horizontal organization is ordinary, not perfect, i.e. not completely, but practically without superiors and subordinates. Thus, there are tendencies of economic and political/administrative subordinate and superior positions, i.e. a bureaucratic, authoritarian tendency, however not significant. The authoritarian degree was about 47%.
The coordinates of the Norwegian economical political system anno 2002 were ca 54,7% socialism and ca 53,5% autonomy, i.e. also significant within the Quadrant of Anarchism. Thus, the degree of anarchy is defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([ (1-(53,5/100))2 + (1-(54,7/100))2]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0,465)2+ (0.453)2]/2)1/2 ]% =
DEGREE OF ANARCHY =100[1-([0,216225 + 0.205209]/2)1/2 ]% =
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0,421434]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0,210717)1/2 ]% =
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1 - 0.4590392] = 100[0,540960786] = ca 54 %
The authoritarian degree was 100% - ca 54% = ca 46%
In 2007, after a slight center left shift of the system since 2005, the coordinates were ca 55% socialism and ca 53,2% autonomy. Thus the degree of anarchy is still defined, we use the formula (1), and it is calculated in the following way:
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([ (1-(53,2/100))2 + (1-(55/100))2]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(0,468)2+ (0.45)2]/2)1/2 ]% =
DEGREE OF ANARCHY =100[1-([0,219024 + 0.2025]/2)1/2 ]% =
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([0,421524]/2)1/2]%
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-(0,210762)1/2 ]% =
DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1 - 0.459088226] = 100[0,540911773] = ca 54 %
The authoritarian degree is 100% - ca 54% = ca 46%.
NB! In the above estimations the socialism and autonomy degrees are rounded up and are somewhat imprecise, and thus the estimates of the degree of anarchy are a little over-estimated.
More exact estimates, based on moving average in a dynamic perspective are:
11-27.11.1994 = ca 49,4% (libertarian degree; state) ; 28-29.11.1994 = ca 51% (anarchy degree; anarchy) ; 01.03.1995 = ca 52% ; 01.06.1995 = ca 53% ; 01.10.1995 = ca 53%, a stabilized anarchy of low degree.
Ca 53,6% 01.10.2002 ; ca 53,9 01.10.2007 ; ca 54,1 % 01.12.2010. Thus, from the middle of 1995 to the middle of 2002 ca 53% degree of anarchy and from late in 2002 and until now ca 54%. The average anarchy degree for 1994/95 since the start of the anarchist revolution 28.11.1994 is also ca 53%.
13.02.2024. Det er knyttet stor spenning til IIFOR’s nye analyse av anarkigraden i Norge. Resultatene kommer torsdag 15.02.2024. Blir det økt, uendret, eller nedgang i anarkigraden?
Effektene av klimakrisen neddiskontert, korrupsjon og Folkeranet bl.a. analyseres. IIFOR’s WEB: http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html.
15.02.2024. Anarkigraden har gått ned med om lag et kvart prosentpoeng (ca. 0,25%). Forrige anslag var på ca. 54,45%, og det nye anslaget er således på ca. 54,20%, altså fremdeles ca. 54% avrundet.
Men utviklingen går i feil retning, økt autoritærgrad. Norge må bli mer horisontalt organisert bredt definert, dvs. mer sosialisme og autonomi i vid forstand, for at anarkigraden skal øke.
Estimatene er noe usikre, men angir en sannsynlig tendens. IIFOR. Kilde: AIIS.
*) The absolutist trap. About degrees of anarchism/anarchy and classical anarchists: Some people mean that anarchy must be absolute, 100%, or it is not anarchy at all. This absolutistic approach goes very much against the classical anarchists that write about mixed economical-political systems, and degrees of anarchy/anarchism. This approach is called the absolutist trap, because it exludes anarchies of low degree, holding that the term anarchy should only be used for the anarchist ideal with no coercion and no authoritarian tendencies at all. In fact the classical anarchists mean 100% ideal anarchy/anarchism is quite unrealistic, and thus absolutists are utopian, unrealistic dreamers, and not anarchists. Anarchism is above all a realistic concept. Realistically seen the anarchist ideal, 100% degree of anarchy, can only be seen as a very long term aim, that can be reached only asymptotically as times go by, not today or in the short run.
Thus the classical anarchists are fully in line with the Anarchist International and IIFOR, The International Institute for Organization Research, http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html, that operate with degrees of anarchism, see also "The economical-political map" at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html. It must be mentioned that the quadrant of anarchism on the map stretches itself from the ideal at 100% anarchy degree all the way down to the middle-point of the map, with degree of anarchism at 50% and authoritarian degree at 50%, i.e. anarchies of low degree. The authoritarian tendencies of anarchies of low degree, from 40% to 50% authoritarian degree (and thus 50% to 60% anarchy degree) also include some coercive tendencies, but not significant.
What if a society is 1 % from the anarchist ideal, i.e. 99% degree of anarchy? The absolutist would call it archy/government/state/authoritarian, anarchists however correctly call it anarchy with 1% authoritarian degree, i.e. insignificant. A society with 1% authoritarian degree, has a small tendency towards government, but it has in reality no government. In general societies with just an insignificant tendency towards government, are not governmental/state societies, but anarchies, of different degrees. Quoting Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Bjørneboe on degrees of anarchy/anarchism:
"[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation. [2] ...it is unlikely that all traces of government or authority will disappear... [3] By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune. [4] Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it has taken the contrary principle into account. [5] ...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings. There is surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all programs. [6] ...writers have mistakenly introduced a political assumption as false as it is dangerous, in failing to distinguish practice from theory, the real, from the ideal... every real government is necessarily mixed... [7] ...few people defend the present state of affairs, but the distaste for utopias is no less widespread. [8] The people indeed are not at all utopian... they have no faith in the absolute and they reject every apriori system... [9]" By Pierre Joseph Proudhon: 2. Woodcock, George. P.J. Proudhon , p. 249; 3. Selected Writings p. 105 ; 4. Ibid 92; 5. Ibid 103; 6. The Federal Principle, p. 21; 7. Ibid 21; 8. op cit 56 ; 9. General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century , Freedom, 1927, p. 76. From http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html.
"In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international... From "Anarchism", by Pjotr Kropotkin , The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910. http://www.anarchy.no/kropot2.html.
"Anarchy, in common with socialism (in general) , has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal (i.e. not 100% degree of anarchy, but > 50%) which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody." From "Anarchy" by Errico Malatesta. http://www.anarchy.no/malat1.html. The IIFOR and AI take into account the horizon-principle of Malatesta and thus use the term ca (about) 100% degree of anarchy for the anarchist ideal.
About Jens Bjørneboe on degrees of anarchism/anarchy: "But he reminded that there are degrees of anarchism and anarchy..." http://www.anarchy.no/a_nor.html. "Et samfunn er et sundt samfunn bare i den grad det viser anarkistiske trekk... intet ser ut til å bli fullkommment i denne vår beste av alle verdener. Det vil dreie seg om grader av ufullkommehet, om grader av fullkommenhet. Og heller ikke når det gjelder anarkismen, tror jeg på det fullkomne. Det er helt sikkert at anarkismen i dag bare kan eksistere som et innslag, så å si som adjektiv, - det vil dreie seg om mere eller mindre sterke innslag av anarkisme, om mer eller mindre grader av virkelig demokrati. Jeg tror altså ikke på det absolutte, på ingen måte et "enten-eller", men bare på et både-og, bare på grader." Fra Anarkismen ... idag. Innledning til diskusjon i Studentersamfundet i Oslo, sept, 1971. Published in the essay collection; Jens Bjørneboe "Politi og anarki". PAX forlag ISBN 82-530-0490-7, 1972. Also in "Bjørneboes Anarkisme" NAU 1981. English translation:
A society is a sound society only to the extent it shows anarchist tendencies ... nothing seems to be perfect in this the best of all worlds. It will be degrees of perfection, degrees of imperfection. And also about
anarchism, I don't believe in the perfect. It is quite sure that anarchism today only can exist as a tendency, so to say an adjective, - it will be
more or less strong tendencies of anarchism, about more or less degrees of real democray. I belive thus not in the absolute, in no way on an "either-or",
but only in a both-and, and only in degrees." From "Anarchism... Today". Introduction to debate in the Student society of Oslo, 1971. Published in the essay collection; Jens Bjørneboe "Police and Anarchy". PAX forlag ISBN 82-530-0490-7,1972. Also in "Bjørneboe's Anarchism" NAU (Norwegian Anarchist Elucidations) 1981.
A brief definition of anarchy and anarchism that take into account anarchies of low degree, medium and high degree up to ca 100% degree of anarchism, the anarchist ideal, is the following:
If a system works significantly more from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, than from the top downwards, to the bottom, it is anarchy, from 50% anarchy degree and upwards. That is significantly horizontally organized. Anarchies of low degree, from 50% to 60% anarchy degree, and 40% to 50% authoritarian degree, also have some minor coercion among the authoritarian tendencies.
1. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery".
Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector.
Anarchies are systems with significantly small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, i.e. significantly horizontally organized.
2. Briefly defined State/authority/government in a broad societal meaning is systems with significantly large rank and/or income differences and inefficient, i.e. significantly vertically organized.
(This is opposed to Max Weber's definition. The crucial point is horizontal vs vertical organization, not whether there are one or several law and order agencies in a local area. )
We (AI and IIFOR) are for anarchy and anarchism as defined in 1, and against State/authority/government as defined in 2. And the larger the degree of anarchism - the better.
**) The formula is just a mathematical precisation of the economical-political map at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html. The degree of socialism and the degree of autonomy may be measured in several practical ways. One is just to ask people what they think about the matter for a given country. Another more objective way of practical measuring is the following: The degree of socialism is dependent on income-differences, (say, measured by the gini-index), and efficiency, (say, measured by GDP per capita). The degree of autonomy is dependent on the rank-differences, see http://www.anarchy.no/klasse.html, life expectancy at birth (years) and adult literacy rate, see http://www.anarchy.no/ranking.html. The estimates of the libertarian degree at this file are done via the more objective way/method. More detailed research results for several countries are presented at http://www.anarchy.no/andebate.html .
***) The origins of the Economic-Political Map (EPM) of AI/IIFOR: The historical roots of the EPM are 1. the split of social systems in socialism vs capitalism in the early 1800s; 2. the split in the 1st International, i.e. the IWMA - International Workingmen's Association, between statist (Marx and marxism) and autonomous/libertarian socialism (Bakunin and anarchism) in 1872, and 3. the split in the capitalist camp between liberalism (autonomous capitalism) and statist (fascism including populism) capitalism in the early 1900s. Thus the EPM is based on historical realities, and is more of a simple description of facts regarding social systems than an original invention or research. Thus, nobody can really be credited for the original idea.
Various attempts to describe politics in more than one dimension have been going on since the 1940s. The pioneers were Hans Eysenck and the Frankfurt School, whose work precedes the slightly different maps used today by almost half a century. Ragnar Frisch, a social-individualist anarchist and Nobel Prize winner in economics operates with four alternative types of economic-political systems in The Unenlightened Plutarchy (1961), see http://www.anarchy.no/frisch1.html, and thus makes use of a preliminary version of the economical-political map at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html, but not as exact and with formulas, which is the original work of the researchers of the Anarchist International (IAF/IFA/AI), published first in IJA/FB no 2 1982.
The economical-political map at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html was first published in International Journal of Anarchism/Folkebladet no 2 - 1982. Later it was presented at The international anarchist conference, i.e. gathering, in Venice September 1984, and more precise in Italian: Settembre 1984, incontro internazionale anarchico Venezia '84 e convegno di studi «Tendenze autoritarie e tensioni libertarie nelle società contemporanee», arranged by "Centro Studi Libertari" of Milano. At this conference it was also an interesting discussion between a Norwegian delegate and Murray Bookchin, now recorded in the IIFOR archives.
Later some more of the research results were presented at a similar international conference in Portugal 1987, "TECNOLOGIA E LIBERDADE", published 1988 in a book with the same title, edited by "CIRCULO DE ESTUDOS NENO VASCO" named after the Portuguese anarchist and journalist Gregório Nazianzeno Moreira de Queirós e Vasconcelos, by Editoria Sementeira. See http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html. Some of the updated results are presented at the www.anarchy.no, mainly at http://www.anarchy.no/ranking.html.
At the conference in Portugal, mainly the delegation from Norway and the Italian delegation, decided to work for a more firm international anarchist research organization, known as the FICEDL. IIFOR and NAC joined the FICEDL, as the Northern sections. See http://www.anarchy.no/ficedl.html.
The formula of anarchism as presented above was first published on Internet in 1996, on www.anarchy.no. Preliminary versions of the economical-political map, and formulas and statistics related to this map, have been in use since 1978, see ANORG's Medlemsblad, no 1 and 5 1978.