Herbert L. Osgood claimed that anarchism is "the extreme antithesis" of authoritarian communism and state socialism. Peter Marshall states that "general anarchism is closer to socialism than liberalism. [... Anarchism finds itself largely in the socialist camp, but it also has outriders in liberalism. It cannot be reduced to socialism, and is best seen as a separate and distinctive doctrine." According to Jeremy Jennings, "is hard not to conclude that these ideas", referring to anarcho-capitalism, "are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is." Jennings adds that "anarchism does not stand for the untrammelled freedom of the individual (as the 'anarcho-capitalists' appear to believe) but, as we have already seen, for the extension of individuality and community." Nicolas Walter wrote that "anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both historically and ideologically. [... In a sense, anarchists always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject what is good in either they betray anarchism itself. [...] We are liberals but more so, and socialists but more so." Michael Newman includes anarchism as one of many socialist traditions, especially the more socialist-aligned tradition following Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin. Brian Morriss argues that it is "conceptually and historically misleading" to "create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism."