I believe there is merit in the Anarchism Without Adjectives approach. If people can agree that we should reject political authority and that we should not impose our economic system on those who don't accept it, we would have a much larger tent than we do now. Don't most here believe that economic pluralism will result in anarchy? Yet I don't see a great coalition between anarchic camps.
Surely some, or many, communists would acknowledge a right to emancipation. Surely the gulf between anarcho-capitalists and mutualists is only the result of different expectations of market outcomes.
I see potential for collaboration among anarchists. I expect others here agree.
This kind of covers my thoughts on this:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/21846/387661.aspx
I am not talking about the word anarchy. I am talking about statelessness as the common goal of people who reject rulers.
dude6935: I believe there is merit in the Anarchism Without Adjectives approach. If people can agree that we should reject political authority and that we should not impose our economic system on those who don't accept it, we would have a much larger tent than we do now. Don't most here believe that economic pluralism will result in anarchy? Yet I don't see a great coalition between anarchic camps. Surely some, or many, communists would acknowledge a right to emancipation. Surely the gulf between anarcho-capitalists and mutualists is only the result of different expectations of market outcomes. I see potential for collaboration among anarchists. I expect others here agree.
There's a number of senses anarchism without adjectives could be used- (1)strategic, (2)vision of anarchy, (3)kind of anarchy advocated .I'm not sure which sense your using here.
(1) I believe all anarchists should seek to work together insofar as they truly believe in anarchism and I am more than willing to work with those who have deep concern for social issues in the ways that I do.So yes I definatley favour stronger alliances with all sorts of anarchists.
(2) I accept and am happy to admit that under anarchy there will be a pluralism of different systems like mutualism, communes,co-ops,anarcho-communist settlements,primitivist groups etc.
(3) which I understand to be the conventional use of anarchy without adjectives is sort of indifference to which system is best and seems to be a lets see what happens I'll favour the best then type attitude(I can't agree with this). I could be wrong though.Like I said there's a least 3 possible uses of the term.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
1. I agree, without knowing what issues you refer to. If you oppose political authority (the definition of anarchism, IMO) then we can work together.
2. I agree.
3. I am not saying you can't have an economic preference. All I ask is that you allow people to choose which community and what system they want to live in. If you are a mutualist and want to live in mutualism, that is fine. Just don't force me to live in that system if I want to be capitalist.
Most forms of anarchism are hostile to private property, "anarcho"-capitalists would be better off staying out of such a tent.
^ That is pretty much my point. There is no reason to inherently think one is closer to anything just because it has the label "anarchist" on it. There is no reason to think of it as a term that is somehow inherently more beneficial than things such as green, paleoconservative, conservative, socialist, etc. All that matters is the structures of reality and what can and can not be said about such things.
Most forms of anarchism are hostile to private property,
AnCap is not the only anarchic philosophy that support private property.
Besides, most forms of statism are hostile to private property...
Who cares if people want to be communist? As long as it is voluntary, it doesn't hurt me. I believe we should ally with anyone who is a voluntarist..
Many left-wing anarchists formally declare, and possibly even believe, to be against violence. But in practice support the use of force. To some anarchism merely is a theory that excuses the use of violent activism, a MacGuffin. Look at the kind of anarchists smashing stuff at anti-globalization protests, demanding more cartelizing protection for big business.
Angurse: Most forms of anarchism are hostile to private property, "anarcho"-capitalists would be better off staying out of such a tent.
Depending on how you define property ,this isn't true.
Angurse: AnCap is not the only anarchic philosophy that support private property. Hence "most." It is among the elite though. Besides, most forms of statism are hostile to private property... So? "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..." Who cares if people want to be communist? As long as it is voluntary, it doesn't hurt me. I believe we should ally with anyone who is a voluntarist.. Bad news. Most anarchists don't give a shit about it being voluntary. If they do, "voluntary" means something radically different.
This sounds like typical An-cap hermit strategy.
There is trouble with the 'big tent' approach to 'anarchism'. First of all there is the obvious objection that someone like Bakunin was not an anarchist, he proposed coercive collectives governed by secret conspirators. He intended to replace one tyranny with another.
There is the second that if you believe that private property is the root of all evil and free exchange results in Satanic corruption then it would be hard to reconcile this with a belief in a libertarian society.
As much as it may pain libertarians it may be that understanding and promoting libertarianism does require a fairly advanced and unintuitive understanding of economics and society which may be out of reach for most ordinary people.
AnCap is not the only anarchic philosophy that support private property. Hence "most." It is among the elite though. Then wouldn't it make sense to ally with some rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater? Don't most of us support economic pluralism? Is that not a good place to make friends with other anti-statists? So? "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..." So if we ever want to get things changed, allies make that much easier. Rejecting all but the purest AnCaps will lead to a microscopic tent. As much as it may pain libertarians it may be that understanding and promoting libertarianism does require a fairly advanced and unintuitive understanding of economics and society which may be out of reach for most ordinary people. I don't think that is true. At least I hope not. | Post Points: 35
So? "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."
Then wouldn't it make sense to ally with some rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Don't most of us support economic pluralism? Is that not a good place to make friends with other anti-statists?
So if we ever want to get things changed, allies make that much easier. Rejecting all but the purest AnCaps will lead to a microscopic tent.
I wouldn't call anyone who's willing to murder me for using property an "ally". That's why I'm ancap to begin with.
I wouldn't consider anyone willing to murder me because I tried to feed my family as an ally either
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Some, sure. That some excludes most anarchists though.
What evidence do you have than most anarchists are not voluntarists by our definition?
Thats a strawman first of all. I haven't said "reject all but the purest AnCaps."
I didn't say you did. I was just making a point.
It's funny that you find it acceptable to ally with those who support taxation (a rejection of private property) while attacking anarchists for rejecting private property.
We should reject name Capitalism, because it falls into the same tent as State Capitalism, Mixed Capitalism, Democratic Capitalism, among other things.
I'll take someone who is inconsistently for private property over someone who consistently rejects private property. One just needs to be taught basic logic the other needs an exorcist.
I don't even understand what it means to "ally" with someone in this sense. I mean, how does one go about allying with an anarcho-whateverist? Do you draw posters together or create a political party together or hold hands protesting the G8 together?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
We could organize under the name of Anarchists Without Adjectives (or some other name) to facilitate discussion and activism. We could create facebook groups, forums, and such. We could find areas of agreement and lobby for causes.
For example, you would think that most anarchists would support political localization over centralized control. Even communists are localists. Minarchists are politically localists too, in my experience. That is an area where we can probably find common ground and work together. Working together on such things might smooth over the animosity between anarchist groups.
Lobbying for anarchy? That is pipe dream.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
As opposed to what? Revolution?
Peddling with politicians to eliminate their jobs is kinda of counterintuitive, no?
Maybe secession (not necessarily state breakaway from the union) or small scale dissension? People would migrate to pursue libertarian prospects and if the state can be fended off it would facilitate a voluntary society in flux. This is simple guesswork though.
You are going to need a new name for your discussion group, even the Anarchists Without Adjectives don't accept Capitalists.
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue that their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist movement. After all, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a use of "anarchism without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly agreed at the time that the types of economics that were being discussed were anti-capitalist (i.e. socialistic). For Malatesta, for example, there were "anarchists who foresee and propose other solution, other future forms of social organisation" than communist anarchism, but they "desire, just as we do, to destroy political power and private property." "Let us do away," he argued, "with all exclusivism of schools of thinking" and let us "come to an understanding on ways and means, and go forwards." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 175] In other words, it was agreed that capitalism had to be abolished along with the state and once this was the case free experimentation would develop. Thus the struggle against the state was just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and exploitation and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the abolition of capitalism along with the state they are not anarchists and so "anarchism without adjectives" does not apply to the so-called "anarchist" capitalists (see section F on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist).
To be fair though they did say capitalist societies could exist within their anarchist world.
As far as i can tell, that quote is not from an Anarchists Without Adjectives source. This following quote is.
Our tactics derive from what has been said. We are anarchists and we preach Anarchy without adjectives. Anarchy is an axiom and the economic question something secondary. Some will say to us that it is because of the economic question that Anarchy is a truth; but we believe that to be anarchist means being the enemy of all authority and imposition and, by consequence, whatever system is proposed must be considered the best defense of Anarchy, not wishing to impose it on those who do not accept it.
I am pleased to hear it, but I didn't see that on the site you linked.
... Hence "anarcho-capitalism", the very negation of anarchism, which has always been anti-capitalist. This confusion is also to be seen within the anarchist movement. Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), the father of anarcho-capitalism, an enemy of the State but a supporter of the "free market"... Clearly Rothbard was also against the multinationals, like all liberal radicals: he was against private monopolies that prevent the free operation of the market. But the anti-capitalism of anarchists does not stop with the fight against the multinationals. By no means. Nor in the social-democratic or unionist method of expropriating the capital gains that the bosses snatch from the workers, be it through laws or dictatorships, or even agreements. No. Anarchist anti-capitalism is based on the belief that nobody can sell their labour to create capital gain, for the State or for private industrialists. That is the point. For anarchists, the creation of capital gain by means of work is related to the contribution to the collective wealth of the communist association. That is to say, of the communist society. For that reason, anarchists have never accepted the idea of wage-slaving, be it in a "free" or "planned" market. In other words, anarchism does not accept capitalist profit, be it private or public.
... Hence "anarcho-capitalism", the very negation of anarchism, which has always been anti-capitalist. This confusion is also to be seen within the anarchist movement. Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), the father of anarcho-capitalism, an enemy of the State but a supporter of the "free market"...
Clearly Rothbard was also against the multinationals, like all liberal radicals: he was against private monopolies that prevent the free operation of the market. But the anti-capitalism of anarchists does not stop with the fight against the multinationals. By no means. Nor in the social-democratic or unionist method of expropriating the capital gains that the bosses snatch from the workers, be it through laws or dictatorships, or even agreements. No. Anarchist anti-capitalism is based on the belief that nobody can sell their labour to create capital gain, for the State or for private industrialists. That is the point.
For anarchists, the creation of capital gain by means of work is related to the contribution to the collective wealth of the communist association. That is to say, of the communist society. For that reason, anarchists have never accepted the idea of wage-slaving, be it in a "free" or "planned" market. In other words, anarchism does not accept capitalist profit, be it private or public.
This is not to say that after a revolution "anarcho"-capitalist communities would not exist. Far from it. If a group of people wanted to form such a system then they could, just as we would expect a community which supported state socialism or theocracy to live under that regime. Such enclaves of hierarchy would exist simply because it is unlikely that everyone on the planet, or even in a given geographical area, will become anarchists all at the same time. The key thing to remember is that no such system would be anarchist and, consequently, is not"anarchism without adjectives."
That made me giggle. Plus it brought up the image of "allying and holding hands" with some anarchist girl. Either way, a valid question.
Mainstream anarchists are basically worthless. They don't understand society or the economy, their philosophy is post-modernist nonsense. I'd rather be allied with a NeoCon than these twits.
Mainstream anarchists
That's an interesting term.
it's apt. Chomsky, Bob Black, other assorted know-nothing pseudo-radicals.
Both Bob Black and Noam Chomsky are mainstream anarchists? At least Post-left anarchy is interesting.
Did you read the entire page that quote comes from?
I did. The quote that you posted is from a different person (and a hundred years later) than the quote I posted. I am also not sure the person quoted by you is an 'Anarchist Without Adjectives'. Whereas the person I quoted obviously is.
I have seen no evidence from an AWA source that adherents of AWA reject capitalism.
In fact, I also found this on Wikipedia.
Similarly, in the United States, there was an intense debate at the same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There, Benjamin Tucker was arguing that anarcho-communists were not anarchists while Johann Most was saying similar things about Tucker's ideas. Troubled by the "bitter debates" between anarchists from divergent schools of economic thought, they called for more tolerance among anarchists, with some of them terming this "anarchism without adjectives."
Benjamin Tucker is an individualist anarchist who "rejected all forms of communism". Sounds like they were calling for tolerance of anti-communist anarchists. That sounds like AnCap to me.
Appealing to a long deceased *official* advocate of Anarchism Without Adjectives to convince the current *unofficial* advocates of Anarchism Without Adjectives would require even more work. Would have to say "No, we are the real AWA, not all you guys who oppose capitalism, you are the faux-AWA, because Fernando said so" Secondly, According to Wikipedia had this to say about Fernando Tarrida del Mármol (the official advocate you linked):
Fernando Tarrida del Mármol's original use of the term was a call for tolerance amongst collectivist and communist anarchists, all of whom rejected capitalism.
Rejecting capitalism was simply assumed.
Benjamin Tucker was no capitalist though.
Yes. All non-communist anarchists are market anarchists; though some (Georgists) have incorrect secondary derivations.
Yes, he was, under the definition of Murray Rothbard or Mises.
Tucker opposed plutocracy and state-created industry. He did not oppose capitalism in the sense of Mises, and in fact that was precisely what he advocated. In fact, as Mises thought of unjust land appropriations under the state - that the market would dissolve them and expropriation was not necessary - so Tucker believed of business trusts and cartels created by state intervention.
Calling Tucker an 'anti-capitalist', by libertarian standards, is merely semantic.
Interesting Tucker quote I saved from Wikipedia a few years back (I don't know if it is still on the wikipedia page, and I don't know the context of the quote):
"Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism"