Making Sense of Anarchism

[Chomskyan]

I've been Anarchist or Anarchist-leaning for a very long time, but I've never quite understood the different tendencies and what they all mean. Summarization is in order.

[Hrafn]

Why do you care so much about tendencies? That's not even a real thing outside of this forum, kind of. Also anarchism is, for the most part, notoriously undogmatic. I for one am not defined by my "tendency" - I've cobbled together a set of opinions and thoughts, from the works of many, not by blindly following a sole source.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Kinda what Hrafn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=112424) said. Case in point, I'm both part of a small collective that describes itself "We are Marxists, unapologetically." On the other hand, I'm part of an organization which doesn't so much as mention Marxism in its basis of unity. All concerned are aware of my dual engagement, and nobody objects. All of which is to say that different tendencies tend to be more of a spectrum, or constitute certain leading ideas in certain times/spaces/organizations than they are discrete, easily identifiable tendencies organized around singular organizations or thinkers.

That said, I do think one can point to certain ideas that influence anarchists: platformism/especifismo, insurrectionism (itself divisible into nominally French communist and Italian individualist thought), materialist/autonomist feminism, and so on (one could go on at some length). These ideas tend to be something of a "palette" however, with every anarchist and anarchist group painting its own picture from these (and so many others).

[The Disillusionist]

Although Hrafn is right, to a point, there are some very different approaches to anarchy. I don't time to discuss each one thoroughly, but here's a very rough breakdown. The way I see it, there are two major "sides" to anarchy:

1. Social Anarchy (Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism)
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Anarcho-Collectivism
Anarcho-Mutualism
Post-Left Anarchy (sometimes, though I would say that it leans more toward the individual side)

Social anarchy tends to focus on the needs and purposes of the individual as a part of a group, rather than solely as an individual. Social anarchists, which I suspect make up the majority of anarchists on this website, are strongly influenced by Marxist thought. Social anarchists reject individualist anarchism as being too self-centered and competition focused, which they feel would likely lead a capitalistic system.

Prominent Thinkers
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotkin
Murray Bookchin
Noam Chomsky
Emma Goldman (also a prominent thinker in anarcha-feminism)
Rudolph Rocker
Alexander Berkman
Max Stirner
Bob Black (A Post-Leftist, but it's complicated)
Lucy Parsons

2. Individualist Anarchy
Anarcho-Mutualism (this one is a little difficult to place)
Egoist Anarchism
Agorism
Left-Wing Market Anarchism
Post-Left Anarchy

Individualist anarchy tends to focus on the needs, purposes, actions, and desires of the individual him/herself, rather than on the individual as part of a group. As Illegalist concisely stated, individualist anarchists "believe that revolution, the liberation of the collective of society, starts with and should emphasis the actions of the individual". Individualist anarchists put a high value on independence, and reject social anarchism as being too oppressive by subjecting the individual to the will of the group.

Prominent Thinkers
William Godwin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (he's been claimed by both sides)
Max Stirner
Henry David Thoreau
Renzo Novatore
Voltairine de Cleyre (she started out an individualist, but later moved towards mutualism. I'll put her here, to signify her early theoretical opposition to Goldman. She was another influential anarcha-feminist).
John Zerzan (also an influential anarcho-primitivist)
Renzo Novatore (also an influential illegalist/insurrectionist)
Friedrich Nietzsche
Lysander Spooner

Within the two sides, we have other types of anarchy:

Tendencies/Specialisms Within Anarchy
Green Anarchism/Anarcho-Naturism/Anarcho-Primitivism (Anarcho-Primitivism is closely linked with Post-Leftist anarchy)
Veganarchism
Anarcho-Pacifism
Christian Anarchism (Leo Tolstoy was a big figure in this category)
Black Anarchism
Anarcha-Feminism
Queer Anarchism
Insurrectionist Anarchy
Post-Leftist Anarchy (Yeah, it's kinda all over the place)

Many of these tend to lean to one side or the other, but they don't have to be on either side.

Nutjob Anarchy
Anarcho-nationalism
Post-Leftist Anarchy (it belongs in this category as well, depending on how far it's taken)
Anarcho-Capitalism (American Libertarianism)

These guys are just insane.

Anarchy without Adjectives/Synthesis Anarchy
These approaches try to eliminate the strong divisions among anarchists of different schools, in order to pull them together in solidarity and tolerance in order to make the cause stronger.

Platformism
This approach calls for stronger political "platforms" among anarchist parties, seeking to make anarchism a more legitimate, more publicly accessible political option. This movement is controversial (especially among Post-Leftists) because their call for stronger organization is seen by some as contradictory to the spirit and nature of anarchy.

As you might have noticed, a lot of these schools of thought don't fit perfectly into their categories, there is a lot of overlap and sharing of ideas. But overall, enough said. Do some more research for yourself if you're curious.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's a whole bunch of words that I don't think can be backed up and even if they could, wouldn't apply to life outside of internet activism. Tendencies are not important, take everything that makes sense and ditch anything that doesn't.

[The Disillusionist]

That's a whole bunch of words that I don't think can be backed up and even if they could, wouldn't apply to life outside of internet activism. Tendencies are not important, take everything that makes sense and ditch anything that doesn't.

The vast majority of those approaches fundamentally disagree with each other about the shape that an anarchist society should take and about the way that society should be achieved. This isn't just a bunch of internet clubs, these are schools of thought with diverging foundations that go back 200 years.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Im not saying there aren't differences but the way you're approaching it like they are cut and dry is offbase along with a lot of the people you're listing as significant influences. Which all misses the point anyway because I've never encountered anarchists who self identify like this, the way some marxist cults will. Just talking about this is making me cringe

[Sandy Becker]

Yes. I think it is particularly important to know the history of whatever political tendency or tradition you are thinking of embracing. Anarchism has a long history, with many different flavors that don't always coincide in their views and is represented by a number of different organizations. I don't ascribe to anarchism, which I believe has worthy goals, but is utopian in its views on how to achieve them.

[The Disillusionist]

Im not saying there aren't differences but the way you're approaching it like they are cut and dry is offbase along with a lot of the people you're listing as significant influences. Which all misses the point anyway because I've never encountered anarchists who self identify like this, the way some marxist cults will. Just talking about this is making me cringe

You didn't read my second to last sentence.

And yes, you have a point. I identify as a social anarchist rather than as a specific type of social anarchist, because all of the various schools of social anarchist thought have some validity in my mind. However, identifications can be very useful. They let people know where you're coming from and how their own ideas relate, and so can be very helpful in facilitating discussion and the sharing of ideas.

[The Feral Underclass]

Lol @ insurrectionary anarchism being defined as "lifestyle/specialist"...:lol:

[The Disillusionist]

Lol @ insurrectionary anarchism being defined as "lifestyle/specialist"...:lol:

It doesn't have an ideological framework from which to build an anarchist system, it's just a means of achieving said anarchism through personal behavior (i.e. lifestyle). And it was only charity that kept me from putting it in the "Nutjob" section.

[The Feral Underclass]

It doesn't have an ideological framework from which to build an anarchist system, it's just a means of achieving said anarchism through personal behavior (i.e. lifestyle). And it was only charity that kept me from putting it in the "Nutjob" section.

You think being an insurrectionist is a lifestyle choice? I can accept that it is more of a tendency than a framework for establishing an anarchist system, but I think it is churlish to be as dismissive as your viewpoint implies.

[The Disillusionist]

You think being an insurrectionist is a lifestyle choice? I can accept that it is more of a tendency than a framework for establishing an anarchist system, but I think it is churlish to be as dismissive as your viewpoint implies.

I'm not using the word "lifestyle" in a derogatory sense, I just mean that those forms of anarchism tend to focus more on the actions of the individual rather than on "a framework for establishing an anarchist system," as you say. If you've got a better word, I'd be happy to edit it in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Describing the work and struggle of insurrectionists as a lifestyle choice is, I think, derogatory. Those militants don't pick insurrectionism like they would a hat or a dietary choice. For them it's a struggle of survival between the working class and their enemies, and some of them go to war with earnest, often risking their lives and freedom to do so. It's not a particularly respectful (or accurate) way to describe their politics.

I would describe it as a tendency within anarchism.

[consuming negativity]

Although Hrafn is right, to a point, there are some very different approaches to anarchy. I don't time to discuss each one thoroughly, but here's a very rough breakdown. The way I see it, there are two major "sides" to anarchy:

1. Social Anarchy (Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism)
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Anarcho-Collectivism
Anarcho-Mutualism

Social anarchy tends to focus on the needs and purposes of the individual as a part of a group, rather than solely as an individual. Social anarchists, which I suspect make up the majority of anarchists on this website, are strongly influenced by Marxist thought.

Prominent Thinkers
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotkin
Murray Bookchin
Noam Chomsky

2. Individualist Anarchy (aka, naive teenager anarchy)
Anarcho-Capitalism (American Libertarianism)
Anarcho-Mutualism (this one is a little difficult to place)
Post-Left Anarchy

Individualist anarchists focus solely on the individual, ignoring most sociocultural context. This is the "eat candy all day and never get sick because rules don't apply to me" approach, in my opinion. A lot of these guys are heavily influenced by egoism, and though some of them don't like to admit it, they are heavily influenced by more overtly capitalist thinkers as well.

Prominent Thinkers
William Godwin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (he's been claimed by both sides)
Max Stirner
Henry David Thoreau

Within the two sides, we have other types of anarchy:

Tendencies/Specialisms Within Anarchy
Green Anarchism/Anarcho-Primitivism
Anarcho-Pacifism
Christian Anarchism
Anarcha-Feminism
Queer Anarchism
Insurrectionist Anarchy
Post-Leftist Anarchy (Yeah, it's kinda all over the place)

Many of these tend to lean to one side or the other, but they don't have to be on either side.

Nutjob Anarchy
Anarcho-nationalism
Post-Leftist Anarchy (it belongs in this category as well, depending on how far it's taken)

These guys are just insane.

Anarchy without Adjectives/Synthesis Anarchy
These guys try to mash all anarchists together in order to make the cause stronger. It's a nice idea, but I don't see it ever happening to any real extent.


As you might have noticed, a lot of these schools of thought don't fit perfectly into their categories, there is a lot of overlap and sharing of ideas. But overall, enough said. Do some more research for yourself if you're curious.

anarchy without adjectives is leftist, objectively, and rather than "trying to mash all anarchists together" is up there with anarchist communism in terms of how many people self-describe their views in such a manner.

anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-nationalism, and the other shit you've listed are not actually anarchism and even if they were would not be useful or otherwise fit to be listed alongside real anarchist "tendencies" (since we're using this term).

individualist anarchy is not "teenager anarchy" and you gave an absolutely terrible description of it.

you also left out emma goldman as a thinker which isn't wrong in the sense of being incorrect but is wrong as in there's no fucking way noam chomsky or murray bookchin should be there when she isn't. also, max stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist.

i know you said it is a rough overview but the rough overview has a lot of inaccuracies and frankly i just really was turned off by the idea of including non-leftist anarchy on here and decided to pick at the rest while i was bothering to reply

[The Disillusionist]

anarchy without adjectives is leftist, objectively, and rather than "trying to mash all anarchists together" is up there with anarchist communism in terms of how many people self-describe their views in such a manner.

anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-nationalism, and the other shit you've listed are not actually anarchism and even if they were would not be useful or otherwise fit to be listed alongside real anarchist "tendencies" (since we're using this term).

individualist anarchy is not "teenager anarchy" and you gave an absolutely terrible description of it.

you also left out emma goldman as a thinker which isn't wrong in the sense of being incorrect but is wrong as in there's no fucking way noam chomsky or murray bookchin should be there when she isn't. also, max stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist.

i know you said it is a rough overview but the rough overview has a lot of inaccuracies and frankly i just really was turned off by the idea of including non-leftist anarchy on here and decided to pick at the rest while i was bothering to reply

I got my categories off of wikipedia. I put them in there because they are popularly considered to be associated with anarchism. I don't like anarcho-capitalism either, but it's still considered to be anarchism. I don't have a problem with making fun of those categories, but it wouldn't be fair to leave them out completely.

I wasn't interested in arranging anarchy by what is "leftist"or not. I didn't really have a choice with post-leftism, because of the name, but I believe that the Social/Individual spectrum is a better gauge of anarchist diversity than the Left/Right spectrum.

I did leave out Emma Goldman, which was an oversight. I'll put her in there. Max Stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist himself, but his ideas are important.

I consider individualist anarchism to be complete trash. The naive teenager comment was just an observation of the people who tend to be most drawn to individualist anarchist tendencies, especially to anarcho-capitalism in the American context.

My description wasn't intended to be all-encompassing, I was essentially just trying to give a lot of things for people to search for on wikipedia or whatever.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Although Hrafn is right, to a point, there are some very different approaches to anarchy. I don't time to discuss each one thoroughly, but here's a very rough breakdown. The way I see it, there are two major "sides" to anarchy:

1. Social Anarchy (Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism)
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Anarcho-Collectivism
Anarcho-Mutualism

Social anarchy tends to focus on the needs and purposes of the individual as a part of a group, rather than solely as an individual. Social anarchists, which I suspect make up the majority of anarchists on this website, are strongly influenced by Marxist thought.

Prominent Thinkers
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotkin
Murray Bookchin
Noam Chomsky
Emma Goldman (also a prominent thinker in anarcha-feminism)

2. Individualist Anarchy (aka, naive teenager anarchy)
Anarcho-Capitalism (American Libertarianism)
Anarcho-Mutualism (this one is a little difficult to place)
Post-Left Anarchy

Individualist anarchists focus solely on the individual, ignoring most sociocultural context. This is the "eat candy all day and never get sick because rules don't apply to me" approach, in my opinion. A lot of these guys are heavily influenced by egoism, and though some of them don't like to admit it, they are heavily influenced by more overtly capitalist thinkers as well.

Prominent Thinkers
William Godwin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (he's been claimed by both sides)
Max Stirner
Henry David Thoreau

Within the two sides, we have other types of anarchy:

Tendencies/Specialisms Within Anarchy
Green Anarchism/Anarcho-Primitivism
Anarcho-Pacifism
Christian Anarchism
Anarcha-Feminism
Queer Anarchism
Insurrectionist Anarchy
Post-Leftist Anarchy (Yeah, it's kinda all over the place)

Many of these tend to lean to one side or the other, but they don't have to be on either side.

Nutjob Anarchy
Anarcho-nationalism
Post-Leftist Anarchy (it belongs in this category as well, depending on how far it's taken)

These guys are just insane.

Note: Communer kind of beat me to making some of the points I make in the following reply, but I´m gonna post it as intended anyway.


First of all considering Bookchin and Chomsky more notable than Emma Goldman, Rudolph Rocker, Voltairine de Cleyre, Alexander Berkman, John Zerzan and Renzo Novatore (there is not one womanhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#) you mention as prominent, btw) is just ridiculous. I guess women who engaged in actual struggles and left permanent mark on anarchist theory are not as important as self- important academic male celebs.
Second, that pretentious megalomaniac Murray Bookchin is by no means an anarchist, he even admitted so himself in the end.
Your contempt for post- left anarchy is blatantly obvious of course. I´m not gonna make a lot of effort here to defend it´s merits. Suffice to say it is not really a unified tendency (as you indicate yourself) and covers stuff from primitivism to ideas which deserve the label of Social anarchism just as much as the tendencies you lump together into that category.
What unites post- left anarchy is they are critical of the relationship of anarchism to the traditional and authoritarian left. Something I would actually consider quite necessary and healthy, even though it does not lead to desirable conclusions in all cases.
As a wiser man wrote:
"Anarchists are having an identity crisis. Are they still, or are they only, the left wing of the left wing? Or are they something more or even something else? Anarchists have always done much more for the rest of the left than the rest of the left has ever done for them. Any anarchist debt to the left has long since been paid in full, and then some. Now, finally, the anarchists are free to be themselves."

[Illegalitarian]

Describing insurrection as lifestylist is wrong and I think that entire list is tainted by Lantz's priors and his reformist pacifist worldview.

People have described the problems with it already, but I'll also add that primitivism should be under post-left anarchism, and Stirner should be under left-anarchism too, as he is also claimed by both sides.

[Sinister Intents]

Describing insurrection as lifestylist is wrong and I think that entire list is tainted by Lantz's priors and his reformist pacifist worldview.

Weren't you a pacifist?

[Illegalitarian]

I had it as my tendency for a while for fun, since people take tendency way too seriously.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think Lantz's post was an attempt to be helpful and it's a good starting point, but there are definitely some flaws with it. Not least of all the one Old Rope points out -- the female contributors to anarchism have been awkwardly omitted. I don't think Lantz was doing anything malicious though.

[The Disillusionist]

I think Lantz's post was an attempt to be helpful and it's a good starting point, but there are definitely some flaws with it. Not least of all the one Old Rope points out -- the female contributors to anarchism have been awkwardly omitted. I don't think Lantz was doing anything malicious though.

Keep making criticisms people (seriously, no sarcasm), I'll use them to improve the original post.

No, I wasn't trying to omit women. I was using wikipedia articles to refresh my memory, and Emma Goldman simply wasn't mentioned where I looked. But I will admit, it was a dumb omission, because "Anarchism and other Essays" is one of the cornerstone documents of modern anarchism, in my opinion. The problem has been fixed. However, just for the sake of humor, I should note that Goldman was every bit the "self-important celeb" that her male counterparts were.

I don't want to flood the post with names though, so I don't see a need to add EVERY single influential anarchist. Edit: Changed my mind, people are easier to search for than ideas, so any more influential people you've got to add to the list, let me know.

Oh, and Bookchin was an anarchist. He simply left "anarchism" as a label in order to found his own version of anarchism which he saw as being better. I put Bookchin on the list because he was influential, whether you agree with him or not. I think Bookchin had some good ideas, but he had some bad ideas as well, like all thinkers. I sincerely hope that no one here is an apostle of Bob Black though...

Finally, I agree that Post-leftism has made some good criticisms of leftist anarchy, but the movement really only has any value as a critique, it has no real foundation otherwise. It's something for leftists to keep in mind, but abandoning leftist anarchy entirely for something so weak makes no sense to me.

Illegalist, everyone has priors and biases. You only disagree with me because of your priors and biases concerning illegalism.

I didn't put Stirner under left-anarchism because I didn't create a left-anarchist category. It would be way too broad, and not helpful in the least.

Also, anarcho-primitivism is not completely synonymous with post-leftism. Thoreau was writing in an anarcho-primitivist vein long before the post-leftists came along.

[Illegalitarian]

I disagree with you because clearly your decision to almost put insurrection in "nut job" is neither supported by the majority of people here, helpful or correct and was influenced by your pacifism. You didn't do this though so it's a non issue.

Yeah but the ideas of primitivism don't exist in a vacuum. As a movement it was largely written about and came to "prominence" in the late 90's/early new millennium, and was very much post-left.

"left-anarchy" isn't any more vague or broad as Libertarian Socialism, it's just describing the anarchist tendencies that are laden with socialism (most of them).

Stirner was claimed by a lot of leftists and leftist movements (the Glasgow syndi's of the 40's based their organization off of his "Union of Egoists"), he should be thrown in that category.

He's also claimed by the post-leftists.... yeah, everyone claims him. He was kind of a crazy fucking guy.


I think Post-Left anarchism is too broad, however. I've always hated the term, a great many post-left anarchists are still communists but reject the idea that revolution will be class-oriented, and believe the Marxian concept of the worker's revolution needs to be challenged and evaluated... but "post-Marxist anarchist" makes even less sense somehow. I think this is where the term "Anarchist without adjectives" is actually useful.

Bob Black is a good example here (even if he is a snitch), you should add him to Social Anarchy probably

I would also change your description of individualist anarchism. I think it's safe to say you won't be alienating many people here with that description, but not every individualist is a self-absorbed Randoid, they just believe that revolution, the liberation of the collective of society, starts with and should emphasis the actions of the individual.



I think you're doing a good job, though. Other than that I have no issues with this

[Chomskyan]

Wow. I didn't expect such a reaction. Anyway, the list that Lantz provides seems good. I just laughed when I noticed Anarcho-capitalism wasn't under "Nutjob" tendencies. But I suppose we all make mistakes.

[Counterculturalist]

Just a few random thoughts...

Lucy Parsons really oughta be on one of these lists. A very underrated but important figure in the history of anarchism, and also something of a personal hero.

Despite the label, most, if not all "post-left" anarchists are still pretty much leftist in their philosophy, from what I've seen.

Bob Black may be a jackass, but his writing is very good, and The Abolition of Work is especially a must-read.

Do you guys consider Debord and the Situationists to be anarchists? I think they were.

Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists in any sense of the term, and listing them as a "tendency" of anarchism is misleading.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Debord was a marxist, he critiques anarchists in society of the spectacle, I don't know about the other situationists.

[The Disillusionist]

Alright, Stirner and Black have both been added to the Social Anarchy list, though I'm not a fan of either of them.

I still can't, in good conscience, put anarcho-primitivism under post-leftism, but I'll make a note.

I hadn't thought about left-anarchy in that way.... although I don't know what else I would have thought...

Post-Left anarchy has been added to Social Anarchy, with a note.

I also modified the descriptions of social and individual anarchy, and removed the somewhat tongue-in-cheek insults towards individualist anarchy.

Does everyone agree with Bob Black being put under the Social Anarchy list? I almost think he belongs in the individualist section, but I'll let you decide.

I also added Nietzsche and Spooner to the individualist list, as well as Egoist Anarchism, Left-wing Market Anarchism, and Agorism. I added veganarchism and Black Anarchism under the tendencies section. Finally, I added Lucy Parsons to the social anarchy list.

I'm not sure what to do with "Existentialist Anarchism" because I don't know whether or not to put it in the individualist or tendency section, and I don't know if it's really significant enough to add at all.

Edit: I also modified the description for anarchism without adjectives/synthesis anarchy, and added a short section on platformism.

[Lord Testicles]

Does everyone agree with Bob Black being put under the Social Anarchy list? I almost think he belongs in the individualist section, but I'll let you decide.

You should make a "drag outside and kneecap" list just for him. Associating Bob Black with anarchism feels dirty.

EDIT: Thinking about it, why would Bob Black even be on a list titled "prominent thinkers" when he is nothing of the sort?

[consuming negativity]

Anarchy without Adjectives/Synthesis Anarchy
These approaches try to eliminate the strong divisions among anarchists of different schools, in order to pull them together in solidarity and tolerance in order to make the cause stronger.

well it's not just a "hey guys let's all be friends even though we disagree" type of deal - we reject the idea that there is any fundamental difference between collectivist and individualist anarchism "in terms of moral motivations or ultimate goals" (malatesta), and see them more as two sides to the same coin rather than tendencies distinct from one another. yeah, obviously, what you say is true in regard to tactics, solidarity, etc. but i feel the need to point out that it's more than just trying to make a big tent for anarchism but about bridging a gap between the two that is in reality based on differences that don't exist. not that i expect this to be included, but further evidence to support the idea can be found in the fact that many anarchists, such as goldman, malatesta, de cleyre, voline, kropotkin, et al. frequently "tendency-swapped" between more "collective" and "individualist" "tendencies" throughout their life and all from a variety of backgrounds advocated anarchy sans adjectives.

i feel a bit bad giving yet another critique because i haven't spent time praising the good, and it is shaping up to really be quite good, in addition to the fact that you sorta got bombarded itt, but yeah

[Illegalitarian]

You should make a "drag outside and kneecap" list just for him. Associating Bob Black with anarchism feels dirty.

EDIT: Thinking about it, why would Bob Black even be on a list titled "prominent thinkers" when he is nothing of the sort?

Just because he is a shitty person doesn't mean his writing isn't good. The Abolition of Work is one of my favorite essays of all time.

Technically there is no anarchist or communist thinkers outside of Marx who are prominent at all outside of far-left circles, so I don't think this point holds up.


Anarchist Without Adjectives is no different from any other social theory or ideology, it can't be understood outside of its historical context.

During the 20's and 30's in the US and Western Europe there was quite the split between the old Bakuninist collectvist anarchists, the anarchist communists and those anarchist communists who rejected anti-organization and favored the use of radical trade unionism.

A-W-A was only used by people like Malatesta and Celyre to try and get anarchists to set their differences aside and recognize that the most important thing was that all of these groups were falling to in-fighting for no reason and ignoring their most important similarities, being against all illegitimate authority and capitalism.

Of course now the Bakuninite collectivists are out of the picture and Syndicalists and Ancoms buried the hatchet long ago for the most part, so the term is ultimately useless, unless you're a synthesist who believes we can find some sort of "middle ground" between capitalism and communism to unite all "anti-statists", which is of course wacko.

[Chomskyan]

Just for the sake of it, I'd recommend adding Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick to Anarcho-capitalism.

[Lord Testicles]

Just because he is a shitty person doesn't mean his writing isn't good. The Abolition of Work is one of my favorite essays of all time.

Just because he can write the odd acceptable essay doesn't mean he's a prominent thinker.

[not a real person]

any one who has anarcho-capitalism on a list of types of anarchism hasn't done their homework. anarchism is a a movement on the left (far-left, ultra-left, post-left, whatever). anarcho-capitalism is firmly on the right. anarcho-capitalism doesn't care about freedom, except in the limited sense of freedom to accumulate as much shit as possible (and the always existing in capitalism, freedom to starve). individualist anarchism is on the left, and is a type of anarchism though. because there is no freedom to accumulate beyond what can be used.
sure individualist anarchism is not communist. some people might talk about markets, or about trading. but the thing is, that these are not the type of for-profit trading and markets you might be used to. these are more along the lines of exchanging labour. cost being the limit of price, there is no profit. without profit, and without capital accumulation, there is no capitalism. thus, anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism.

i would say, individualist anarchism sits firmly in the socialist camp. why? because all socialists want the worker to get the full value of their labour. and for individualist anarchists, this is a key point.

personally i am more an anarchist without adjectives, we can't predict the best system that maximises freedom and equality in the future. we shouldn't fight over blueprints for our children, and their children. instead, we should fight together to bring about a world where they can have the freedom to decide how they want to live.

[Illegalitarian]

Just because he can write the odd acceptable essay doesn't mean he's a prominent thinker.

Right but aside from Marx you could say this about pretty much anyone on the far-left.

[consuming negativity]

Anarchist Without Adjectives is no different from any other social theory or ideology, it can't be understood outside of its historical context.

During the 20's and 30's in the US and Western Europe there was quite the split between the old Bakuninist collectvist anarchists, the anarchist communists and those anarchist communists who rejected anti-organization and favored the use of radical trade unionism.

A-W-A was only used by people like Malatesta and Celyre to try and get anarchists to set their differences aside and recognize that the most important thing was that all of these groups were falling to in-fighting for no reason and ignoring their most important similarities, being against all illegitimate authority and capitalism.

Of course now the Bakuninite collectivists are out of the picture and Syndicalists and Ancoms buried the hatchet long ago for the most part, so the term is ultimately useless, unless you're a synthesist who believes we can find some sort of "middle ground" between capitalism and communism to unite all "anti-statists", which is of course wacko.

ehhh, yeah, but you left out the individualists/mutualists/etc. there are people on these forums right now who argue that stirner had nothing to do with anarchism and that individualist anarchism is as ridiculous and contrived as anarcho-capitalism. and look at lantz' post which is a massive list of different tendencies within anarchism that is separated by whether or not they are "individualist" or "collectivist". how can you say that the idea of anarchy without adjectives is irrelevant given this is how people see anarchism? malatesta was right - the difference is not between individualist and collectivist anarchists, the difference is between anarchists and non-anarchists. and fucking anarcho-capitalists and those shitheads are not anarchists.

[Illegalitarian]

Mutualists are an extremely irrelevant and small minority even among anarchists, they're no longer a historical force and lost out to the Collectivists a long time ago in the movement.

Aside from Stirner, individualist anarchism really is as ridiculous and contrived as anarcho-capitalism, and even his writing was pretty fucking out there.

Malatesta was talking more about the fallacious tendency among anarchists to try and separate the individual from the collective in the context of political force, rather than pointing to any school of anarchism specifically.

[consuming negativity]

Mutualists are an extremely irrelevant and small minority even among anarchists, they're no longer a historical force and lost out to the Collectivists a long time ago in the movement.

Aside from Stirner, individualist anarchism really is as ridiculous and contrived as anarcho-capitalism, and even his writing was pretty fucking out there.

Malatesta was talking more about the fallacious tendency among anarchists to try and separate the individual from the collective in the context of political force, rather than pointing to any school of anarchism specifically.

>mutualists are irrelevant

the only one i ever met is the one who told jaki to get hit by a bus so i'm going to take your word for this and be thankful

but who am i not reading who is more "out-there" than stirner is? when i'm talking about individualist anarchism i'm talking about the illegalists and people like oscar wilde and voltairine de cleyre who were socialists. and, of course, stirner, although he wasn't really an anarchist so much as the best napkin drawing of all time

[Illegalitarian]

I see illegalism and insurrectionism more as transtendency strategies of direct action and living more than tendencies in and of themselves.

I didn't even know Wilde was a leftist, embarrassingly enough. Though I've never really studied anything about him at all, aside from seeing a few choice quotes over the years.


Stirner is about as out there as it gets, but his individualistic anarchism was never relevant at all among anyone or any major organizations or movements, outside of his great influences upon Marx, which arguably pushed Marx from the fiery writings of his early days into his more serious, scientific writings his work became characterize by.

Ironically enough Stirner had a bigger influence on the the duo of M&E than anyone else aside from maybe Hegel, despite his egoism never quite catching on as a historical force among anarchists of any stripe.

[TC]

Why do political loyalties, positions, and activities need to be channelled through the limited confines of 'tendencies'?


It feels a bit like every new self-styled "revolutionary" needs a history lesson so they know which people to hate.

[Invictus_88]

I've been Anarchist or Anarchist-leaning for a very long time, but I've never quite understood the different tendencies and what they all mean. Summarization is in order.

Right, tendency qua tendency is - as others say - not important, though tendency is important in insomuch as it indicates the origin of one's anarchism, and that IS important.

Individualist anarchists, eco-anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists all stand by their anarchism because of entirely different principles, theories and priorities, and therefore will necessarily have different goals, methods, and outlooks.

[Comrade #138672]

I am not a fan of anarchism, but I know some anarchists I deeply respect. They are, at least, much more consistent than non-revolutionary leftists, even if they attack Marxists from time to time.

I am, of course, talking about real anarchism, not garbage like market socialism or anarcho-capitalism.