"Adjective Free Anarchism"

[apathy maybe]

'Cause I only just noticed this I am going to complain. I like that someone likes me (it wasn't me, I voted for Blackberry), I like that my fav band came up (Custard), but I don't like that my ideology seems to have been dropped (Adjective Free Anarchism). Oh well shit happens.


EDIT: For those who don't know, this was split here from a thread in Shit Chat regarding the Survey. The discussion really starts getting going at the following post, so I suggest you skip straight to it.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292250301 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61805#entry1292250301)

Basically, I am an adjective free anarchist, I promote anarchism rather then a specific variant. I believe that all types of anarchism are equally valid and wish for a free society.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 04:31 pm
'Cause I only just noticed this I am going to complain. I like that someone likes me (it wasn't me, I voted for Blackberry), I like that my fav band came up (Custard), but I don't like that my ideology seems to have been dropped (Adjective Free Anarchism). Oh well shit happens.
I classified it as "anarchism", because anarchism without an adjective in front of it is adjective free anarchism.

[apathy maybe]

Fine. Though the reason that I say adjective free anarchism rather then simply anarchism, is to make the point that I don't subscribe to any adjectives (like communist or individualist) that could be placed in front of anarchism. That is to say, I am not one of these, I am simply an anarchist.

(Blackberry left it in there ... :))

[bezdomni]

I am simply an anarchist.

Which is why I classified you as "anarchist", just like all of the other anarchists on the forum. ;)

Has it occured to you that "adjective free" is itself an adjective?

[apathy maybe]

Of course I have. It is deliberately ironic. I could have labelled myself an anarchist without adjectives, but (besides that I hadn't heard of it at the time) it wouldn't have been as ironic.

Anyway, adjective free anarchism (and anarchism without adjectives) has a clear and distinct tradition and theory behind it. It is more then just anarchism, thus I still think it should of been included. So there.


:P

[The Grey Blur]

You know you just managed to discredit 100+ years of bloody anarchist class struggle through your last three posts apathy_maybe

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 26, 2007 12:12 am
You know you just managed to discredit 100+ years of bloody anarchist class struggle through your last three posts apathy_maybe
Good for you mate. But sometimes, you know, I just don't know why you bother.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 25, 2007 11:54 pm
Of course I have. It is deliberately ironic. I could have labelled myself an anarchist without adjectives, but (besides that I hadn't heard of it at the time) it wouldn't have been as ironic.

Anyway, adjective free anarchism (and anarchism without adjectives) has a clear and distinct tradition and theory behind it. It is more then just anarchism, thus I still think it should of been included. So there.


:P
Wait... adjective free anarchism (which would simply make "anarchism") is... more than just "anarchism" according to you?

:wacko:

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Psykosis+January 26, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Psykosis @ January 26, 2007 12:27 pm)
apathy [email protected] 25, 2007 11:54 pm
Of course I have. It is deliberately ironic. I could have labelled myself an anarchist without adjectives, but (besides that I hadn't heard of it at the time) it wouldn't have been as ironic.

Anyway, adjective free anarchism (and anarchism without adjectives) has a clear and distinct tradition and theory behind it. It is more then just anarchism, thus I still think it should of been included. So there.


:P
Wait... adjective free anarchism (which would simply make "anarchism") is... more than just "anarchism" according to you?

:wacko: [/b]
Yes. The reasoning is simple. To many people anarchism is simply communism (and/or collectivism) (TAT is an example of this I think). However, I am not a communist (or a collectivist).

I embrace all a number of different types of anarchism as being anarchistic and recognize them all as having traditions that can add to the general debate and to a final anarchistic society.

The original anarchism without adjectives was to show that communism and collectivism were compatible. I want to go on to show that individualist anarchism as an end result is also compatible, as well as pacifism, lifestylism being equally "valid" methods of achieving anarchism.

I see nothing wrong with any of the above, though I admit that I find "class war" a more likely option of achieving anarchism then either pacifism or lifestylism on its own.

While calling one self an "anarchist" is a simple statement of support for anarchistic ideals, I call my self an "adjective free anarchist" to not only show support for anarchistic ideals and a desire for anarchy, but also a non-dogmatic approach to what anarchism is, and to show support for all types of anarchism as being equally valid and compatible. Understand now?

(What makes an anarchist ... anarchist which you can find http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25915 is a good little introduction to what anarchism might be.)


(And if someone wants to split this discussion into a thread in theory, that would be grand. More people are likely to see it there, and hopefully contribute to what has become a theoretical discussion.)

[bezdomni]

Split.

[YSR]

Huh.

I like the whole "adjective free" thing in practice, but not in theory. That is to say, I am an anarchist communist but hang out with, work with, and am sympathetic and accepting of non-communist anarchisms. I disagree with them, but choose not to let my theoretical differences affect my interactions with them.

And for the record, wasn't the first "without adjectives" statement maybe by de Claire, trying to combine communist and individualist theories? That was always my impression of the term.

[coda]

Anarchism is a Verb.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:24 am
Anarchism is a Verb.
Only in your dictionary. In everyone else's, it is a noun. I can't think of a verb related to an+arch

[coda]

it's a verb-- it denotes a/ movement and action. oh yes, it's a Verb.

[bcbm]

I anarchism to the store.
I anarchism a ball.
I anarchism all night long with your sister.



Hmm.. nope, not a verb.

[coda]

sure it is! You need to think beyond those rigid confines. Everything about anarchy and anarchism is Action. therefore, it's a Verb!!!! An action word. Anarchism could never be a boring noun.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:54 am
sure it is! You need to think beyond those rigid confines. Everything about anarchy and anarchism is Action. therefore, it's a Verb!!!! An action word. Anarchism could never be a boring noun.
Right...




Anyway, can anyone explain how adjective free anarchism would work in practice?

[coda]

revolution is a verb too despite what the dict. says

Anarchism without adjectives meaning was coined during the Spanish revolution.

here's a short essay on how Voltairine used it, in the same manner.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archi...eyre/ts205.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bright/cleyre/ts205.html)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It's an interesting essay. But my question is, how would things be run in an adjective free anarchist society?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by RedStar1916
Anyway, can anyone explain how adjective free anarchism would work in practice?In my opinion you would see areas of communism, areas of collectivism, areas of individual traders or farmers. They would trade and interact as they wanted or needed. Being a free society, people would be free to try what they want.

From the article linked by Indigo, De Cleyre saw that "there is nothing unanarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to."

Free experimentation should be the one rule of a free society, allowing people to try what they want, and to move on if it suits them. "We cannot foresee the economic development of the future".

[apathy maybe]

To me, adjective free anarchism is the acceptance of all types of anarchism. Anarchism being that super-set of ideologies that 'desire' a free society. A society without hierarchy, oppression and by extension capitalism or state.

Anarchism is more then that though, it is a desire for a free society, for a society where people are free to express themselves and to liberate themselves. To create themselves. It is not a society of conformity, but one of celebrated difference.


I am an adjective free anarchist both in how what I think the end society should be (communist, collectivist, individualist, mutualist or whatever), and in how to get there.

We don't have an example of a long lasting anarchist society to guide us to show us how to get there. So I say that we should not reject, lifestylism, pacifism or class war. Lifestylism is about the individual trying to live their own life in conformance with their beliefs, class war about over throwing using the overwhelming force of the majority of the society the current power structures. Both are equally valid to my mind.

[rebelworker]

accept "lifestylism" isnt a revolutionary tradition, it is a serries of moral and cultural norms used by people living in advanced industrial societies to get through there day to day life nd still feel good about themselves.

It is not a social movement or strategy for revolutionary transformation of society.

I dont really have a big problem with it, but it is not "anarchism" and it is not "revolutionary".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:43 pm
I dont really have a big problem with it, but it is not "anarchism" and it is not "revolutionary".
Amen, comrade!

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:54 am
sure it is! You need to think beyond those rigid confines. Everything about anarchy and anarchism is Action. therefore, it's a Verb!!!! An action word. Anarchism could never be a boring noun.
So, should we discuss "adverb free anarchism" instead?

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

To explain what I mean by anarchism, I need to present what I mean by socialism. I've written about it numerous times, so I'll just be quick. Socialism is about equality and freedom. It is about the people having control over their own production, what they produce and what happens after it is produced. (This is the 'broad' definition approx.)


That said, I think anarchism is a sub-set of broader socialist ideals, but is it self a super-set of ideologies. There are a variety of types of anarchism, but they all share essential characteristics that separate them from other sorts of socialism. I see all the types of anarchism as being mutually compatible (adjective free anarchism), though some types to be less desirable then others.


So what makes up anarchism? We will start with the obvious feature shared by all, the rejection of hierarchy. All anarchists reject hierarchy with in human society, that's it, no questions asked. If you support any sort of social hierarchy, you can't be an anarchist.

Anarchists desire the abolition (or at least the spreading of equally between all) of power. Power is a contested term, but if I can make you do something that you wouldn't otherwise do, then I have power over you.

From these we can move onto other features: volunteerism, you shouldn't force me to do something, including being part of society; due process, there aren't any lynch mobs around here; equal voice, all those affected by a decision, have a say in that decision. And so on.


From these it is obvious that, capitalism is not anarchistic, the church is not, the state is not and many other structures in the present society.


So what form of society would an anarchist society take? There have been a number of ideas put forward? Communistic, all property shared in common and everyone working together, and individualistic, property on a use basis (if you don't know what this means, do a quick search of my posts on RevLeft), are two forms that seem most at odds. It is my contention (as I mentioned above) that following the principles of anarchism that these are both actually compatible.

If you have a communist area, they cannot (and stay anarchistic) force anyone to join them. They cannot forceably remove what has been produced, nor take over land that is being used. Equally, individualists cannot (and stay anarchistic) split up a commune.


So how do we get there? Different arguments have been put forward about how pacifism is the only true anarchism or that class war is the only anarchistic method and so on. However, as with what form the final society will take, I believe so long as the methods tried fit the "principles of anarchy", as I have sorta outlined above, then they are all valid and anarchistic.

Anyone who claims that their variant of anarchism is the only true one is obviously being dogmatic and should be ignored.


For more on possible principles of anarchism, see Blackberry's "What makes an anarchist ... anarchist" (which I have linked to a number of times before), http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28053. Also read through An Anarchist FAQ, which presents a fair and balanced look different types of anarchism (though not that I can see, "religious" anarchism).

[RGacky3]

I would just call myself an Anarchist, but because theres a lot of confusion about the word I usually go by Anarcho-Communist or Socialist Anarchist, or whatever. I don't follow any specific ideology though.

[Hiero]

To explain what I mean by anarchism, I need to present what I mean by socialism. I've written about it numerous times, so I'll just be quick. Socialism is about equality and freedom. It is about the people having control over their own production, what they produce and what happens after it is produced. (This is the 'broad' definition approx.)


That said, I think anarchism is a sub-set of broader socialist ideals, but is it self a super-set of ideologies. There are a variety of types of anarchism, but they all share essential characteristics that separate them from other sorts of socialism. I see all the types of anarchism as being mutually compatible (adjective free anarchism), though some types to be less desirable then others.


So what makes up anarchism? We will start with the obvious feature shared by all, the rejection of hierarchy. All anarchists reject hierarchy with in human society, that's it, no questions asked. If you support any sort of social hierarchy, you can't be an anarchist.

Anarchists desire the abolition (or at least the spreading of equally between all) of power. Power is a contested term, but if I can make you do something that you wouldn't otherwise do, then I have power over you.

From these we can move onto other features: volunteerism, you shouldn't force me to do something, including being part of society; due process, there aren't any lynch mobs around here; equal voice, all those affected by a decision, have a say in that decision. And so on.


From these it is obvious that, capitalism is not anarchistic, the church is not, the state is not and many other structures in the present society.


So what form of society would an anarchist society take? There have been a number of ideas put forward? Communistic, all property shared in common and everyone working together, and individualistic, property on a use basis (if you don't know what this means, do a quick search of my posts on RevLeft), are two forms that seem most at odds. It is my contention (as I mentioned above) that following the principles of anarchism that these are both actually compatible.

If you have a communist area, they cannot (and stay anarchistic) force anyone to join them. They cannot forceably remove what has been produced, nor take over land that is being used. Equally, individualists cannot (and stay anarchistic) split up a commune.


So how do we get there? Different arguments have been put forward about how pacifism is the only true anarchism or that class war is the only anarchistic method and so on. However, as with what form the final society will take, I believe so long as the methods tried fit the "principles of anarchy", as I have sorta outlined above, then they are all valid and anarchistic.

Anyone who claims that their variant of anarchism is the only true one is obviously being dogmatic and should be ignored.


And I want to live in a cloud city.

[RGacky3]

And I want to live in a cloud city.

What the hell?