Talk:Anarchism without adjectives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Thanks a lot for this page, man, I've been wanting to see this. I should be able to do some work on it and add some stuff. --Tothebarricades July 1, 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Great! Kev 1 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism and "national anarchism"[edit]

What no mention of these? I notice that in older variations of this page they were mentioned. Do people think that they should be excluded from adjective free anarchism? --AFA 05:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither existed when "anarchism without adjectives" was first used. It is doubtful that Malatesta would have included either of them in the anarchist camp, for example. BlackFlag 09:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should be more enlightened than he. When anarcho-capitalists say "capitalism", they mean a free market without government controls. That is how WE define capitalism, and since all anarchists eschew government, there should be no objection to us. And there are many more of us when you think. Ron Paul made anarcho-capitalists by the score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.85.247 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Voltairine de Cleyre and anarcho-capitalism[edit]

She wasn't around (she died in 1912 I believe) when anarcho-capitalism came into existence. Therefore, using her in an argument about anarcho-capitalism can not really be justified.


See also the previous section. AFA http://www.revleft.com 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not using her in an argument about anarcho-capitalism. It's simply an opinion of the editors of the book of her essays that her philosophy "strikes a contemporary note" because still today people are trying to write each other's forms of anarchism out of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, and I would be happy to leave it in there, on the condition that
(whether "anarcho-capitalist" or "anarcho-communist" or "green")
is not. The reason is that it starts a debate about anarcho-capitalism on this page, when it isn't really relevant. Do you know what I mean? AFA http://www.revleft.com 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The opinion of those people is that it IS relevant. If anything anarcho-capitalism is a prime example since social anarchists claim that it's not anarchism. I mean how are you going to say that their opinion is that "factionalism rages on" without giving some kind of example of what they're talking about? Anarcho-capitalism 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that we're arguing about this is living proof that factionalism rages on in regard to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If she were alive today, she would be saying the same thing which is that "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of [these systems] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to." Anarcho-capitalism 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I can't actually see any reason for that paragraph to be in there at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. Voltairine de Cleyre would not support "anarcho-capitalism" as a type of anarchism, that should be obvious from reading the Wikipage on her. Having that paragraph implies that she would support it as a type of anarchism. Having that paragraph is misleading. I think a better thing to today would be to create a section "Today", where you can place information like that. The paragraph under dispute does not belong in "History". In that section ("Today") you could talk about how the poor anarcho-capitalists are getting a bad deal from everyone else, how their groups (do they exist?) aren't invited to anti-globalisation protests and so on. That said, I'm deleting that paragraph again, and I request that if you wish to put that quote back in, do it in a *new* section.AFA http://www.revleft.com 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, per your edit on the Anarchism in the United States talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnarchism_in_the_United_States&diff=117104568&oldid=117102576) anarchism without adjectives is also about living with others. If you admit that an "anarcho-capitalist" society can not co-exist with (you had mutualist, but almost any other sort, including individualist and communist, would apply), then I think that it shouldn't be included on this page. Thoughts AFA http://www.revleft.com 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to push my POV in articles. I don't think anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, and mutualism can coexist. I disagree with "anarchism without adjectives." It's not my point that I'm representing when I put that in the article. Anarcho-capitalism 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for thinking you were then. I'm rather busy in real life just now, but once I'm finished I'll be more then happy to work on or to help create a new section entitled "today". If you want to start this, perhaps with comments about disagreements and so on ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talkcontribs) 10:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
I am a left-libertarian sort of market anarchist and I just felt the need to comment on this little debate which seems to have occurred about a year ago: Grow up. All this anarchist infighting is based upon- semantics, a view of the history of individualist anarchism that is in error on all your accounts, and the obvious vulgarity and prejudices within both of your positions. --ThorsMitersaw --March 25, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.215.4 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Voltairine undeniably anti-capitalist[edit]

There seems to be some confusion amongst those who have not widely read Voltairine de Cleyre's writing that her "anarchism without adjectives" stance somehow implies that she "would have" felt that anarcho-capitalism was somehow just as legitimate as any other form of anarchism. There will never be any way of knowing how she "would have" felt about anarcho-capitalism, but we have solid evidence on how she did feel about capitalism itself. Almost any of her essays selected at random would supply this evidence, but for a few of her more direct comments one might try her essay "McKinley's Assassination from the Anarchist Standpoint":

But that among a mass of people who realize fully what a slaughter-house capitalism has made of the world, how even little children are daily and hourly crippled, starved, doomed to the slow death of poisoned air, to ruined eyesight, wasted limbs, and polluted blood; how through the sapping of the present generation's strength the unborn are condemned to a rotten birthright, all that riches may be heaped where they are not needed; who realize that all this is as unnecessary and stupid as it is wicked and revolting; that among these there should be some who rise up and strike back, whether wisely or unwisely, effectively or ineffectively, is no matter for wonder; the wonder is there are not more: The hells of capitalism create the desperate; the desperate act, desperately!

...

Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State

Please note, "capitalism and the state". Etcetc 07:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

read some early work by her and then take five seconds away from your anarchist bigotry to read this - http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/04/01/against-anarchist-apartheid/
and this - http://www.agorism.info/_media/ma2.pdf
--ThorsMitersaw

anarcho-capitalism[edit]

Please don't try and bring it onto this page. It isn't relevant and I will resist such attempts. Many happy returns... Wtfaaaaa 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Today" section (or similar)[edit]

You know, I can't actually see any reason for that paragraph to be in there at all. It doesn't serve any purpose. Voltairine de Cleyre would not support "anarcho-capitalism" as a type of anarchism, that should be obvious from reading the Wikipage on her. Having that paragraph implies that she would support it as a type of anarchism. Having that paragraph is misleading. I think a better thing to today would be to create a section "Today", where you can place information like that. The paragraph under dispute does not belong in "History". In that section ("Today") you could talk about how the poor anarcho-capitalists are getting a bad deal from everyone else, how their groups (do they exist?) aren't invited to anti-globalisation protests and so on. That said, I'm deleting that paragraph again, and I request that if you wish to put that quote back in, do it in a *new* section.AFA http://www.revleft.com 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary anarchists don't belong in the history section. That said, if you wish to have a quote from said contemporary anarchists (I'm one, does that count?), please work it into a new section. So, I think I might follow the quoted example, and delete the paragraph from the history section. (Also see the above section regarding how I will resist attempts to place "anarcho"-capitalism into history. Wtfaaaaa 14:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll make a contemporary section. As far as anarcho-capitalism, that quote is pretty essential to the description of Woodworth's anarchism. The whole point of anarchists without adjectives is they accept all economic systems as long as no one is forced to take part in any particular one. Operation Spooner 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not true at all! I see no evidence of the idea that "The whole point of anarchists without adjectives is they accept all economic systems as long as no one is forced to take part in any particular one." They DO NOT accept all economic systems! I'll quote one of the founders of "Anarchism without Adjectives", Errico Malatesta, when he wrote, "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."
To the extent that private property is necessary for capitalism, it's pretty clear that on Malatesta's formulation, capitalism is an economic arrangement that would not be supported by Anarchists, let alone Anarchists without adjectives. It's already been discussed how Voltairine was strongly anti-capitalist and just about all of the evidence supports the idea that the other contributors to the theory were anti-capitalist as well, or at least anti private property. This only makes sense because the Anarchist movement at that time, and even to this day, is expressly anti-capitalists.
Now, I'm willing to change my mind Operation Spooner if you provide evidence that the original theorists with Anarchists without adjectives supported the idea you proclaimed (i.e. The whole point of anarchists without adjectives is they accept all economic systems as long as no one is forced to take part in any particular one.). I'm afraid I find no evidence of it. Jemoore31688 18:33, 08 May 2010 (UTC)

An Anarchist FAQ[edit]

Is it relevant that the writers of the An Anarchist FAQ say that anarchists without adjectives should not tolerate anarcho-capitalism? They themselves are not anarchists without adjectives so what's the point of including this? OF COURSE the writers of An Anarchist FAQ are going to be opposed against anarchists without adjectives tolerating anarcho-capitalism. They're not anarchists without adjectives! Anarchists without adjectives by definition tolerate all schools as long as they don't want to force others to join their system. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop making sense! neutral points of view and historical accuracy are strictly and implicitly forbidden here on wikipedia. --Thorsmitersaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.145.1 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does someone have to adhere to "Anarchism without adjectives" to make a factual assertion about what "Anarchists without adjectives" believe? I'm afraid your complaint is a non-sequitur. A cursory read of the Anarchist FAQ seems to indicate that they've provided quite a bit of evidence to support their view that "Anarchists without adjectives" opposed capitalism. To the extent that the statement is accurate, I see no reason why it shouldn't be incorporated. So in that sense it's relevant.

Furthermore, the article does NOT say that the writers of An Anarchist FAQ say that Anarchists without adjectives SHOULD NOT tolerate anarcho-capitalism. The article states that they DON'T tolerate anarcho-capitalism. As I read it, the statement in the article was descriptive not prescriptive. Jemoore31688 (talk) 18:10, 08 May 2010 (UTC)

Malatesta and Rocker[edit]

Why are they listed as part of the "Anarchists without adjectives" infobox? Rocker was a syndicalist, and Malatesta was a communist. I think it's factually incorrect to describe either of them as anarchists without adjectives. Supersheep (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They are included in {{anarcho-inadjectivists}} navigational template because they both cited as anarchists without adjectives.

LaughingMan0X quote[edit]

"It seems like everyone who's an anarchist these days uses the word 'anarcho-' as a prefix to attach to everything they like, to the point where it's not even really meaningful anymore."[1] Tisane (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

new concept[edit]

I don't know if this article has done much for me, as far as I can see, most anarchists in my neck of the woods hang out around seedy looking bookshops reading mouldy old books. But it did give me a wonderful new concept. I can now refer to someone as being an "unhypenated arsehole". It seems to mean so much more. Myles325a (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

This edit removed the following

However, when it comes to stateless capitalism, some anarchists without adjectives accept "anarcho-capitalism" as being compatible with anarchism without adjectives.<ref>Fred Woodworth in {{cite book |last=Avrich |first=Paul |title=Anarchist Voices |publisher=AK Press |page=475 |location=Stirling |year=2006 |isbn=1-904859-27-5 }}</ref>

While I didn't remove this, I wanted to leave a note here in case anyone chose to revert the edit thinking it was vandalism. I checked that book and it says nothing of the kind. What is stated on that page is one person's opinion.

I have no prefix or adjective to my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work as can free-market anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation.

Overlooking that it is just Fred Woodworth's opinion, the quote above doesn't state that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with anarchism without adjectives. He claims to be an anarchist without adjectives because he believes that many variations could work.

This was added by OhByJingo in an edit which also fudged a referenced quote by slipping in another bit about anarcho-capitalism even though the original quote said no such thing. Anarcham (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)