Anarchism without adjectives:
Anarchism without adjectives (from the Spanish "anarquismo sin adjetivos"), in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, ... [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools."[1]
[edit] Origins
The originator of the expression was Cuban-born Fernando Tarrida del Mármol, who used it in November 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain, who at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of their two theories. Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone—even in theory. Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check. Regardless, to these anarchists the economic preferences are considered to be of "secondary importance" to abolishing all authority, with free experimentation the one rule of a free society.
[edit] History
The theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetivos" was one of the by-products of an intense debate within the movement of anarchism itself. The roots of the argument can be found in the development of anarcho-communism after Bakunin's death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to collectivist anarchism (as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the New Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism was associated with such anarchists as Élisée Reclus, Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.
Anarcho-communist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the anarcho-communists stressed local cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed trade unionism as were characterized by a degree of anti-organisation. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many anarchists to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses."[2] Over time, most anarchists agreed (to use Max Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the economic development of the future"[3] and so started to stress what they had in common, rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate. As time progressed, most anarcho-communists saw that ignoring the labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working class while most anarcho-communists stressed their commitment to communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after a revolution.
[edit] United States
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."[4]
Anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order to determine the most appropriate form."[5] Voltarine sought conciliation between the various schools, and said in her essay Anarchism, "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. (When I say 'do not agree to' I do not mean that they have a mere distaste for...I mean serious differences which in their opnion threaten their essential liberties...)...Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another."[6]
The term anarchism has been adopted as a self-description by movements with different ideological origins; examples of such movements include anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, eco-anarchism and crypto-anarchism.
Fred Woodworth describes his anarchism as being without adjectives, saying: "I have no prefix or adjective for my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work, as can free-market anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation."[7]
Some anarchists who do not subscribe to "anarchism without adjectives" oppose toleration of anarcho-capitalism by "anarchists without adjectives." For example, the author(s) of An Anarchist FAQ who identify themselves as social anarchists, argues that the tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" should not extend to anarcho-capitalism.[8] Conversely, the web site Anarchism.net aims at promoting tolerance and partnership between various strains of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism. [9] Market anarchist Roderick T. Long has argued that the difference between mutualists, which An Anarchist FAQ accepts as legitimate anarchists, and anarcho-capitalists is so small as to yield "no defensible grounds for accepting any dichotomy between" them.[10]
[edit] Further reading
- A Short History of Anarchism, Max Nettlau (Freedom Press, 2001) (Pages 195-201 provide a summary)
[edit] References
- ^ Esenwein, George Richard "Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898" [p. 135]
- ^ quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism [p. 198-9]
- ^ Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism [p. 201]
- ^ Avrich, Paul. 2000. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. Princeton University Press. p. 6
- ^ Marshall, Peter "Demanding the Impossible" [p. 393]
- ^ Havel, Hippolyte. ed. 1914. Selected Works of Voltairine de Cleyre. Harvard University. pp. 102-103
- ^ An essay by Fred Woodworth in Avrich, Paul (2006). Anarchist Voices. Stirling: AK Press, 475. ISBN 1904859275.
- ^ (2008) "What is "anarchism without adjectives"?", in Iain Mckay: An Anarchist FAQ. Stirling: AK Press. ISBN 1902593901. OCLC 182529204.
- ^ "Anarchism.net Mission Statement". Retrieved on 2007-12-14.
- ^ Long, Roderick T.. "Against Anarchist Apartheid". Retrieved on 2007-12-14.
[edit] External links
|
