Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Anarchism without adjectives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the Politics series on |
 |
| Schools of thought |
|---|
|
Black • Buddhist |
| Anarchism in culture |
|
Religion • Society • Arts |
| Anarchist theory |
|
Origins • Economics |
| Anarchism by region |
|
Africa • Austria • China |
| Anarchism lists |
| Anarchism Portal Politics Portal · |
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]
Contents |
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.
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.
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. Just as people like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of tolerance between anarchist groups, so 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."[4] 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."[citation needed]
While a great number of anarchists could be said to fall under the category of anarchists without adjectives to one degree or another, those expressly advocating the title include:
- Voltairine de Cleyre
- Errico Malatesta
- Fernando Tarrida del Marmol
- Max Nettlau
- Élisée Reclus
- Sebastien Faure
- ^ 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]
- ^ Marshall, Peter "Demanding the Impossible" [p. 393]
A Short History of Anarchism, Max Nettlau (Freedom Press, 2001) (Pages 195-201 provide a summary)