Jump to content

Anarchism without adjectives: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Further reading: expanded section, added comments for which texts still need to be found
In the United States: Expanded section with Avrich 1978
Line 20: Line 20:


===In the United States===
===In the 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 similarly dismissing Tucker's ideas.{{Sfn|Avrich|1995|pp=5-6}} Troubled by the "bitter debates" between anarchists from divergent schools of economic thought, those who did not see a need to confine themselves to one particular school of thought called for more tolerance among anarchists, with some of them explicitly terming it "anarchism without adjectives".{{Sfn|Avrich|1995|pp=6-7}}
In the United States, there was also an intense debate between [[Individualist anarchism in the United States|individualist anarchists]] around [[Benjamin Tucker]] and the anarchist communists around [[Johann Most]], who dismissed each other's ideas as un-anarchistic.{{Sfn|Avrich|1995|pp=5-6}} Troubled by the "bitter debates" between anarchists from divergent schools of economic thought, those who did not see a need to confine themselves to one particular school of thought called for more tolerance among anarchists, with some of them explicitly terming it "anarchism without adjectives".{{Sfn|Avrich|1995|pp=6-7}}

Starting in the 1880s, many American anarchists began to prioritize their commonly-held [[anti-statism]] over their differing economic methods, which they saw as of secondary importance and something to be left until the future.{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|p=151}} In 1893, [[William Holmes (anarchist)|William]] and [[Lizzie Holmes]] organized an international anarchist conference in [[Chicago]], where they attempted to formulate a common programme for anarchists to unite behind. They were joined by [[Voltairine de Cleyre]], [[Honoré Jackson]], [[C. L. James]], [[Lucy Parsons]] and [[William Henry van Ornum]], but the conference was boycotted by Benjamin Tucker and Johann Most, who considered eachother's economic posititions to be un-anarchistic.{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|pp=151-152}} Over the subsequent years, the Holmes couple and their circle continued attempting to reconcile the different anarchist factions, even going as far as to advocate for an anti-authoritarian [[united front]] with [[Georgism|Georgists]], [[socialism|socialists]] and [[nationalists]]. In 1895, the Jewish anarchist [[J. A. Maryson]] began calling for a "pure and simple" anarchism that upheld freedom of opinion, arguing that diversity was an essential component of freedom.{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|p=152}}


[[File:Voltairine_de_Cleyre_(Age_35).jpg|thumb|right|[[Voltairine de Cleyre]], an American anarchist whose advocacy of anarchism without adjectives has inspired sections of [[contemporary anarchism]]]]
[[File:Voltairine_de_Cleyre_(Age_35).jpg|thumb|right|[[Voltairine de Cleyre]], an American anarchist whose advocacy of anarchism without adjectives has inspired sections of [[contemporary anarchism]]]]
The most visible American exponent of anarchism without adjectives was [[Voltairine de Cleyre]],{{Sfnm|1a1=Carson|1y=2017|1pp=111-112|2a1=Shannon|2y=2018|2p=99}} who adopted the term from Mella and Tarrida de Mármol,{{Sfn|Campbell|2013|p=76}} and likewise advocated for cooperation between different anarchist philosophies and strategies.{{Sfnm|1a1=Campbell|1y=2013|1pp=76|2a1=Carson|2y=2017|2pp=111-112|3a1=Shannon|3y=2018|3p=99}} She criticised economic dogmatism,{{Sfn|Carson|2017|pp=111-112}} believing that after the [[state (polity)|state]] was abolished, different localities would experiment in different economic forms of anarchism,{{Sfnm|1a1=Carson|1y=2017|1pp=111-112|2a1=Marshall|2y=1993|2p=393|3a1=Sartwell|3y=2017|3p=473}} ranging from [[mutualism (economic theory)|mutualism]] to [[communism]].{{Sfn|Sartwell|2017|p=473}} Until the end of her life, de Cleyre insisted on labelling herself simply as an "anarchist",{{Sfnm|1a1=Campbell|1y=2013|1pp=76-77|2a1=Marshall|2y=1993|2p=393|3a1=Sartwell|3y=2017|3pp=473, 477}} even as she moved from [[Individualist anarchism in the United States|American individualism]] to the [[anarchist communism]] advocated by [[Emma Goldman]].{{Sfn|Sartwell|2017|pp=473, 477}} Herself inspired by [[Max Stirner]]'s [[individualist anarchism]], Goldman also came to reject visionary thinking of "blueprints for the future", instead declaring that anarchist methods must be adapted depending on the circumstances of different places and times.{{Sfn|Shannon|2018|pp=98-99}}
By the 1900s, the most visible American exponent of anarchism without adjectives was Voltairine de Cleyre,{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1p=153|2a1=Carson|2y=2017|2pp=111-112|3a1=Shannon|3y=2018|3p=99}} who adopted the term from Tarrida de Mármol,{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1p=120|2a1=Campbell|2y=2013|2p=76}} and likewise advocated for cooperation between different anarchist philosophies and strategies.{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1p=153|2a1=Campbell|2y=2013|2pp=76|3a1=Carson|3y=2017|3pp=111-112|4a1=Shannon|4y=2018|4p=99}} She criticised economic dogmatism,{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1p=153|2a1=Carson|2y=2017|2pp=111-112}} believing that after the [[state (polity)|state]] was abolished, different localities would be free to experiment in different economic forms of anarchism,{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1pp=153-154|2a1=Carson|2y=2017|2pp=111-112|3a1=Marshall|3y=1993|3p=393|4a1=Sartwell|4y=2017|4p=473}} ranging from [[mutualism (economic theory)|mutualism]] to [[communism]].{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1pp=153-154|2a1=Sartwell|2y=2017|2p=473}}

During the last years of her life, de Cleyre argued passionately against anarchist sectarianism, declaring her desire to rid the anarchist movement of "those outrageous excommunications which belong properly to the Church of Rome, and which serve no purpose but to bring us into deserved contempt with outsiders."{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|p=153}} Skeptical of "high-sounding theories", which she considered to be indicative of [[intellectual elitism]], de Cleyre preferred to support [[Action (philosophy)|action]] in the present rather than indulge in debates over the future.{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|p=154}} She believed that a future free society could not be forecast, due to the uncertainty of how society might evolve, and thus upheld all experiments in the direction of greater freedom as intrinsically good.{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|pp=154-155}}

As she saw shortcomings in each anarchist school of thought, arguing for the best elements of each to be synthesized into a more [[pragmatism|pragmatic philosophy]], historian [[Paul Avrich]] argued that de Cleyre "cannot be fitted into any single anarchist category".{{Sfn|Avrich|1978|p=155}} Until the end of her life, she insisted on labelling herself simply as an "anarchist",{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1pp=148-149, 153-154|2a1=Campbell|2y=2013|2pp=76-77|3a1=Marshall|3y=1993|3p=393|4a1=Sartwell|4y=2017|4pp=473, 477}} even as she personally moved from [[Individualist anarchism in the United States|American individualism]] towards the [[anarchist communism]] advocated by [[Emma Goldman]].{{Sfnm|1a1=Avrich|1y=1978|1pp=147-148|2a1=Sartwell|2y=2017|2pp=473, 477}} Herself inspired by [[Max Stirner]]'s [[individualist anarchism]], Goldman also came to reject visionary thinking of "blueprints for the future", instead declaring that anarchist methods must be adapted depending on the circumstances of different places and times.{{Sfn|Shannon|2018|pp=98-99}}


===Contemporary developments===
===Contemporary developments===

Revision as of 11:43, 7 May 2023

Anarchism without adjectives is a pluralist tendency of anarchism that opposes sectarianism and advocates for cooperation between different anarchist schools of thought. First formulated by the Spanish anarchists Ricardo Mella and Fernando Tarrida del Mármol, as a way to bridge the ideological divide between the collectivists and communist factions, it was later adopted by the Italian communist Errico Malatesta and the American individualist Voltairine de Cleyre.

Anarchists without adjectives are suspicious of dogmatism and criticise prescriptions for a post-capitalist future, which they consider authoritarian. Instead they hold that a new society should be allowed to emerge spontaneously after a social revolution, which they believe could result in the experimental development of different economic forms in different locations. They thus tend to focus on taking action in the present, with contemporary forms outright rejecting utopianism.

History

When anarchist communism was first formulated in 1876, debates over its merits led to a split within the Anarchist International, as French and Italian communists clashed with collectivists from Spain.[1] At the 1877 Vervies Conference, Swiss anarchist leader James Guillaume attempted to overcome the split by arguing that "each group be free to determine its own solutions".[2]

In Europe

Fernando Tarrida del Mármol, the Spanish collectivist who coined the phrase "anarchism without adjectives"

This position was adopted by a number of Spanish anarchists, who advocated for the tolerance of different, coexisting anarchist schools of thought.[3] During the late-1880s, the Spanish collectivists Fernando Tarrida del Mármol and Ricardo Mella conceived of an "unhyphenated form of anarchism", which they termed "anarchism without adjectives" (Template:Lang-es).[4]

At a November 1889 meeting in Barcelona, Tarrida called for anarchists to reject of all forms of dogma in order to conform closer with the principles of "nature, science and justice". The following year, in the pages of La Revolte, Tarrida declared that the pursuit of anarchy and the abolition of the State ought to be emphasised as the common foundation of anarchism. He held the economic question to be secondary, rejecting any rigid systematic theory and upholding the complimentary potential of different anarchist economic propositions. [5]

Inspired by Tarrida, many other European anarchists began to eschew hyphenated labels and refer solely to anarchy as their end goal, rejecting prescriptions for a future society as inherently authoritarian.[6] It was taken up by Élisée Reclus and Max Nettlau, the latter of whom called for a non-sectarian anarchism that accounted for both communism and individualism, without universalizing either, leaving room for experimentation in different possibilities of economic organization.[7]

Errico Malatesta, an Italian anarchist socialist who advocated for anarchists of different schools of thought to cooperate within a single plural organisation

The position was also adopted by the Italian communist Errico Malatesta,[8] who likewise argued against dogmatism within the anarchist movement.[9] Malatesta warned that "one must beware, at the risk of certain disaster, of supposing that one’s system is the only, and infallible, one [...] and that its success must be assured at all costs, by means other than those which depend on persuasion, which spring from the evidence of facts."[10] Malatesta posited that as anarchism centres spontaneity, it would be wrong for anarchists to impose economic prescriptions. He concluded that different anarchist tendencies should therefore unite within a single organisation, which centred a shared anarchist method. Malatesta also began referring to himself as an "anarchist socialist", in order to promote inclusivity of different anarchist schools.[11] In the pages of La Revolte, Malatesta declared that "[i]t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses".[12]

In the United States

In the United States, there was also an intense debate between individualist anarchists around Benjamin Tucker and the anarchist communists around Johann Most, who dismissed each other's ideas as un-anarchistic.[13] Troubled by the "bitter debates" between anarchists from divergent schools of economic thought, those who did not see a need to confine themselves to one particular school of thought called for more tolerance among anarchists, with some of them explicitly terming it "anarchism without adjectives".[14]

Starting in the 1880s, many American anarchists began to prioritize their commonly-held anti-statism over their differing economic methods, which they saw as of secondary importance and something to be left until the future.[15] In 1893, William and Lizzie Holmes organized an international anarchist conference in Chicago, where they attempted to formulate a common programme for anarchists to unite behind. They were joined by Voltairine de Cleyre, Honoré Jackson, C. L. James, Lucy Parsons and William Henry van Ornum, but the conference was boycotted by Benjamin Tucker and Johann Most, who considered eachother's economic posititions to be un-anarchistic.[16] Over the subsequent years, the Holmes couple and their circle continued attempting to reconcile the different anarchist factions, even going as far as to advocate for an anti-authoritarian united front with Georgists, socialists and nationalists. In 1895, the Jewish anarchist J. A. Maryson began calling for a "pure and simple" anarchism that upheld freedom of opinion, arguing that diversity was an essential component of freedom.[17]

Voltairine de Cleyre, an American anarchist whose advocacy of anarchism without adjectives has inspired sections of contemporary anarchism

By the 1900s, the most visible American exponent of anarchism without adjectives was Voltairine de Cleyre,[18] who adopted the term from Tarrida de Mármol,[19] and likewise advocated for cooperation between different anarchist philosophies and strategies.[20] She criticised economic dogmatism,[21] believing that after the state was abolished, different localities would be free to experiment in different economic forms of anarchism,[22] ranging from mutualism to communism.[23]

During the last years of her life, de Cleyre argued passionately against anarchist sectarianism, declaring her desire to rid the anarchist movement of "those outrageous excommunications which belong properly to the Church of Rome, and which serve no purpose but to bring us into deserved contempt with outsiders."[24] Skeptical of "high-sounding theories", which she considered to be indicative of intellectual elitism, de Cleyre preferred to support action in the present rather than indulge in debates over the future.[25] She believed that a future free society could not be forecast, due to the uncertainty of how society might evolve, and thus upheld all experiments in the direction of greater freedom as intrinsically good.[26]

As she saw shortcomings in each anarchist school of thought, arguing for the best elements of each to be synthesized into a more pragmatic philosophy, historian Paul Avrich argued that de Cleyre "cannot be fitted into any single anarchist category".[27] Until the end of her life, she insisted on labelling herself simply as an "anarchist",[28] even as she personally moved from American individualism towards the anarchist communism advocated by Emma Goldman.[29] Herself inspired by Max Stirner's individualist anarchism, Goldman also came to reject visionary thinking of "blueprints for the future", instead declaring that anarchist methods must be adapted depending on the circumstances of different places and times.[30]

Contemporary developments

Voltairine de Cleyre's contributions to anarchism without adjectives have been particularly influential on the development of contemporary anarchism,[31] which has often neglected prescriptive models for alternatives to globalization and neoliberalism.[32] de Cleyre's conception of anarchism without adjectives was adopted by the anarchist historian Peter Marshall, who argued against false binaries that separate economic systems or dichotomise the individual against the community.[33] In the 21st century, the anarchist communist Wayne Price has also proposed that a post-capitalist transition would be carried out in an "experimental, pluralist, and decentralized society," which would utilise different solutions to the specific issues that affect them.[34]

See also

References

  1. ^ Graham 2018, pp. 338–339.
  2. ^ Graham 2018, p. 339; Nettlau 1996, p. 140.
  3. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 149–150; Graham 2018, p. 339; Turcato 2018, p. 241.
  4. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 149–150; Turcato 2018, p. 241.
  5. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 149–150.
  6. ^ Campbell 2013, pp. 76–77; Shannon 2018, p. 99.
  7. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 150.
  8. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 150; Marshall 1993, pp. 349, 449; Turcato 2018, p. 241.
  9. ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 349, 449; Turcato 2018, p. 241.
  10. ^ Shannon 2018, p. 99.
  11. ^ Turcato 2018, p. 241.
  12. ^ Nettlau 1996, pp. 198–199.
  13. ^ Avrich 1995, pp. 5–6.
  14. ^ Avrich 1995, pp. 6–7.
  15. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 151.
  16. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 151–152.
  17. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 152.
  18. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 153; Carson 2017, pp. 111–112; Shannon 2018, p. 99.
  19. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 120; Campbell 2013, p. 76.
  20. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 153; Campbell 2013, pp. 76; Carson 2017, pp. 111–112; Shannon 2018, p. 99.
  21. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 153; Carson 2017, pp. 111–112.
  22. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 153–154; Carson 2017, pp. 111–112; Marshall 1993, p. 393; Sartwell 2017, p. 473.
  23. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 153–154; Sartwell 2017, p. 473.
  24. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 153.
  25. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 154.
  26. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 154–155.
  27. ^ Avrich 1978, p. 155.
  28. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 148–149, 153–154; Campbell 2013, pp. 76–77; Marshall 1993, p. 393; Sartwell 2017, pp. 473, 477.
  29. ^ Avrich 1978, pp. 147–148; Sartwell 2017, pp. 473, 477.
  30. ^ Shannon 2018, pp. 98–99.
  31. ^ Campbell 2013, pp. 69–70.
  32. ^ Campbell 2013, pp. 79–80.
  33. ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 702–705.
  34. ^ Shannon 2018, pp. 99–100.

Bibliography

Further reading