Add new comment

I'm only peripherally aware of this ongoing series so apologies for joining a conversation part way through only half aware of the larger context. Here are some thoughts in response to the piece though.

1. In the idea of an anarchism without adjectives the only core of anarchism that I could identify would be this notion of anti-state and anti-capitalism. I believe this dual idea is also extendable to opposition to civilization as a worm and as an octopus to use perlmans terms as references to this idea of the state and capital outside of their specific contemporary meaning for a trans-historical one. I do think however that these two understandings, represented as a spectrum of thought and not a binary, represent the difficulty of having a core to anarchism.

2. With yhe idea of where the line is drawn I have especially begun to find this interesting. Mentioned is the quarantining of anarcho-capitalists and national-anarchists from anarchism amd anarchist spaces (such as this one). Often it is is cited because there is not an adherence to this first point, a aim of being both anti-state and anti-capital. In my experience however the drawing of this line seems quite short sited when one begins to question the ways in which left-anarchists (to the extent such a large label exists) could be said to also fall on the other side of this line with the capitalists and nationalists.

3. In a way I habe found myself with both an anarchy that has become extremely insular and hyper specific to my self to the extent that I now reject the label of anarchist but I have also found my idea of anarchism to become extremely encapsulatingnot just extending to anarcho-capitalists and national-anarchists but also to seeing the similarities between Anarchist politics and Fascist politics (as well as everything in between).

4. Because of this plurality it is very difficult for me to draw a line anywhere between friends (anarchists) and enemies (fascists) since the separation is not all that clear to me. I see anarchists who in word and/or in practice contribute to that which I find oppressive (to the extent that word has any meaning) and see fascists who also cause disruptions in the system.

4. I do not mean to decry all who contribute to oppressive systems (though I would be lying if I did not have my own anger even towards my own complacency), nor privelege the act of disruption (often, if not always, this act of disruption is also an act of recuperation). Instead I hope to muddy the waters, and to remove this barrier of Anarchist (good) not-anarchist (bad).

5. Allowing anarchists to be not-good, or even moving beyond this conception of anarchy to understand the wide range of ways people interact with the state an capital (both disrupting it and reinforcing it) I think allows one to have an honest understanding/engagement with that around them. In what ways does the anarchism of anarchi capitalists actually conflict with your anarchism? In what ways might your engagement with that conception of anarchy then influence your understanding of market anarchists?

6. I still need to formulate and put into words my exact thoughts, and conclusions on this subject I've outlined a bit, but I think within it are (at least for) ramifications for these anarchist principles that are often less challenged then this anarchist conception. I think especially the idea of solidarity, which is often drawn around the word anarchism is especially precarious if not absent in this understanding.