We disagree, as anarchists, about what exactly it is that we’re up to. It isn’t just the question of why to embark on such a project—it’s the question of what our opposition to authority and domination means as a practice and way of life. One of the things we’ve enjoyed doing since anarchism became a self-conscious philosophy and (if I may) movement with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s famous “I am an anarchist” is reading one another out of the movement. And not only our own movement, but the broader socialist one. Just in putting it that way, I’ve already fallen into suggesting that anarchism is inseparable from socialism in some way practical or theoretical—students of the question may find my paper, “Transcending Leftist Politics: Situating Egoism within the Anarchist Project,” to be of some interest. George Woodcock, the eminent historian of anarchism,
I don't know if these endless discussions are any fruitfull. Tucker was a socialist ! No, he was a libertarian ! No, he was a socialist ! Anarchism is socialism, no its not !
And this goes on and and on and on and on. Im so tired, of these endless discussions about the meaning of words. Discussions between men, online. Haha. I don't like men, and i don't like online discussions. Hahaha
Socialism can mean so much, and has meant something different, every decade. A lot of the social democrats i know, wouldn't call Tucker a socialist. But, back than, people called him a sociailst.
Its always hard, for the mutualits, to explain to people that they are not ancoms, and not libertarians. Mutualists have a very nuanced, strong position. But its hard for them, to explain to people what they mean. People don't understand them. They are libertarians? Yes and no. They are socialists? Yes and no. Its a vague but at the same time strong position
Libertarians have a weak story, but are very good in getting their message across
Mutualists have a stronger story, but are not very good in getting their message across.
How do they solve this problem ?
Tucker was pro markets. But he was also pro usufruct. But, he didn't wanted to forbid exchange, wage labour etc. So, its a little bit blurry. He was a libertarian, but one who thought that capitalism was regressive. So, was het than an anti capitalits? Not in the sense that he wanted to forbid it. So, yes and no