Plumb-line anarchism

This is not going to be about  “anarcho-capitalism”. I want this discussion to be applicable to more than that one specific instance..
My understanding of what I have read of Tucker is that “plumb-line anarchism” is a method of weeding out individuals who call themselves anarchists but are not, in fact, anarchists. A plumb-line is an ancient tool which basically is just a weight on a string used by engineers since time immemorial to judge what is vertical. I think the implication is that when Tucker drops that plumb-line, the real anarchists will fall on one side and the phony anarchists will fall on the other side. I don't know, it does have a certain appeal to it. I like the idea that there is something essential about anarchism that unifies all of us.
One of the stupidest things that the individualist anarchists around the turn of the century did was to deny that the anarchist communists such as Kropotkin were not in fact anarchists. I don't really understand what the reasoning was but I think it is fairly clear from having read Mutual Aid and The Conquest of Bread as well as several of The Anarchist Prince's essays, that man was most definitely an anarchist. As far as I know, his biggest transgression was voicing support for the Allied Powers during World War I. Whatever. Compared to Proudhon's and Bakunin's transgressions that's really not a big deal to me.

Anyways, there undeniably is something that unifies all types of anarchism, namely, the fact that they are all types of anarchism.So what is the essence of anarchism? According to Voltairine, it is opposition to government. That's all she said in that essay.
Has the meaning of government changed?
In any case, she didn't say the State. She said government. That is important to note, I think. Assuming that government just means a body that governs, she is not talking about an organisation that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a geographic area (the standard definition of a state). The problem with saying that we advocate the abolition of government is that government isn't necessarily authoritarian. Which is why I think that the definition based on opposition to power is a lot more useful.
I don't think the essence of anarchism is socialism or anti-capitalism (or “capitalism” if you think that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism”).
This is ultimately about power. There is a whole plethora of applications but that's what it comes down to.
I should give credit to William Gillis for introducing me to this view last year when I was questioning “anarcho-capitalism”.

I'm not sure where I stand. It's difficult to disagree with Voltairine de Cleyre... I mean of course writing out the communists is shitty and detestable and just plain stupid. I don't think that's the only thing she's talking about though.


No I think the question is whether or not those who claim to be anarchists espouse principles which are contrary to the nature of anarchism. That's all I'm going to say about this.

Blogged with the Flock Browser