Shawn P. Wilbur

From Libertarian Labyrinth

After the month-long interruption in April, I’m finally settling down to work on the chronological review of Proudhon’s work that I have mentioned recently — which is also the process that will produce some print-on-demand volumes for A New Proudhon Library. I’ve been working without my usual daily quotas and deadlines, for the first time in over three years, and spending a lot of time thinking — no doubt sometimes over-thinking — about the translation strategies I began to develop a decade ago, while puttering away at Proudhon’s journalism and correspondence.

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

After a long hiatus, it’s time to return to the beginning of the schematic anarchism project and take the time to address a few lingering questions, before moving forward to the promised “exploratory typology of anarchisms.” Let’s begin with a statement of the problem from the first post on the topic, way back in April 2022:

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

After a rather lengthy delay, I’m settling down to some projects that I had initially intended to begin back in January. As it happens, all three of the tasks at the top of the pile — work on Proudhon’s Justice, an edition of E. Armand’s Anarchist Individualist Initiation and Sociology [Reconstructed], an anthology of the works of Lewis Masquerier — called for the careful comparison of multiple versions of the texts involved. It’s a variety of work that I really enjoy, “when the fit takes me,” but it doesn’t take me all the time.

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

Introduction: Distilling Anarchism

Some of the work I have done on anarchist history and theory has taken the form of synthesis, attempting to draw together elements from a variety of anarchist tendencies and milieus, or of a kind of reconciliation, as in the case of the “neo-Proudhonian synthesis,” based on the idea that the apparent discontinuities in anarchist ideas have been, in fact, more apparent than real.

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

The most recent issue of Anarcho-Syndicalist Review includes an article by Wayne Price, “Do Anarchists Support Democracy? The Opinions of Errico Malatesta,” in which he once again takes up the defense of “democracy” as at least consistent with anarchist principles. A brief discussion of the article on the North American Anarchist Studies Association list picked up threads from the 2017 C4SS “Mutual Exchange” on anarchy and democracy.

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

Anarchy 101: Archy, Property and the Possibility of An-archic Property
&
Anarchy 101: General Thoughts on Appropriation

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

Some of the most basic concepts in anarchist theory can prove terribly slippery when we try to apply them — sometimes even when we apply them with great care.

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

This is the second in a series of documents attempting to frame the discussion of key concepts in anarchist theory. (You will find all of these documents linked in the subreddit’s wiki, on the “Anarchism in a Nutshell” page.)

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

I must have written a dozen variations on this theme over the last few years, as I have gradually refined my ideas about anarchism-in-general. Those familiar with my past work will recognize a variety of allusions, going back to the decade-old work on “the anarchic encounter,” which once enjoyed a certain pride of place in the revived theory of anarchistic mutualism. The notion of the encounter as a fundamental element of anarchist practice is one that I have returned to quite a number of times over the years, both on the blog and in my notebooks. Towards the end of Constructing Anarchisms, I went so far as to posit the encounter as essentially the whole of anarchist practice.

From Libertarian Labyrinth by Shawn P. Wilbur

The notes that follow are preliminary, as I try to bring together a number of considerations regarding vocabulary, definition, theoretical clarity and such. They begin with some questions raised about the translation of Proudhon’s work, pass through a discussion of Proudhon’s own approach to the definition of key terms — which I hope will be useful as we begin reading and discussion of Justice in the Revolution and in the Church — and end with some general thoughts about anarchists’ engagement with the question of definition in the present.