MotherTucker.

[mattd]

Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In State 
Socialism and Anarchism he stated that anarchism was "an ideal utterly 
inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call themselves 
Anarchists while at the same time advocating a regime of Archism fully as 
despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves." ["State Socialism and 
Anarchism", Instead of a Book, pp. 15-16]
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon or 
Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters of 
capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a political movement (as 
opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist and 
against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In other 
words, anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated with 
specific political and economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin defined 
their anarchism as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To quote 
Tucker on the subject:
"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition of 
usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man 
by man." [cited in Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing 
American Individualism by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of socialism." 
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 46] Malatesta argued that "when 
[people] sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was anarchy 
was born" and, like Tucker, aimed for "the complete destruction of the 
domination and exploitation of man by man." [Life and Ideas, p. 19, pp. 
22-28] Indeed every leading anarchist theorist defined anarchism as 
opposition to government and exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent 
summary:
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics: 
that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, ignoring other aspects of 
social and economic life. This is a misrepresentation of anarchism. It 
partly derives from the way anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, 
for example], and partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude 
anarchism from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the 
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist 
movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited 
vision. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, 
and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of 
the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire 
Armed no. 45, p. 40]