Wikipedia

Talk:Anarchism/Archive 32

< Talk:Anarchism
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Nihila in topic Assassinations
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Useful policy/guideline references

Talk archives & Open Tasks

M.Larose=anarchism! He gets annoyed at any fake anarchists.

Discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago92 comments13 people in discussion

I am sorry, I don't know where I can write:-( I found one mistake - Kronstadt rebelion was at 1921, not 1918.

Hello -- I don't quite understand how to make the {{editprotected}} template work. The first use of the word anarchy was not exactly Euripides. The Athenians kept a list engraved in stone of all of the archons (like consuls, with a term limit of one year) and would write "anarchia" instead of a name for the years in which they didn't select an archon.

Open Source

"There are also open source programming communities, who donate their time and offer their product for free. Examples include Usenet, the free software movement (including the GNU/Linux community and the wiki paradigm), and Indymedia."

Free software is not an example of open source, and vice versa. Open source is pratical, free software is ideological.

  • Free Software can be seen as a subset of open source: Using your words, Free Software is both practical and ideological, while Open Source is only practical. Or, in other words, the difference is that the philosophy behind the Open Source movement is that GPL is practical, while the philosophy behind the Free Software movement is that GPL is ethical.

--Erik 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

?? Most free software is not open source. Hogeye 22:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims needing sources

RJII, according to the encyclopaedia article you are citing, which is apparently written by Carl Levy, the schools of anarchist thought are: (A) Mutalism, (B) Anarcho-Communism, and (C) Anarcho-Individualism. Levy only states that anarcho-capitalism exists as a "reborn" modification of the less-radical individualism found in the United States. It is also unclear as to whether or not he equates anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism: this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. [1] This shows that anarcho-capitalism exists in the United States and was has roots in American individualism; it does not substantiate the various claims made in the article

  • that anarcho-capitalism currently exists as 1 of 3 schools of anarchism, opposed to syndicalism and communism, as suggested in Hogeye's "Chart of influences";
  • that anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchist thought, as suggested by Hogeye's edits in the anarchism template;
  • that individualist anarchism is also known as "liberal anarchism", as suggested by the heading of the subsection, or that they are in any way equivalent;
  • that anarcho-capitalism is the most salient and prevalent example of anarchism today, as is suggested by its highly conspicuous placement under the contemporary anarchism section as the first example of contemporary anarchism;
  • that anarcho-capitalism warrants more space and attention than all other examples of contemporary anarchism;
  • that anarcho-capitalism existed as early as the 18th and 19th century (the Levy article actually contradicts this);
  • that the voluntaryism advocated by Auberon Herbert in the 19th century was actually anarcho-capitalism;
  • etc. --AaronS 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course he's equating anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is pure libertarianism. And, he saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism --what I've always been saying. RJII 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If anarchism is the same thing as anti-statism, then it should be possible to merge the two articles together. However, if you attempted that I'm sure you'd find consensus suggests otherwise. Sarge Baldy 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You couldn't merge anti-statism and anarchism because anti-statism includes minarchism. Statism doesn't mean anarchism except in the context of anarchist discussions. Statism in common parlance just means a lot of state interventionism. RJII 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Anarchism, as far as I understand it from various sources, is the opposition to aggression (or coercion) in favor of voluntary relations. Opposition to the State is merely a side effect of that more foundational position. RJII 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
RJII, could you please provide sources for the above assertions? --AaronS 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
And that's why opposition to capitalism is also merely a side effect of that more foundational position. The Ungovernable Force 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Not for anarcho-capitalists. They define capitalism as a free market --a system of voluntary transactions. RJII 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the same dictionaries that you cite to claim that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism, anarchism is not opposition to aggression, but authority and control. --AaronS 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If anarchism is defined as opposition to "authority" then Bakunin couldn't be an anarchist: "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought...I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." -Bakunin RJII 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism currently exists as 1 of 3 schools of anarchism, opposed to syndicalism and communism, as suggested in Hogeye's "Chart of influences"

  • Anarchism: Left, Right and Green by Ulrike Heider (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994). Heider says that there are three broad categories of anarchism: Left anarchism is anarcho-syndicalism and communism, Anarcho-capitalism is right anarchism, and then there's Green anarchism. RJII 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. Do you have a quote and page number? --AaronS 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a chart of influence, and does not address which schools are contemporary. I think there are five major contemporary schools of thought: Generic socialist anarchism (Bakunin), anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, individualist (cost-price) anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism. Things like anarcha-feminism and eco-anarchism are not schools of thought, but applications of thought from one or more of the five schools regarding an issue. Things like post-left anarchism and small a anarchism are offshoots or critiques of the five majors. Hogeye 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchist thought, as suggested by Hogeye's edits in the anarchism template

What do you mean by "school of anarchist thought"? RJII 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • All pure anti-statists are anarchists. (def of "anarchism")
Comment: this is disputed. Dictionary definitions are not enough. --AaronS 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • All anarcho-capitalists are pure anti-statists. (def of anarcho-capitalist)
Comment: not true. Anarcho-capitalists support states which are legitimate property owners. --AaronS 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Therefore, all anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. QED

By "school" we mean a more-or-less consistent body of thought. As opposed to a "movement," which has to do with activities and myth rather than ideology. Hogeye 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

By "school" I mean an important, significant, consistent, and generally-recognized body of thought. --AaronS 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Individualist anarchism is also known as "liberal anarchism", as suggested by the heading of the subsection, or that they are in any way equivalent

    • "THE classic land for the efflorescence and experimentations of bourgeois Liberal-Anarchism was America. If bourgeois Anarchism called for free land, free capital, free labor, and free exchange, what country could appear more favorable than the United States? (*1) Indeed, in a country where Liberalism could afford to appear as Radicalism, could there be a sharp line drawn between Liberalism and Liberal- Anarchism? The conditions of American life not only had forced men into a certain pattern of individualism, but had also compelled them to idealize this individualism and to make it an end in itself. It was in the United States that the development of State versus Individual had reached its sharpest point. Liberalism and Liberal-Anarchism could well blend into one another." (American Liberal Anarchism from The Conquest of Power by Albert Weisbord) RJII 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "And as happened on several occasions in the history of nineteenth century liberalism, extreme anti-statism and faith in the cooperative free market were pushed into a form of liberal anarchism along the lines developed later by Gustave de Molinari, Thomas Hodgskin and Herbert Spencer." ([from The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer by David Hart) Hart is a professor of history at University of Adelaide, South Australia in 1986. He earned an M.A. in history from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Cambridge. [2] RJII 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "There is a school today which we can hardly call by any other name than liberal anarchism, if we reflect that its adherents seem to think that market, competition, and economic rationality provide a sufficient answer to the ethical imperatives of an economic system." (Economics of the Free Society by Wilhelme Roepke, 1937) (a classic text from the professor of economics at the Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland) RJII 02:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Once more, please try to be civil, RJII. The Roepke quote might be substantial. Do you have any other quotes that are published by reliable sources? Like I said before, you can list as many credentials as you want. Someone with a Ph.D. from Oxford can make a terrible argument; someone with a Ph.D. from Oxford, however, will have difficulty having that argument published by Oxford University Press. --AaronS 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is the most salient and prevalent example of anarchism today, as is suggested by its highly conspicuous placement under the contemporary anarchism section as the first example of contemporary anarchism

Strawman. I have not suggested that anarcho-capitalism "is the most salient and prevalent example of anarchism today." I have merely included anarcho-capitalism in order of coinage, after anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism have already been extensively discussed. The anarcho-capitalism section should come before e.g. a second anarcho-syndicalist section, and before the various issue-oriented flavors of anarchism and sundry offshoots.

I'd consider putting the anarcho-capitalism section in earlier, just after Proudhon, since Molinari published Production of Security in 1849 and Spencer's Social Statics came out about that time. So long as anarcho-capitalism is banished from history, it needs to be salient in contemporary trends. Hogeye 00:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? Your section is first! I wanna be first! Waa Waa! RJII 05:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hogeye seems to care, since he moved it back to the top, and I care, as do others. And btw, this last post is just one of several recent examples of impolite commentary on your part. I kindly suggest you consider the effects you are having on this page, and if things do not improve, I will consider a formal complaint. The Ungovernable Force 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Complain away. I insulted no one and have the freedom to express myself. I take you're not an anarchist then given your threat to appeal to authority? RJII 05:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
How did I know you would say that? It has been requested that you voluntarily cease your counterproductive attacks on other users and their important concerns, and so far you have not listened. Unfortunately, I cannot block or reprimand you myself (as far as I know), otherwise I would not need to appeal to any authority. I can't speak for everyone, but I get the feeling others are fed up with this. If you cannot stop these insulting comments, then action will need to be taken to insure this debate stays polite and productive. I am wasting my time asking you to act nice, when I could be spending it doing something worthwhile. The Ungovernable Force 05:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't attacked others users. I'm growing tired of your unfounded attacks on me. This is harrassment, plain and simple. Either present evidence that I have attacked someone or back off. RJII 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe attack is not the right word, but you have shown a great deal of disrespect:
  • Who cares? Your section is first! I wanna be first! Waa Waa!
  • I put 3 sources for that one, just so I could get a laugh when you say you need another
    • That's a true statement. I put three there so I could be amused when I'm asked for another. No matter how many I give, another one is requested. That's far from being a personal attack. RJII 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It shows bad faith
  • Who in their right mind would call an employer a sovereign?
  • Obviously you just want to censor all information that doesn't accord with your POV.
  • What the hell are you talking about? [...] you are really going off the deep end
  • Don't give me that crap. It's not a matter of me "allowing" anything. I've had with you. I'm now covinced that you're not operating in good faith and will dismiss any source that disagrees with your POV.
    • Again, in response to a personal attack and is obviously not a personal attack in itself. I am stating my opinion, after observation, that Aaron is not acting in good faith here. I sincerely believe that. RJII 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Bull. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources.
    • I see absolutely no sign of a personal attack there. Where the hell is the personal attack in that???
The Ungovernable Force 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks in that ..just a couple snaps at Aaron for personally attacking me. RJII 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, that's why I said "Maybe attack is not the right word, but you have shown a great deal of disrespect". And the bull comment was in response to one of my ideas. That is not very nice. And aaron has apologized for using the word "dominate". I also said you are showing disrespect for our concerns, which is obvious in the first example. I really don't want to argue about this forever though, I really just want you to pay attention to what you are saying and how it effects others. I could be wrong, but I don't remember you ever apologizing for any rude comments. Aaron has, and I know I have too. I wish you could show the same respect. The Ungovernable Force 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
And now I'm "harrassing" you. I don't consider this harrassment, since you can easily not respond and you don't have to look at this section--I'm not putting it on your talk page. I am voicing concerns I have, legitemate or not about your behavior the last few days. The Ungovernable Force 06:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You're threatening me with censorship.

RJII 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving you fair warning that if things don't improve I will consider it. Look at the message I posted that started this debate. The Ungovernable Force 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. It's ok for an anarchist to appeal to authority to censor someone, as long as the editor doesn't himself have the authority to censor? Is that correct? But, isn't censorship itself inconsistent with anarchism? Isn't that domination of another person? RJII 06:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
By setting up an account you agree to abide by the rules established by this group. If you do not follow the guidlines that you willingly and without any cohersion accepted, they yes, you can be kicked out of the community and/or reprimanded. And many anarchists have no problem censoring neo-nazis and others who incite discriminatory hatred. I'm not saying that you are, you aren't, I'm just answering your question about censorship. And there is a difference between the government censoring somebody, and a community taking action against someone they believe is causing unneeded problems The Ungovernable Force 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have violated no rules. I have not personally attacked anyone, and you're harrassing me. Some anarchist you would be if you censored me. Fortunately, you don't have the authority. RJII 06:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, maybe no rules, but you have violated guidelines. WP:EQ. The Ungovernable Force 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Playing the rules to get away with insulting the people one is supposedly working "with" is not behavior that Wikipedia needs to tolerate. 216.99.217.92 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism warrants more space and attention than all other examples of contemporary anarchism

My position is that anarcho-capitalism should have about the same space as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. Did someone suggest that anarcho-capitalism "warrants more space," or is this just another strawman? Certainly it does not get more space than other examples in the current version of the article. Hogeye 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are a complete fucking idiot. Your desire spurs directly from the attitude of "I'm a capitalist who wants to use the term anarchist because anarchist is a cool word and my friends will think I'm cooler."
You need to take a look at WP:NPA, and make some effort to follow this policy. *Dan T.* 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is out of line and is exactly the kind of thing I have been upset with RJII about lately, except even worse in this case. Find more constructive ways of expressing your opinion. Cussing is fine at the protest line, but in a structured, quasi-academic debate, it is innappropriate and completely useless. The Ungovernable Force 04:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal offense meant here, but this seems a little childish to me. What does it matter whose section is bigger? Whatever it takes to explain something is how many words it should take. For example, I could write a more effective single pargraph than what may take an entire page for someone else to state. Bigger is not necessarily better. I couldn't care less whose section is bigger. RJII 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you hope to not insult anybody by calling them childish, but I appreciate the effort. I only care, because it is listed as being important in WP:NPOV, which calls it an "important qualification." Read:
  • "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."
  • "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."--AaronS 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Number of words doesn't equate with "weight." I've seen large paragraphs on Wikipedia that say next to nothing. They're nearly weightless. RJII 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, ok, whatever, you RJII can and may have, write, and display the largest, biggest, greatest section of the anarchism article for your anarcho-capitalist ideas, as long as and assuming that the entire section is written similarly to this post, so as to make it utterly redundant and overblown. You're right, word count does not equate with weight, but I think you know the real issue. That kind of writing wouldn't even be acceptable for an encyclopedia, so to some extent, size will matter, assuming we keep a consistent voice and writing style throughout the article. The Ungovernable Force 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism existed as early as the 18th and 19th century

The Levy MS Encarta UK article actually contradicts this. --AaronS 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it contradicts it. It just says that the individualist anarchist tradition has been reborn, after a period of relative dormancy. It doesn't say that the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism (apart from the name) didn't exist prior. In fact, Rothbard wasn't even calling his philosophy anarcho-capitalism until later; and Rothbard even attached the name "anarcho-capitalism" to the philosophy of Molinari. What better source for this than the person that came up with the term "anarcho-capitalism"? RJII 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism" [3] speaks for itself. --AaronS 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. It doesn't really matter if he contradicts someone else. Maybe he just wasn't aware that anarcho-capitalism existed before it was named. There's no rule that says that all scholars have to be in agreement. RJII 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Historian Ralph Raico asserts what that Jakob Mauvillon, Julius Faucher, and Gustave de Molinari "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." (Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century) Raico is professor of European history at SUNY at Buffalo with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. I can already see it now, you're going to try to dismiss him because his personal philosophy is pro-capitalist, right? RJII 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Raico's credentials are just fine. Why do you smear me? It's a misrepresentation of my position to say that I oppose all pro-capitalist scholars; I have stated the exact opposite on a number of occasions. This is the second time that I have had to correct you, so I am inclined to think that either (a) I'm not making myself clear or (b) you understand me and are still misrepresenting me, for whatever reason. For the third time: people's political beliefs don't matter. How other scholars view their work does. The essay that you cite was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (source). That's not a very reliable source. You would need to substantiate it with something else. --AaronS 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) To further illustrate why credentials aren't entirely important, most of the major proponents for Intelligent Design are professors, Ph.D.s and biologists. --AaronS 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You don't like what he has to say, so now credentials aren't important now. Ok, no problem. There are plenty of non-credentialed sources. RJII 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of your insults, RJII. Please try to adhere to Wikipedia policy. --AaronS 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I'm not saying that this source should be discounted. I am saying that it needs other sources to support it. --AaronS 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? Just so you can come up with some other bogus objection? I'm convinced that no matter what source, or how many sources, anyone gives to you, you're not going to accept it. No matter how many sources anyone gives you, it's never enough for you. You asked for a source, so I gave you one. Now you're asking for another. There is no end. RJII 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's true, when you set out to prove a false assertion, all the sources you come up with will be flawed. 216.99.217.92

That is a rash judgment to make, considering that you've only supplied me with two sources (one published by a partisan thinktank, another that only makes one, tiny mention of anarcho-capitalism). The fact of the matter is that you have no good excuse not to supply anybody with sources. --AaronS 07:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I wouldn't even both with him. His arguments are so full of holes/not watertight... Anarcho-capitalism in the last century? oh come on...Good point Aaron with the intelligent design issue - RJII just doesn't see whats going on. -max rspct leave a message 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Rothbard says Molinari's philosophy was anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism and applied it to Molinari's philosophy. Therefore, it's indisputable that Molinari's philosophy was representative of anarcho-capitalism. The person who coined the term was free to define it however he wished. "The initial article of the young Molinari, here translated for the first time as “The Production of Security,” was the first presentation anywhere in human history of what is now called "anarcho-capitalism" or "free market anarchism." -Rothbard RJII 15:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? You wrote "Also, Rothbard says Molinari's philosophy was anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism and applied it to Molinari's philosophy. Therefore, it's indisputable that Molinari's philosophy was representative of anarcho-capitalism" Read that again please. Just because yer idol Rothbard says so Molinari's ideology was anacrho-capitalism? You must be joking!??! What a topsy Turvy world. -max rspct leave a message 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism; he is at liberty to define it. If he says anarcho-capitalism is represented by Molinari, then Molinari was an expositor of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. RJII 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, no. That's not quite right. You'd be able to say that "Rothbard claims Molinari was an expositor of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism" not that he was one. Otherwise, we could fix the George Bush article to say that Bush is a Chomskyan arsehole. I'm sure you see the problem. Grace Note 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that follows. RJII is claim that if person X describes his philosophy Y and claims historical philosopher Z held it, then, given that X is a notable proponent and coiner of this philosophy, Z followed Y. In order for the George Bush article to say he is Chomskyan, you would need Chomsky to say something like "Bush was an earlier proponent of my views."
Molinari promoted the same system that present anarcho-capitalists do today. All notable anarcho-capitalists believe this. The only way to contradict this is to show one belief Molinari held that diverged from present anarcho-capitalists. No one has been able to do this because it cannot be done. And yes, in the archives on this article, the Molinari article, and the anarcho-capitalism article, people have been asked for such an example, and yet have never been able to provide one. "It would shatter my worldview of anarcho-capitalism not being around in the 19th century" is not a valid reason to reject the Molinari-anarcho-capitalist connection. MrVoluntarist 04:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Madison and Hamilton drew their ideas from various other philosophers; does that make John Locke a republican? Does that make Montesquieu an American revolutionary? I could invent anarcho-slavism and claim that Frederick Douglass was the first anarcho-slavist. Does that make me right? Does that make Frederick Douglass an anarcho-slavist? Of course not. The only NPOV way to approach this would be to say "According to Rothbard..." Rothbard clearly has a POV interest in making his philosophy appear as if it has deep roots. Most thinkers do. Does that mean that he is wrong? No. But is he right? That's not clear, either. It's his opinion, and that's all, really. --AaronS 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard didn't didn't just "draw ideas" from Molinari; he essentially said, hey, that system advocated by Molinari? That's what I want. Madison and Hamilton did nothing analagous. But hey, at least you don't try to brazenly get away with putting words in people's mouths, or claiming that critics of anarcho-capitalism are anarcho-capitalist, or anything like that -- that's the important thing. Rothbard defined anarcho-capitalism. Ergo, he is the person to ask about which views in the past matched his. Except it's not only Rothbard, but every notable anarcho-capitalist. It's interesting that you bring up NPOV, which says:
Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.
So, if people claim that past philosophers shared their view X, but the evidence shows they believed Y, then you have grounds for claiming that their beliefs were different. But you don't. No one knows of any policy Molinari supported had that diverged from that of present anarcho-capitalists, and yes they've tried. MrVoluntarist 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so hostile to the idea of putting "According to Rothbard..."? It avoids all potential NPOV issues. --AaronS 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Because adding "according to Rothbard" implies that Molinari was an anarcho-capitalist is an opinion rather than a fact following directly from the definition of anarcho-capitalism." Hogeye 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"It was with Molinari that the two different currents of anarchist thought converged: he combined the political anarchism of Burke and Godwin with the nascent economic anarchism of Adam Smith and Say to create a new form of anarchism that has been var ously described as individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism." (Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition by David Hart, professor of history at University of Adelaide, South Australia in 1986. M.A. in history from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Cambridge, Recipient of the University of Adelaide's Stephen Cole the Elder Prize for Excellence in Teaching, 1992). RJII 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"...Molinari ["is largely known as"] a relentless advocate of the logic of laissez-faire towards a version of free market (and lawful) anarchy." (The Tradition of Spontaneous Order by Norman Barry, Professor & Chairman of Politics, U of Buckingham [4]). RJII 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The voluntaryism advocated by Auberon Herbert in the 19th century was actually anarcho-capitalism

"Herbert develops the Spencerian idea of equal freedom to its logically consistent anarcho-capitalist end" -Hans-Hermann Hoppe (he's an anarcho-capitalist, so he should know). Also, Benjamin Tucker admonishes Herbert for accepting interest, rents, and profit: "Mr. Herbert proved beyond question that the government of man by man is utterly without justification, but is quite ignorant of the fact that interest, rent, and profits will find no place in the perfect economic order." Nevertheless, he still considers him an anarchist: "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!" Anarcho-capitalism is anti-statism that accepts interest, rent, and profits as non-exploitative. So, here we see not only that Herbert is an anarcho-capitalist, but that Tucker holds that a philosophy that accepts interest, rent, and profit is consistent with anarchism. (Tucker, like Kevin Carson today, thought that anarcho-capitalism collapses into labor-value individualism --that in laissez-faire, profit would not be possible due to increased competition). RJII 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm looking for sources beyond your own research. Please cite them. --AaronS 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
?? He just gave you two solid sources - Hoppe and Tucker. Hogeye 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not questioning RJII's ability to read and interpret texts and primary sources (although his quotations are not cited). The problem is that, per Wikipedia policy, in order for an article to be NPOV and in order to avoid original research ("Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source," WP:NOR), assertions must verifiable and they must come from reliable sources ("Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications," WP:NOR). Please refer to these policies for more information; however, I would like to note the following:
  • "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:V)
  • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed. If you doubt the truthfulness of an unsourced statement, remove it to the talk page. Otherwise, just request a source." (WP:V)
  • "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources." (WP:V)
  • "In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." (WP:NOR)
  • "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." (WP:NOR)
  • "Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?" (WP:NOR)
  • "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, emphasis not mine)
  • "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)
  • "It's always appropriate to ask other editors, 'How do you know that?', or 'Can you cite your source?' If they didn't have a particular source in mind when they wrote the material originally, someone will have to find a credible source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)
Considering the above policies and guidelines, I think that it is about time that you and RJII cease to (a) assume bad faith (see WP:AGF) and (b) criticize my calls for sources. I have already laid my personal biases out in the open. I suggest that you do the same, and prepare to work together with people who you might disagree with. That includes making compromises. So far, in my opinion, you have made very few, if any. Please think about it. Lastly -- and I've said this before -- instead of attacking me, my motivations, my personality, or my character, try to fulfill my simple request: please find multiple reliable sources, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that support your assertions. --AaronS 03:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional examples of anarcho-capitalism being recognized as a form of anarchism

This one is from a book called Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide by Simon Tormey (ISBN 1851683429) . Not only does it hold anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, but holds it as a form of individualist anarchism: "‘anarchism’ is essentially an umbrella term sheltering a staggeringly diverse range of political currents and groups.Indeed, to call oneself an ‘anarchist’ is to say very little of interest about oneself at all...One immediately needs to say what kind of anarchist, and in particular whether one is a collectivist or communist anarchist or an individualist or libertarian anarchist...Those who follow the lead of classical American anarchist thinkers of the nineteenth century such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner or Josiah Warren would probably find themselves sympathising with those inside the conference centre at the meetings of the WTO or World Bank defending capitalism against the attacks of the anti-capitalists outside... Indeed some of the more prominent American (libertarian) anarchists would no doubt argue that there is too much intervention in the world rather than not enough...Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." RJII 02:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Political historian Carl Levy, in his article in the Encarta Encyclopedia (UK version) says: "The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anaocho-capitalism or libertarianism." RJII 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're relying too heavily on that one ambiguous sentence from Levy, which could be read to contradict your position, as has already been discussed. --AaronS 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
That anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is just a given in mainstream text. What we have had in the history of this article are some major POV pushers from the collectivist side of anarchism who want to ostracize and/or censor capitalist anarchism, with no backup other than a few FAQ's from collectivist anarchist websites. This kind of POV pushing and censorship needs to come to a stop. RJII 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please try to cease from attacking your fellow Wikipedia editors. --AaronS 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RJIII, I value the work you've put in to this article, even though we strongly disagree on political points, and I abhorr the editorial process which has been used to achieve the current article's state. As someone who has not edited anarchism seriously for twelve months or more due to the editorial climate, I'd like to suggest points for a resolution on the position of anarcho-capitalism within this article to you, as I believe you to be honestly interested in the article's worth. I think that for perhaps the last six to eight months the position that individualist pro-market anarchism may be considered an inheritor of 19th century anarchism has been set beyond nay saying by all but the most polemically involved anti-capitalist. The remaining points of contention are three:
  1. Contemporary "Anarcho-capitalism", a child of mid 20th century US-market "Libertarianism" as a "Liberalism reaffirmed", or a child of 19th century US individualist market mutualism? The former is readily notable, the latter is much, much more contingent. The latter also involves a conflation of US market-mutualism/individualism with international individualism. Outside of the US, individualism was a much more secular, atheist, "humanist society" style humanism and rationalist domain; generally not making statements regarding economics, and when doing so, generally in favour of the socialism enunciated by their communist bretheren. This could be corrected through better editing of the current article, combined with more research on non-US individualism/mutualism.
  2. Geographic bias. Anarcho-capitalism is a miniscule phenomena within is homeland (the US), where it functions as an internal faction within a comparatively small fundamentally liberal (as in 19th century liberalism) movement. The extent to which some editors attempt to feature anarcho-capitalism on this page as a universal trend within anarchism is a problem generating bias. This could be corrected through better article editing, deprioritising the importance of anarcho-capitalism outside of the context of US political movements.
  3. Emphasis bias. Anarcho-capitalism, using geographic (restricted as an indigenous current to NA), raw adherent numbers (low compared to non-AC individualists, lets alone socialists), liniage (a branch of mutualist-individualism), theoretical difference (a not particularly dynamically different branch), general public social consciousness (much much lower internationally compared to the socialist varities) or length of organised formal tendencies (max late 1960s as a theoretical movement, as a social movement late 1990s) is not as significant as it is portrayed to be in the current article. In comparison it is not fundamentally different from mutualism, as, for example, syndicalism is from pre-syndicalist utopian-socialist anarchisms is.
My suggestion is that anarcho-capitalism should be addressed as an issue scoping the limits of anarchism in practice, be summarised in any discussion of trends or tendencies, but that the general article note early that there are some highly divergent strains, and address the issue of anarchism (in this article) from the perspective of the overwhelming majority of anarchist strains, and anarchist conceptions: those which are anti-capitalist. I am not suggesting here that an anarcho-syndicalist -communist or -ecologist position should override such minority anti-capitalist positions as non-market mutualism and individualism, or christian anarchism, Western lifestylism etc., but rather that the shared (and fairly minimalist) anti-capitalist position shared by these tendencies should be the basis of describing shared political views. This is of course my position, and I am raising it with you because you seem to coherently present an editorial position wildly different to my own.
The work which (in my opinion) you have put into researching this RJIII is admirable. The article currently isn't. Anarcho-capitalism is not central to a discussion of anarchism in the abstract, rather it is a minor side point, more influential than Christian anarchism, but less significant than ecological anarchism. Fifelfoo 03:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (And I forgot to sign it). If you'd like to discuss this via user talk pages rather than here, I'd be more than happy to.
Tolstoyanism (which many describe as a form of Christian anarchism) was actually a fairly substantial movement around the start of the 20th century - unfortunately now pretty well lost in the mists of history. If we ever get this scrap over ancapism out of the way I'll try and expand the section on it.Bengalski 10:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Latest comment: 18 years ago54 comments10 people in discussion

Hey all, I'm your friendly cabal mediator :) User:AaronS has requested cabal mediation of a dispute you're having here, just to let you know, there is a request page here that you can leave your 0.02€ on. - FrancisTyers 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that some people have responded, lets hear some disputes. Please if you could just list them, one at a time, below. For example: "1. I believe that the lead should read '... and in almost all cases, capitalism'" or "2. I believe that '... and in almost all cases, capitalism' should be kept out of the lead".
Please keep your points limited to covering one disputed aspect. Please sign your points with ~~~~. Please don't discuss points here, we will have opportunity for that later.
If at any point you think I'm doing a bad job, please feel free to bring it up with me or another member of the cabal, this is supposed to be an informal mediation so I hope we can keep it that way. :) - FrancisTyers 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the disputes section is fairly static, I've put up a couple of other sections, I'd appreciate it if you could cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

  1. I think that the intro (and/or definition) should include a reference to the fact that most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy(ies). The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think that Anarcho-Capitalism should not have its own subsection, but could be mentioned in the Individualist Anarchism section. The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. No claim about the percentages of self-described anarchists (in the philosophical sense) should be presented unless hard numbers can be given to back them up. MrVoluntarist 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Anarchism is rarely defined in terms of opposition to capitalism. See Definitions of anarchism on Wikiquote. RJII 05:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I think the intro should make it clear that any philosophy which holds the state to be an unnecessary evil is a form of anarchism, regardless of economic preference. Anarcho-capitalism should definitely have a section, equal in scope to e.g. anarcho-syndicalism. Hogeye 06:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Not only should anarcho-capitalism have a section, it should include a picture of a noted anarcho-capitalist or the anarcho-capitalist flag (unless you want to remove the picture of everyone else out). RJII 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Anarcho-Capitalism is very little more than an obscure philosophy with little influence on any significant mass movements or ideas, unlike anti-capitalist anarchism which has held a visible position as a political movement The Ungovernable Force 06:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Get rid of the italicized POV note in the beginning. --AaronS 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. here are clear differences between the grandiose claims made about anarchism as an abstract concept and the reality of anarchism as a social movement. I.e. if anarchism is about teh rejection of all forms of authority and oppression, then clearly such racists and msygonists as Proudhon and Bakunin have to be removed. However like other social political and religious movements, anarchism suffers from similar defects as all the others - so perhaps a more balanced NPOV way of writing that touches on Proudhon's sexism - which was relevant at the time rather than the constant removal of any references to this - which ends up with the same school of historical falsification that the bolsheviks have used to hide such phenomena as Kronstadt. Harrypotter 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That's judging Proudhon's character and personality, not his writings. Wikipedia does not do that. --AaronS 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(Lengthy discussion on this archived.)Bengalski 10:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, here I am looking for: 1. Sources that state most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy, 2. Sources that state any philosophy which holds the state to be an unnecessary evil is a form of anarchism, regardless of economic preference, 3. Sources that state Anarcho-Capitalism is very little more than an obscure philosophy with little influence on any significant mass movements or ideas, unlike anti-capitalist anarchism which has held a visible position as a political movement

Please attempt to find sources from reasonably impartial sources. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries of political philosophy, textbooks etc. Feel free to provide sources of varying ages. A range would be good. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


1) Sources saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism

Encyclopedias (freely available on the net)

  • 1910 EB: (note: article written by anarchist P. Kropotkin) [5]

"As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility"

Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Bullocks. What is the difference in meaning between 'anarchism' and 'the anarchists'?Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

[6]

“Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations.”

Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto.Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • MS Encarta US Edition (note: I wonder who wrote this, it reads like a text from first half of 20th century)

[7]

“Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist.”

  • New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (note: article very hostile to anarchism)

[8]

“It aims at a society in which all the members are federated in free groups or corporations according to the professions, arts, trades, business, etc., which happen to suit the fancy of each, so that not only will all be co-proprietors of everything — land, mines, machines, instruments of labour, means of production, exchange, etc. — but every one will thus be able to follow his own individual bent.”

  • Dictionary of the History of Ideas: [9]

Like anarchism, liberalism stemmed from the concern for freedom, and the wish to keep the activities of the state and the functions of government to a minimum. Anarchism, however, holds that liberal postulates are realizable only on the basis of the abolition of economic monopoly and the coercive institutions of political power because, while equality is quite possible without liberty, there can be no liberty without social and economic equality; “liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality” (Bakunin).

Comment: As we saw in Wikiquote, Bakunin was one of a small minority of theorists who defined anarchism as socialist. Most other theorists - even the socialist ones - did not define anarchism so narrowly. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The point here is that encyclopedia is taking Bakunin's statement as representative.Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(Ensuing discussion on liberalism and anarchism archived.)

Encyclopedias (subscription only)

  • Anarchism: "cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." -Encyclopedia Britannica

Anyone have access to any?

Reputable historians and commentators (not anarchists)

  • Bertrand Russell in “Proposed Roads to Freedom”. [[10]]

“SOCIALISM, like everything else that is vital, is rather a tendency than a strictly definable body of doctrine. … What all forms have in common is democracy and the abolition, virtual or complete, of the present capitalistic system. The distinction between Socialists, Anarchists and Syndicalists turns largely upon the kind of democracy which they desire.”

Note: This source does not say anarchism is opposed to capitalism; its says there are two schools of socialism, one anarchist. There are also two schools of capitalism, minarchist and anarchist. That of course does not imply that all anarchists are capitalist. Hogeye 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reputable theorists who everyone recognises to be anarchists

  • Mikhail Bakunin Where to begin? See eg. "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism" [11], or perhaps 'The Capitalist System' [12] (Though how can that be? Apparently nobody thought of capitalism as an 'economic system' in the nineteenth century. I suppose apart from Bakunin, Marx, Proudhon, and almost any other socialist writer you care to name.)Bengalski 15:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alexander Berkman 'What is communist anarchism?' chap 20[13] "Yousee therefore that doing away with government also signifies the abolition of monopoly and of personal ownership of the means of production and distribution. It follows that when government is abolished, wage slavery and capitalism must also go with it, because they cannot exist without the support and protection of government."
  • Emma Goldman 'Anarchism: What it really stands for.' [14] "Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society. Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails."
  • Peter Kropotkin. See eg. Encyclopedia Britannica article (cited above) for starters.
  • Errico Malatesta 'Towards Anarchy': [15] "Anarchism is the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is, the abolition of private property and government; Anarchism is the destruction of misery, of superstitions, of hatred."
  • Rudolf Rocker 'Anarchosyndicalism': [16] "Anarchism is a definite intellectual current in the life of our times, whose adherents advocate the abolition of economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive institutions within society. In place of the present capitalistic economic order Anarchists would have a free association of all productive forces based upon co-operative labour, which would have as its sole purpose the satisfying of the necessary requirements of every member of society, and would no longer have in view the special interest of privileged minorities within the social union."
  • Peter SabatiniSocial Anarchism, p. 38 "The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority."

Libraries

  • The US Library of Congress, and all academic universities following it's coding scheme. HX represents "Socialism; Communism; Anarchism" [17]. Anarcho-capitalist theory is not categorized here.
  • UC Berkeley's Digital Library: "Anarchism is the political philosophy of those who believe that a society based on shared ownership and voluntary agreements among individuals and groups is possible and that without each person's consent and involvement in the social order all established forms of government essentially rest upon the threat of force." (my emphasis)
This is a rather weak source - it's a glossery from a sample curriculum for teaching secondary school students about Emma Goldman. It doesn't even use Emma's own broad definition of anarchism! Hogeye 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

2) Sources saying anarchism is anti-statism regardless of economic position

Onelook

Wikisource definitions: [18]

Suggestion: I think we should put all relevant definitions and citations directly on this page. Then we have all the evidence gathered here, and can discuss particular sources individually. I have moved general discussion below.Bengalski 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

3) Sources saying anarcho-capitalism is not (notable in) anarchism

The burden of proof should be on notability. I can't list any sources that say that my pet dog isn't notable... that doesn't mean he his. Just my thoughts on it though. --FluteyFlakes88 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.[15]" "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" by Peter Marshall, chap 36. [19]

Note he said "might." RJII 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

4) Sources saying anarcho-capitalism is notable in anarchism

Encyclopedias (freely available on the net)

  • MS Encarta Encyclopedia (UK version): "The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." [20].RJII 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reputable historians and commentators (not anarchists)

  • Simon Tormey in Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide (ISBN 1851683429). "‘anarchism’ is essentially an umbrella term sheltering a staggeringly diverse range of political currents and groups.Indeed, to call oneself an ‘anarchist’ is to say very little of interest about oneself at all...One immediately needs to say what kind of anarchist, and in particular whether one is a collectivist or communist anarchist or an individualist or libertarian anarchist...Those who follow the lead of classical American anarchist thinkers of the nineteenth century such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner or Josiah Warren would probably find themselves sympathising with those inside the conference centre at the meetings of the WTO or World Bank defending capitalism against the attacks of the anti-capitalists outside... Indeed some of the more prominent American (libertarian) anarchists would no doubt argue that there is too much intervention in the world rather than not enough...Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." RJII 02:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reputable theorists who everyone recognises to be anarchists

  • Benjamin Tucker on Auberon Herbert: "Mr. Herbert proved beyond question that the government of man by man is utterly without justification, but is quite ignorant of the fact that interest, rent, and profits will find no place in the perfect economic order." Nevertheless, he still considers him an anarchist: "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!" RJII
  • Anarchism: Left, Right and Green by Ulrike Heider (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994). Heider says that there are three broad categories of anarchism: Left anarchism is anarcho-syndicalism and communism, Anarcho-capitalism is right anarchism, and then there's Green anarchism. RJII 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians

  • Ralph Raico asserts what that Jakob Mauvillon, Julius Faucher, and Gustave de Molinari "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." (Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century)RJII 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of general issues around sources

Impartiality

I think 'impartiality' here needs discussion. Particularly on point three - I don't think anyone is interested in anarcho-capitalism except ancaps, perhaps their right-libertarian allies, and anarchists fuming against them.
And on the other points, most of the recognised histories and texts on anarchism I know of are written by anarchists. I think we need to include here as impartial to our dispute any anarchist thinkers and historians who are recognised as anarchists by all parties.Bengalski 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

changing terminology

One thing you have to keep in mind is that anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism, depending on how one defines capitalism. Saying anarchists have historically opposed capitalism doesn't say much when, for example, it's defined as the old-school labor/value individalists defined it --government-backed privilege and monopoly status for capital. RJII 18:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
These claims that terminology has changed over time, so invalidating historical sources, need to be backed up with some evidence.Bengalski 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The 1909 Century Dictionary: capitalism:

1) The state of having capital or property; possession of capital. 2) The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.

Contemporary Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary: capitalism:

"an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market."

You won't find capitalism being defined as an economic system in old dictionaries. It's only later in the 20th century when it began to mean what was previously called laissez-faire. The problem is you still have people clinging to obsolete definitions and it screws up communication. RJII 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

value of 'definitions'

I think we have to very careful here how we use dictionary definitions. 1)I am not saying they are not relevant at all, but it is a big leap from 'we should consider how dictionaries define the term anarchism' to 'we can deduce everything about what is essential to anarchism, or who is an anarchist, from dictionary definitions'. 2)We have to remember context - if a point about anarchism has rarely, and only recently, been disputed then it is not surprising it isn't explicitly dealt with in a brief definition.Bengalski 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

systematic bias

Wikipedia, and the net in general, suffers from a systematic bias (concentration of rich white anglophone geek editors) [[21]]. This is by no means unrelated to the unnaturally high presence of anarcho-capitalists. The article needs to reflect what anarchism means in the world as a whole, not just the english language internet. In particular, we have to make an effort to bring in sources from other languages, countries and continents.Bengalski 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice, you insult other editors as "geeks." RJII 16:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a strong internal bias towards the United States, the upper middle class, males, and of course English speakers from English-speaking countries. I find some of the differences interesting between the English version of this article and the German one, which for instance has a list of "Other, newer or partially disputed forms of anarchism" which includes right libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcha-feminism, post-anarchism, "situationism" [sic], and "pogo-anarchism" (see Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany). Not that I particularly like this list (I don't know who would disclude anarcha-feminism), but it's interesting to see how it's not always so cut and dry. Sarge Baldy 16:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the Italian Wiki. [22] Anarcho-capitalism has its own section and nobody is arguing over whether it's a form of anarchism; it's just accepted as a matter of fact. Anarcho-capitalism is actually relatively popular in Italy. There are a lot of anarcho-capitalists theorists there. Here's an ancap website in Italy: [23] The notion that you're trying to put across that anarcho-capitalism is restricted to the english-speaking is false. It's popular everywhere. I suppose you're going to dismiss it by attacking them as "geeks" though, right? RJII 17:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of my best friends are geeks.Bengalski 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The French article [24] says (excusing my poor translation) that "For all the libertarian socialists [libertarian, libertarian socialist, and anarchist are used interchangeably here], currents such as national anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and the "anarchism of the right-hand side" [[25]- apparently an anti-state "tendency" inclusive of conservative moral and social values] are rejected, with the ideas of these movements being considered external to that of political and historical anarchism, nor sharing any common relation with them, and even are considered as being in ideological opposition. The majority also estimate that they wrongly employ the term "anarchism". The anarcho-capitalists also reject national anarchism and the "anarchism of the right-hand side". Sarge Baldy 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

wikiquote page

Wikisource definitions: Very few define anarchism in regard to any given economic system. Various anarchists have various ideas for economic systems in anarchy and opposition to various systems, but few define anarchism itself in regard to an economic system. RJII 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource has no anarchism article. Do you mean Wikiquote? That definitions of anarchism article seems to be dominated by you and Hogeye. You do not count as a reputable source, good as your theories and interpretations may be, unless you are a well-respected published author and are using your own well-respected and published work as a source. --AaronS 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Those are directly quoted definitions of anarchism. And, no I have had no part in "dominating" that article. You are really going off the deep end. RJII 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

(For continuatrion of lengthy discussion see archive.)

Some possible policy

Please refrain from commenting below for the meanwhile. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We should give appropriate weight, according to WP:NPOV, to each subset of the anarchist movement. We should also not shy away from explaining where it came from.

Some possible compromises

Feel free to suggest possible compromises below. Please keep discussion out of this section. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Have anarcho-capitalism in the infobox, under "schools" but under a subheading disputed.
  2. Better: in the infobox under "schools," every school should have a disputed label. Every school has been disavowed by some anarchist theorist at some time or another. E.g. "True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." - Murray Rothbard
  3. Rephrase the lead as follows: Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions and relationships, particularly the state, and in the majority of historical anarchist movements and thinkers, capitalism.
  4. Even better, rephrase the italicized note to read: Note: Some people mistakenly believe the term "anarchism" refers only to anti-capitalist movements; however, most dictionaries define anarchism to mean fundamental opposition to the State regardless of economic system.[26] The majority of self-labeled anarchists, however, are anti-capitalist.
  5. Have a disambiguation note at the beginning of the article pointing out that this article refers to anarchism as a historical and political movement and not the dictionary definition. Then point the user at Wiktionary or something for a list of definitions. After all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)
  6. Better yet, use the Neutral Disambiguation Page.

General suggestions and comments

Feel free to add suggestions and comments about the article in its current form. Please keep discussion to the discussion area. I've numbered the list to it makes it easy to refer to. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. This needs to be changed, you're putting words into his mouth. Who said that Herbert advocated anarcho-capitalism? Auberon Herbert advocated anarcho-capitalism in the 19th century, calling it "voluntaryism."
  2. For so much dispute about anarcho-capitalism, I don't see much criticism in that section. Many anarchists, social and individualist, deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, arguing that authoritarian institutions are integral to and are inevitable in any capitalist system thus negating its claims of aspiration to statelessness. This needs to be cited, "many anarchists" smells of weasel words. You could quote Noam Chomsky perhaps (I just did a quick google search: The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. [27]).
  3. In the modern day anarchist movement, many anarchists, male or female, consider themselves feminists, and anarcha-feminist ideas are growing. Needs to be cited.
  4. Luigi Fabbri <-- this guys quote needs to be cited
  5. Surprised there isn't more on Nestor Makhno
  6. "Liberal anarchism" smells like a neologism [28]
  7. I'm surprised that there isn't a section on Mutualism or more on the ideas of Proudhon, especially considering credit unions.
  8. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the note should be removed from the lead, possibly made into a footnote. This would be relevant only if the author of the note could prove that most anarchists define their ideas using a dictionary. The lead should make crystal clear, if it can be proven that the majority of published anarchist thinkers define anarchism as being more than a mere dictionary definition.
  9. Anarcho-capitalism should definately be included as it has influenced the contemporary anarchist movement, I mean, we're sitting here having this dispute aren't we ;) It should be given an appropriate amount of space for its historical impact on the anarchist movement.
  10. I don't see any problem with a photograph, who did you have in mind? Rothbard?
  11. In the introduction, which reads, "Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions and relationships, particularly the state," the words "and related social movements" should be deleted since "anarchism" refers to a philosophy, political theory, or belief, not a movement.
  12. One possible statement you could make in the intro is: "Though anarchism includes individualist forms, most associate the term with collectivist forms such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism." RJII 17:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. This discussion shouldn't be about whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It should be about whether or not anarcho-capitalism deserves the prominent role in the article that it has received in the past, and whether or not popular and historical understandings, definitions, and interpretations of anarchism need to be watered down in order to accommodate anarcho-capitalism as a "school" of anarchist thought. --AaronS 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. I also think national anarchism should be included as a school of anarchist thought. I created the black anarchism article and noted that school of the thought in this article awhile back, and fortunately it stayed after much resistance. Nobody who calls themselves anarchists should be forcibly ostracized. It's the anarchist thing to do isn't it? RJII 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No, these people are not anarchists they are fascists. As I think you well know.Bengalski 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't have fascism without a state. Fascism is the sacrifice of the individual for the state. It's collectivism enforced. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" -Merriam-Webster "For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." -Mussolini ""If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." -Mussolini RJII 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's only based on your broad definition of anarchism. Since you claim that anarchism is mere anti-statism, then all different "schools" of anarchist thought are possible -- anarcho-rapism, anarcho-racism, anarcho-slavism, etc. -- that no respectable scholar would ever actually call anarchist. This is the reason why I have been asking for sources. If you can find me a reliable source that says that national anarchism is a school of anarchist thought, then, by all means, we should definitely include it. I'm still waiting on anarcho-capitalism, though. --AaronS 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you one for anarcho-capitalism --Carl Levy. RJII 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would suggest that ongoing discussions not be archived, as it tends to make it difficult to communicate. Sarge Baldy 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll paste them all back, if you'd like. The page was getting to be so big, however, that my computer couldn't really handle it while editing. --AaronS 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do - or at least the stuff that was part of the ongoing mediation. It's fine to archive discussions that are done with but not ones in train - we'll just end up repeating it all again. I thought we were making progress on presenting sources and discussion in the structure suggested by the mediator. Now that's all wiped away and we're starting from scratch.Bengalski 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sorry, but I just came across this quote on the page for the Ludwig von Mises Institute (we were talking about it related to the source RJII provided):

Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.

Rothbard doesn't sound like much of an anarchist to me, regardless of economic ideas. The Ungovernable Force 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


That quote is an uncited smear, and should be deleted from that Ludwig von Mises Institute article. I was able to locate the uncited Rothbard essay (PDF). Rothbard is not blaming stuff on "meddling women," he is expositing on the 19th century pietist/progressive movement in a historical article entitled "Origins Of The Welfare State In America." He non-judgementally and factually describes women involved in authoritarian movements against alcohol, prostitution, child labor, and so on. Hogeye 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard sounds very much like an anarchist: e.g. Proudhon: in Cesarisme et Christianisme Proudhon states: "The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither a farmer nor an industrial nor even a true merchant. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitic, who operates, in trade as in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, horse-dealing. He knows but the rise and fall of prices, the risk of transport, the incertitude of crops, the hazard of demand and supply. His policy in economics has always been entirely negative, entirely usurious; it is the evil principle, Satan, Ahriman, incarnated in the race of Sem." Proudhon's sexism was also a significant issue during his life time. . . . and then of course there is Bakkkunin's anti-semitism too . Harrypotter 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism Tree v3

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
File:AnarchismTree03.jpg

Hogeye 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it seems like Spooner should be in there. Rothbard bases his anarchism in natural law, and Tucker was primarily an egoist. Spooner is natural law. It's possible he was influenced by Spooner on this, but I'm not sure. Here's something by Rothbard about Spooner: [29] RJII 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Here you go. McElroy says Rothbard "fused together...the radical civil libertarianism of 19th century individualist-anarchists, especially Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker." [30] I would guess he would be on the line there between mutualism and capitalism, but not sure. Also, note that he developed in isolation from the other individualist anarchist until late in life when he wrote his most radical anti-government texts. I'm not sure how much he influenced Tucker, though Tucker did speak well of him; also I'm not sure how much the Tucker school influenced him either ..I would guess it wasn't a huge influence, but it may have been responsible for his writings getting a more explicitly anarchist. RJII 03:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Right. I basically put in a representative person from each school. There's no way I can put everyone in there! Perhaps there should be some indication of the classical liberal influence, e.g. JLocke-TPaine/TJefferson-HSpencer-AHerbert. Hogeye 18:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this is, fundamentally, a "Great Man" theory of anarchist ideological development. That's an untenable bias. Early socialist anarchisms developed out of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois radicalism (just as much as social democracy prior to the twentieth century). Rocker's syndicalism is insignificant when compared to syndicalist and industrial unionist practice as a class practice in society. Or, for example, compare pre-20th century liberalist market anarchisms with the development of the free-silver, populist and progressive movements in the US, or the much later Douglas Social Credit movement. Connection to concrete social reality is far more important than individual thinkers. Fifelfoo 03:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Right; this should not be interpreted as a Great Man theory. The people named are simply representative of their school. Choosing a representative anarcho-syndicalist is not easy; unlike some other schools there doesn't seem to be a main man.
I don't quite get the connection between individualist anarchism and bi-metalism or progressivism. As far as I know, they opposed central government price-fixing a gold/silver ratio, and also opposed prohibitionism and govt control of schools, the main gist of 19th century progressivism.
I think we need to separate, conceptually if not in the article, anarchism qua philosophy and anarchism qua movement. Hogeye 18:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Bi-metalism and progressivism were small farmer and small storeowner responses to the gilded age of gross individual capitalist monopolists. They were class movements of the petit-bourgeois for libertarian social change: they identified large government as their key social problem, and secondly, monopoly as encouraged by large government. In comparison to individualist theorists, bi-metalism, popularism and progressivism all represent a social movement for market libertarianism in the United States. Trying to pick an "individual" who apparently represents syndicalism is hard, because syndicalism isn't a bourgeois movement founded by a bourgeois or aristocratic intellectual (ie Kropotkin's "communism"); its an actual movement by working people for social change.
If it turns out that the main reason why there's been prominance and "inclusion" arguments over anarcho-capitalism is that anarcho-capitalists view themselves as a theoretical position only (as opposed to a praxis), and we've wasted a year over a fundamental catagory misunderstanding, I am going to spew. Anyway, if that's the result then we should more clearly delinate anarchisms, and turn the anarchism page into a disambig.Fifelfoo 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to share some thoughts I had after reading this page.

  1. It is futile and inappropriate on the talk page to argue, "If anarchism is defined a certain way, than X is/is not a form of anarchism." Our job is not to classify anything; our job is simply to present the relevant data we have. We have sources that define anarchism; let us summarize those and present them. We have sources that attempt to classify the various "schools" of anarchism; let us summarize those sources and present them, even if the sources disagree with each other! Our job is not to settle disagreements between sources; rather, our job is to explain the disagreements as elegantly as we can. As a concrete example, we have a source that says Rothbard claimed the philosophy of Molinari was anarcho-capitalism. So, under the anarcho-capitalist section, let us simply write "Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist, claimed the philosophy of Molinari was anarcho-capitalism." It is without question that Rothbard is a notable person, so just let the reader decide if Rothbard's claim is valid or not.
  2. Let us all remember to be constructive, rather than destructive. RJII has done a great job of presenting a lot of sources, and I encourage his opponents to do the same, because that is exactly what we need. Once a source is presented, we should not hastily dismiss it, or demand more sources before we accept it. Sources help us build the page, so we should not dismiss a source unless we either 1) have many better sources on the same subject or 2) the source completely lacks credibility. I completely disagree with AaronS's remark that "credentials aren't entirely important". If someone has a Ph.D., than I think their opinion is definitely something we should include on this page, especially when we don't have many sources to choose from. A Ph.D. does not prove they are right, but their opinion is certainly notable.
  3. "Connection to concrete social reality is far more important than individual thinkers." Why weigh the two against each other? Just make "thought" and "movement" separate subjects. The "thought" section is basically defined by academics and Great Men, so let the weight of each section be roughly proportional to the school's influence in academic circles. For the "movement" section, simply discuss the most significant anarchist movements in history. If most or all of the movements have people that belong to a certain school, it will be clear enough to the reader which theories are truly practiced.
  4. I think Hogeye's anarchism tree is impressive, and is the kind of thing that would really make this article stand out. If everything the diagram implies can basically be cited (and I'm not saying it can or can't be), than I would love to see it in the article. I think we need to stop arguing about what anarchism is or isn't, and focus instead on how we can present all of the cited information we have. If we do that, than I believe the article we will have in the end will be something that the entire Wikipedia community can respect and learn from.

Just my two cents. -- Blah99 06:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about points two and three; RJ's citations are great, and we do need to keep in mind the distinction between anarchist thought and anarchist movements. I agree with much of point one. In fact, we used to have an intro that specifically noted the broad range of interpretations of "authority," ranging from simple anti-statism to opposition to all hierarchy no matter how consentual. But point one begs the questions of whether 1) anarcho-capitalism should be in the template and 2) have a section 'equal' to anarcho-syndicalism. The implication is that you favor "yes" to both, while arguing definitions in the sectarian sections. I agree. Hogeye 16:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good point to recognize the difference between a social and a philosophical movement. It's an apples and oranges comparison to try to compaire the extent of a social movement to the extent of a philosophical movement (anarchism is comprised of both). I would guess a philosophical movement would have a larger effect on how society structures itself, though. So, even if a philosophical movement was comprised of, say, 5 people, it could have a larger impact on the world than 5000 people marching in the street. RJII 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
We are no longer arguing that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, or that it should not be in the page--the real disagreement is how much promininence and importance it should have. The Ungovernable Force 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This table is original research, highly POV, and has no place in the article. Ungovernable Force - I certainly continue to argue that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, as many editors of this page have done. For RJ to demonstrate that anarcho-capitalism should be included would take, to my mind, him showing that a large number of reputable sources consider it to be part of the anarchist movement. Even then, it would have to be made clear that its place is disputed by many others.
Although I personally consider An-cap to be a complete perversion of anarchist thought (just like national anarchism as mentioned above), it does seem as if an-cap developed from Individualist anarchism and thus merits a small discussion confined completely to the individualist section, w/o a section of it's own. And I have seen and even sourced comments by Chomsky supporting that an-cap developed from and can be viewed as a form of individualist anarchism, while then going on to say it is a completely insane idea and will only be private tyranny. Still, I think it deserves brief mention, which should clearly state the opposition it encounters from anti-cap anarchists (including myself) and the fact that there is no viable movement connected to it. Basically it's just armchair philosophy. I think it's a fair compromise. The Ungovernable Force 04:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources to show that anarchism has been, and remains, opposed to capitalism. We began setting them out above as requested by the mediator - I have reinstated that work which was lost by hasty archiving. For these to be overturned and anarchism to be redefined to include capitalism would take a major swing in the way people use the term anarchism. This is not demonstrated by eg. one encyclopedist writing that anarcho-capitalism is a modification of American individualism.Bengalski 10:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Opposition to capitalism and opposition to anarcho-capitalism are two different things, especially if you're talking in an historical sense. Capitalism did not have the same definition that it has today. See old dictionaries for evidence of that. It was not even defined as an economic system', but as a state of affairs --the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, or simply the ownership of capital (something no individualist anarchist opposes). The old labor-value individualist anarchists defined capitalism in terms of government-backed privilege for capital such as the banking monopoly, so in that sense anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism.RJII 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I am copying RJ's sources arguing notability of ancapism as a form of anarchism into the appropriate part of the mediation discussion. If people are still serious about trying to go on with mediation I suggest we discuss them there, and add more sources for discussion. I can put more in over next couple of days - a lot of them may be Spanish however as I don't have much access to English books. What I think would be useful is if someone can get citations from the main English language histories of anarchism. On the other hand, if there is no desire from anyone else to go on with the process started by the mediator say so and I'll give up now.Bengalski
ɨViva Non-English language Sources! ɨViva Zapata for that matter! Fifelfoo 13:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

call for comments "right anarchism" and revisionism

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

It is apparent that a number libertarians or right-anarchists/anarchists as they claim themselves are associted with the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review So far I have collected 4: James J. Martin, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Pierre Guillaume, and publishing house La Vieille Taupe
Any comments? See also article started by RJII Left Anarchism. Also any criticisms of contoversial German 'anarcho-syndicalist' author Ulrike Heider -max rspct leave a message

Some anarcho-capitalists are into historical revisionism, criticizing e.g. the victor's history of the US Constitution ("Our Enemy the State" by Albert Jay Nock), Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War ("The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo), the New Deal, FDR's efforts to involve the US in WWII and pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor, etc. Rothbard's four volume "Conceived in Liberty" is one of the best books on early US history (through secession) that you'll find. For a sampler, there's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods. Many historical revisionist articles can be found in the LewRockwell.com archives. Hogeye 16:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Historical revisionism is an admirable job. Never should it be taken for granted that history has been recorded correctly and never to be questioned again. RJII 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. The IHR is rather more focused on revising the deaths of six million jews out of history. An admirable job?Bengalski 16:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? If 4 million died rather than 6, for example, then historical accounts should be revised. Historical accounts of everything should be scrutinized and revised if necessary, regardless of how politically incorrect it is do so. RJII 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've come to this after being asked a question about it in the ArbCom elections, and don't have any history in the disputes. The Left anarchism article reads like a POV fork, which practice is deprecated for good reason. Has anyone proposed a merge and copyedit? David | Talk 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo has just made a good rewrite (which i support) the start of left anarchism> [31] -- max rspct leave a message 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What Murray Bookchin has to say about Ulrike Heider's book: "possibly one of the most malicious, fatuous, and basically immoral books I have encountered on the left in decades. I say this quite soberly, having experienced some most unsavory distortions of my work on the part of deep ecologists, socialists, self-styled anarchists, and, of course, the liberal bourgeois press. But seldom have I encountered such blatant character assassination and such deliberate distortions of ideas--not to speak of her willingness to read German traditions into the American context....
"But where to start? Having placed the proprietarian disciple of Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, in an anarchist "pantheon" of her own making--despite Rothbard's furious attacks on any alternative to capitalism and naked greed-- ..." [32].Bengalski 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is someone complaining that the book is biased against right anarchism. [33] RJII 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

fr.wiki

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here are the mentions of anarcho-capitalism on the fr.wiki page, translated by me, probably badly, feel free to improve the translation if you're better at French than me.

Also, cool picto of striking anarchists in New York Image:Anarchistes914.jpg - FrancisTyers 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

L'anarcho-capitalisme, mouvement issu de la pensée libérale, libertarienne et anarchiste individualiste. Il veut rendre à l'individu tous les droits usurpés par l'État, y compris les fonctions dites « régaliennes » (défense, police, justice et diplomatie). L'anarcho-capitalisme défend la liberté individuelle, le droit de propriété et la liberté de contracter.

The anarcho capitalist movement comes from the liberal, libertarian and individualist anarchist thinking. They wish to give to the individual all the rights usurped by the state that comprise the functions called " ? " (defence, police, justice and diplomacy). Anarcho-capitalism defends individual liberty, property rights and the freedom of contract.

Conflits entre courants

Les tendances de l'anarchisme historique (anarchisme socialiste/syndicaliste/proudhonien/communiste et individualiste stirnerien) sont également les plus actives politiquement et idéologiquement, et les mieux organisées. Elles peuvent en outre revendiquer un héritage historique très riche, qui a été composé au fil des décennies par un militantisme et un activisme très vivace. Elles constituent encore de nos jours le noyau dur de l'anarchisme actif, et une majorité d'anarchistes considère que ce sont les seuls mouvements qui peuvent légitimement revendiquer l'appellation d'anarchisme

Au sein du mouvement anarchiste, d'autres mouvements non traditionnels sont plus ou moins bien accueillis (selon les tendances), certains sont considérés comme un enrichissement de l'anarchisme, d'autres non.

Néanmoins, les diverses tendances se rejettent parfois mutuellement, des individualistes libertaires pouvant rejeter les socialistes et réciproquement.

Pour l'ensemble des socialistes libertaires, les courants tels que le national-anarchisme, l'anarcho-capitalisme et l'anarchisme de droite sont rejetés, considérant que les idées de ces mouvements sont extérieures à l'anarchisme politique et historique, et qu'elles n'ont aucun point commun avec les leurs et leur sont même fondamentalement opposées. La plupart estiment également qu'ils emploient abusivement le terme « anarchisme ». Les anarcho-capitalistes rejettent également le national-anarchisme et l'anarchisme de droite.

Conflicts between the ideological strands

The historical anarchist tendencies (socialist/syndicalist/proudhonian/communist/individualist/stirnerien anarchism) are equally the most active politically and ideologically and the most organised. They have a very rich historical heritage and are composed through the decades by a large amount of militant and activist behaviour. They constitute even today the hard core of active anarchism and the majority of anarchists consider that these are the only movements that can legitimately be called anarchism.

In the vein of the anarchist movement, other non-traditional movements are more or less well known (than the previous tendencies), some consider that they enrich anarchism, others not.

Nevertheless, the diverse tendencies reject each other mutually, the libertarian individualists can reject the socialists and vice-versa.

For the libertarian socialists, the currents of national-anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and right-anarchism are rejected, considering that the ideas of these movements are exterior to anarchism, historically and politically. They have no common points with them and they are fundamentally opposed. Most of them consider they are abusively using the term "anarchism". The anarcho-capitalists reject equally national-anarchism and right-anarchism.

Oops, I just translated this above. Didn't notice someone else got to it. But yeah, the most important thing I see that's misleading is what you translate as "right anarchism" is a stateless philosophy that supports conservative moral values (and doesn't yet seem to have an article on en.wikipedia). Sarge Baldy 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro 1st paragraph

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps the best so far, that (as per discussion) ducks giving a specific definition but gives the range, was this one:

Anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus anarchism, in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulers are unnecessary and should be abolished. Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions and relationships. There is often disagreement about the meaning of "authoritarian." The state is universally seen by anarchists as an unnecessary evil that must be abolished, but other things - such as economic relationships - provoke intense controversy. In place of centralized political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals and self-governance.

Hogeye 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So far...

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So far we have this evidence for the broad definition ("regardless of economic system") of anarchism:

  • Virtually all dictionaries
  • Most encyclopedias
  • Most theorists, even the anarcho-socialist ones. Definitions of anarchism on Wikiquote
  • Quotes by Weisbord, Hart, Roepke, Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker, and Tormey specifically saying that anarcho-capitalism (or "liberal anarchism) is a form of anarchism. Thanks, RJ!

So far we have this evidence for the narrow ("anti-capitalist") definition:

  • Two encyclopedias - New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia & Dictionary of the History of Ideas. According to the latter, individualist anarchism is also not anarchism!
  • Two theorists defined it as necessarily socialist: Bakunin and Guerin.
You forgot Chomsky, Malatesta and Woodcock Definitions of anarchism on Wikiquote

Hogeye 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Seven months of 2 big trolls

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I thought I would bring a paragraph i wrote on anarchism talkpage back in June 2005 just to show folks we have being dealing with evangelical trolls RJII and Hogeye ever since then. It includes a quote from set text book for 1st yr politics in most if not all UK universities >

What happened to all the talk about english anarchism vs american anarchism .. - have u abandoned it for anarchism socialist verses "anti-state" anarchism?? Why do u talk of "TRENDS" on u.s campuses ... after claiming that anarchism traditional never reached yer shores? I think this is still all about a/c POV warriors and their throwaway 'philosophy'... I dig up that quote again from my standard 1st year book at university (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840) "Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3" --------U see my point is A/C should get a mention.. but that is all unless this article is going to kowtow to the POV requirements of the A/C trolls - max rspct 17:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) also: - i have checked the 4th edition (june2004) and although she has expanded ecology and feminism .. Anarchism and it's paragraph on Anarcho-capitalism remains the same (i am sure i put most of it up ..now in archives) if i can get a code for textbridge pro... i will scan the whole chapter. -max rspct 20:13, 25 Jun 2005

Ta -- max rspct leave a message 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Max - wpuld you put the full quote in the sources section above (under sources claiming AC is not notable.)Bengalski 14:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will do it in a few hours -- max rspct leave a message 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Disambiguation Page

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Categories of
Anarchism

Cost the limit of price?

Yes No
Natural
resources
private
property?		 Yes

No

Individualist anarchism

Anarcho-capitalism

Libertarian socialism

Geoanarchism

Anarchist thought can be categorized by two simple criteria; whether it uses
cost-price economics, and how it sees ownership of natural resources. Hogeye 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This table seems that uses a totally right-wing definition, or maybe american of socialism. It isn't neutral. Individual anarchism is a form of socialism.
That's absurd. This table is the most useful, succinct summation of the arguments here, and resolves them nicely. Individualist anarchism, at least in an American context, does support the general tenets of contract libertarianism. In one essay (I forget the name) Voltarine DeCleyre argues that people through their private industry have done more for society than government has. There's an obvious tinge of anarcho-capitalism there. However, it's also legit to say that DeCleyre was opposed to profit ("the much making of things," in her words). Thus, cost was the limit of price for this anti-government individualist! Thanks for chart. It's excellent . . . and, yes, there should be a disambiguation page for this entry. At the same time, what we should all do is take a look at the collection of Goldman's Mother Earth and see the broad definitions of Anarchism that even the self-proclaimed Anarchist Communist editors of that magazine could accept. They slide between individualist anarchist and libertarian socialist. Arguably, though, any consistent anarchist system based on anarchism (market or otherwise) ought to be opposed to profit in other words to price above the value of labor. The best argument for anarchist capitalism, at least in an American context--Benjamin Tucker--firmly belived that the cost of labor should be the price of a product. I.e., no profits! I would challenge the person who put up this chart to come up with an Anarchist in the history of the movement who supports free trade and what we used to call usury. That said, in teaching anarchism in American history next semester, I can't not include Libertarianism. But I guess I'm leaning toward post Left Anarchism.
Anon> "I would challenge the person who put up this chart to come up with an Anarchist in the history of the movement who supports free trade and what we used to call usury."
That depends on how you define anarchism. If you use the etymological/dictionary definition, it's easy: Gustav de Molinari, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Hans-Herman Hoppe are some of the most famous. If you use the (unsatisfactory IMO) whoever called themselves "anarchist" before Rothbard, then I know of no one. If you loosen that just a little to those considered anarchist by uncontested anarchist authorities, there's Auberon Herbert. (Cf: Benjamin Tucker's obituary for Herbert published in "Liberty.")
Might I suggest chapter 10 of "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" as one reading for your class? And of course "The Anatomy of State" by Rothbard. Here are some of my favorite readings. BTW, How do you intend to define anarchism? Hogeye 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I would challenge the person who put up this chart to come up with an Anarchist in the history of the movement who supports free trade and what we used to call usury. Okay then, like RJII said before, this is a quote from Benjamin Tucker on Auberon Herbert: "Mr. Herbert proved beyond question that the government of man by man is utterly without justification, but is quite ignorant of the fact that interest, rent, and profits will find no place in the perfect economic order." Nevertheless, he still considers him an anarchist: "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!" MrVoluntarist 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Socialists knows better his ideas than right-wing people. Proudhon was a mutualist, a Tucker influence, and he is the father of French socialism.
No, Saint-Simon was the father of French socialism. Hogeye 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Saint-Simon was a utopian socialist, yes. But Proudhon (first person that used anarchism as political theory) is true that he was a socialist. --83.97.228.16 05:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a european mutualist, so I'm a libertarian socialist and I'm an anarcho-individualist. Please, more scientific rigor.
In English, a socialism has "the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power." IOW they believe in collective ownership. If you are a socialist (using the modern definition), then you are not an individualist, who believes in private ownership. Note that in the 19th century "socialism" was defined differently - as "cost is the limit of price" rather than in terms of collective ownership. Hogeye 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
But, I don't use any capitalist or state socialist definition of socialism. I use a anarchist definition of socialism where mutualism is a socialist economic theory based on individual property, because I'm an anarchist. I'm not a capitalist or state socialist, I'm an anarchist, so I don't use capitalists or state socialist definitions of socialism, I use an anarchist definition of socialism and individual property is compatible with an anarchist definition of socialism.
By the way... Thomas Jefferson was a collectivist?:

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it".

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
Collective ownership is at lest a philosophical concept. Libertarian socialists recognize the self-management of individuals or co-ops. This is, de facto, as a individual administration of means of production. Read this article by Keith Preston (an anarchist in the classical Bakuninist tradition). --83.97.228.16 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Another thing. By a socialist anarchist (and individualist) european as me, as me, _private_ property is capitalist propierty (in my terminology, bourgeois propierty privileged by the State), and _property_ is individual or collective (e.g. a co-op ownership) workers property. You are using an american (USA) right-wing libertarian therminology, but this right-wing therminology, IMHO, is not the Standard, is only an arbitrary teerminology used by right-wing people. Tucker (and all libertarian socialist anarchists) used the same terminology as me.
A quote from Benjamin Tucker article:

"Tucker followed Proudhon in rejecting modern conceptions of private property, in which property beyond that generated by labor and use is considered legitimate entitlement. As Gary Elkin writes in Benjamin Tucker - Anarchist or capitalist?, "Tucker advocated *possession* but not private property, believing that empty land, houses, etc. should be squatted. He considered private property in land use (which he called the "land monopoly") as one of the four great evils of capitalism.""

Excuse my English, I am not an English native speaker. --83.97.228.16 07:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
83's got a good point. In particular with regards to Proudhon, and the terminology coming from him: RJ and Hogeye's versions of Proudhon are based on reading 'possession' = 'private property'. They then dismisss Proudhon's propriete, the concept he devotes a whole book to attacking, as some strange antiquated notion of no relevance to anything. But even without looking at the texts in any detail, there is a major stumbling block for this reading. RJ and Hogeye claim that Proudhon supported 'private property' for capital and consumption goods, but not 'natural resources'. This is just plain wrong: Proudhon did allow 'possession' of natural resources. Therefore, if 'possession' = 'private property', Proudhon supported private property of everything, including land and other natural resources. Of course, the truth is 'possession' does not mean 'private property'.Bengalski 13:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to define some terms.

  • property - rights related to the use of a thing
  • private property - property which can be owned by an individual
  • sticky property - property that can be transferred only by consent of the owner (or abandonment)
  • possession property - property that is considered abandoned and unowned when the current owner quits use/occupancy
  • collectivism - the belief that all property should be collectively owned (usually by certain groups) rather than private property
  • Tucker ('weak') socialism - anti-collectivist (for private property) but against making a profit without personal labor (usury).
  • modern ('strong') socialism - collectivism and against against making a profit without personal labor.

Using these definitions: Tucker, Jefferson, and Proudhon believed that land (or any natural resource) was possession property and all other property was sticky property. They believed that both could legitimately be held as private property. None of these guys are "collectivist." Of these, Tucker and Proudhon were against making a profit without personal labor. In modern terminology, Tucker and Proudhon were not socialist, and both favored private property over collectivism. Hogeye 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


This is specious Hogeye, you're engaged in solipsistic catagorisation. What's worse than the mere inadequacy of your catagorisation: the catagories arising not naturally from the subject; is that your catagories are designed to push a particular view. Given that catagorisation schema are a central part of academic disciplinary practice, I'd suggest you find a peer reviewed journal article or monograph by a PhD in a politics related humanity to back up that schema. One might as well say that there are seven varieties of anarchism: those that are, those that are not, those which are blue on tuesdays, those which defy the pope, those which number less than four, those which are smaller than a large dog and those which exist only as wikipedia articles. Fifelfoo 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect just a few here (Bengalski, RJII...) will understand how critical those particular questions about property and labor-value are. (See the discussions about mutualism in the Individualist anarchist talk pages.) The classic academic categorization is collectivist vs individualist. It would be nice to account for the newer forms, like anarcho-capitalism and green anarchism. Eco-anarchism borrows a lot from Georgism, you know.
Your second criticism is puzzling. The categories are not meaningless "blue on tuesday" descriptions, but actual well-known schools of anarchism. So your implication that my categories are frivolous is without merit, as is the claim that the catagories don't arise naturally from the subject. In fact, they do. Hogeye 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No mate, they don't naturally arise out of anarchist practice, they're meaningless in terms of describing anti-market anarchisms. I think you're also subsuming all forms of environmental anarchism under one very small branch. "Cost the limit of price?" is an obscurity to the majority of anarchist thought and movements. "Natural resources as private property?" is a subsumption of a much larger debate. If we're going to do scalar tables on the basis of theory, we might start looking at what arises from the nature of each subject, and the nature of their difference:
  1. Theory of value or price? Marxian LTV, Other LTV, Heterodoxy, Irrelevent, Classical demand price theories, Heterodox demand price theories
  2. Domain of action? Workerist social revolution, Non-workerist social revolution, social ecology change, culture reform, lifestyle, propaganda, theory only
  3. Analytical tool set? Historical Materialist, post-modernist, etc.
By declaring a scale which is utterly irrelevent to (off the top) Lib socs, Christians & Pacificists, left individualists, lifestylists and most of the greens you're introducing a POV bias. Its also clearly original research.
Most greens which I know, incidentally, come out of a clear and obvious LTV / social democrat background, this appears to be true in Au and NZ universally. They're busy producing a bunch of heterodox political economies to account for the scarcity of environmental resources. Fifelfoo 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum, I'd like to apologise for my tone, but not my content, in this section. I've allowed the way in which your editorial position emotionally effects me to colour the tone of my discussion. I'm sorry for that. I don't mean to be offensive due to the offence I feel. Fifelfoo 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fifelfoo> "Cost the limit of price?" is an obscurity to the majority of anarchist thought and movements."

Right - you need to translate the question into the correct jargon. For many, it will be, "Do you believe in the labor theory of value?," or, "Do you believe that wage-labor is exploitative?"

Fifelfoo> "We might start looking at what arises from the nature of each subject, and the nature of their difference: 1. Theory of value or price? Marxian LTV, Other LTV, Heterodoxy, Irrelevent, Classical demand price theories, Heterodox demand price theories"

Right. I divided these into two basic types: LTV-supporters and LTV-deniers (aka marginalists.) This separates the socialists from the capitalists. As the second dimension, I took another critical economic position - the property status of natural resources. This separates the individualists from the collectivists.

You are correct that I selected economic questions, rather than domain of action or analytical framing. You are right that this doesn't address issue-oriented sects or weird offshoots, nor does it make fine distinctions among the many collectivist + LTV schools. (All those commies look about the same to me. ;-) What the model does do is expand on the old (individualist, collectivist) division, providing a logical justification for the (libertarian socialist, individualist anarchist, anarcho-capitalist) divisions we've been using, with the bonus of pointing to anarcho-Georgism as the lesser-known (perhaps surprising) fourth category.

I agree that most green anarchists are libertarian socialist rather than geoanarchist. Hogeye 05:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've said a million times, value theory is just no way near as important to anarchism as you and RJ keep on about. Yes I see that American individualists like Tucker put some kind of LTV (this is such a misunderstood topic) at the core of their philosophy, but they were the only ones. Proudhon has a form of LTV in WIP, but it only appears in one section - it is by no means definitional for him. And Kropotkin is dismissive of LTV or even actually against it. Eg see 'Conquest of Bread'(chap 3):

"Looking at production from this general, synthetic point of view, we cannot hold with the Collectivists that payment proportionate to the hours of labour rendered by each would be an ideal arrangement, or even a step in the right direction. Without discussing whether exchange value of goods is really measured in existing societies by the amount of work necessary to produce it--according to the doctrine of Smith and Ricardo, in whose footsteps Marx has followed--suffice it to say here, leaving ourselves free to return to the subject later, that the Collectivist ideal appears to us untenable in a society which considers the instruments of labour as a common inheritance."

Note there that Kropotkin is one writer who's able to distinguish 'cost limit of price' normative theories from 'positive' theories of how goods actually exchange 'in existing societies'. And when he does return to look more at LTV he goes against the latter also as a foundation of exploitation theory, concluding:

"The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said, thus narrowing the Socialist conception and the general view of the capitalist system; the surplus-value itself is but a consequence of deeper causes." etc. (Hey - another mention of 'capitalist system' which wasn't supposed to exist in those days.)

And in chap 14 he starts up a virtually marginalist critique of Marx and the classicals for ignoring consumption. But much as Kropotkin's economics interest me this is a bit beside the point: the point is theory of value is beside the point.Bengalski 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The only anarchists I've said that the LTV is important to is the labor-value individualist. It's what their whole economics revolves around. RJII 18:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Bengalski! I hadn't realized how sophisticated Kropotkin was wrt economics. As you note, he even had a subjective theory of value!

The theories of value that economists have endeavored to base, from Adam Smith to Marx, only on the cost of production, valued in labor time, have not solved the question of value. As soon as there is exchange, the value of an article becomes a complex quantity, and depends also on the degree of satisfaction which it brings to the needs-not of the individual, as certain economists stated formerly, but of the whole of society, taken in its entirety. Value is a social fact. Being the result of an exchange, it has a double aspect: that of labor, and that of satisfaction of needs, both evidently conceived in their social and not individual aspect. - Peter Kropotkin, "Anarchism: Its philosophy and ideal."

He was head and shoulders above most other anarcho-socialist theorists (e.g. Bakunin) in economic theory.
You've convinced me that Kropotkin's (and Bakunin's[34]) exploitation theory was based on unequal bargaining positions rather than the labor theory of value - the old starving worker rationale. This is probably a weaker basis for the exploitation claim than the Marxian LTV, since the argument apparently depends on two premises: that wages will always approach starvation level, and that unemployment levels remain high. Both these assumptions have failed to apply in modern liberal capitalist societies. (One can understand how K. and B. would think so, since they lived during the industrial revolution with booming population.)
So I agree, the column question needs tweaking. Perhaps: "Is profiting from others' labor exploitative?" Or, "Only labor deserves compensation." What do you think? Hogeye 18:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What I think is this would be an interesting discussion to have on the anarchist economics page, which needs of a lot of work. Though even there I think your 2x2 table is a big oversimplification of the range of views. Here it is completely out of place - you are trying to categorise anarchist thought around two economic dimensions that weren't central to many of the thinkers. I can see where this is coming from - as RJ says, these ideas were central to the American individualist tradition you are most familiar with, and so you are using them as a lens through which you look at everyone else. That may be a natural way to proceed when you're doing your own personal research, but it is original research and you should hold back from putting it straight into the article.
Yes I think Kropotkin's view of exploitation was based more on a 'bargaining theory' than a 'value theory'; I'm not sure if Bakunin has a consistent position on this - he says things along those lines, but also is very praising of Marx's economics (before they fell out). And yes they took the worker's initial bargaining position to be near-starvation and unemployment. But I think that kind of theory would still hold together though, and still give you an account of exploitation, without assuming starvation if the worker rejects the deal. We still have gross inequalities and unequal bargaining in contemporary capitalism, even in countries where starvation is less likely today. (Though there are plenty of places too where people do starve.)
Note if you're interested, and don't know it already, the best known modern version of exploitation theory based on bargaining-type models is analytical marxist John Roemer's General theory of exploitation and class. (He also wrote a less technical version called Free to Lose (after the Friedmans' 'Free to Choose') which is a good introduction.)Bengalski 12:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The communist anarchists opposed the notion of contract. The labor-value individualists thought profit was exploitative but they respected contract as the higher law. If two people contract in a way that allows profit, that's sacrosanct to the individualsts --the profit shouldn't subsequently be expropriated. Here is Kropotkin denigrating freedom of contract: "Will you stand up for that piece of chicanery which consists in affirming "freedom of contract"? Or will you uphold equity, according to which a contract entered into between a man who has dined well and the man who sells his labor for bare subsistence, between the strong and the weak, is not a contract at all?" [35] As a contrast, Benjamin Tucker even upheld the legitimacy of contract between a drowning man and a rescuer who agrees only to rescue him if he promises to give him all of his possessions.. [36] RJII 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

--83.97.228.16 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)--83.97.228.16 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a totally demagogic argument, in my opinion. Kropotkin said his opinion about this issue... in 1880! You ignore the historic context of *cuasifeudal* Russian Empire. This is a differente historic context from Tucker and his United States of this time. Why individualism is typically an american (USA) phenomenon? Because European countries as Russia had another historic context: aristocrats, royal families, great, very very great landwoners, that United States has not had. This is my opinion.
I think that this is only Kropotkin's opinion about contracts in a *State-Capitalism aristocratic and cuasifeudalism* society as he saw.
I think that a normal person always will respect others people arrangements if this arangements are voluntary in an anarchist *free* society. I think that your claim against libertarian communism is not valid. --83.97.228.16 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Weight

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

It appears to be near-consensus that, philosophically, anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.

The other big question is appropriate weight. Currently, anarcho-capitalism has about as much space as anarcho-communism, but somewhat less than individualist anarchism and a lot less than anarcho-syndicalism (which has two sections.)

I would say that anarcho-capitalism will have about the right amount of coverage once the Rothbard picture is put back in (and the relevant book section is replaced.) The only inappropriate weight I see is the anarcho-syndicalist double section.

It's hard to determine proper weight. You could go by recent philosophical contributions, or by raw numbers involved in "movements," whatever they are. Was Laissez Faire City a movement? The Free State Project? Users of e-gold or Liberty Dollars? Cannabis producers and distributors? People who write for Strike the Root, Anti-state.com or Against Politics? How do we count all the minarchists that might be closet anarchists? How many LewRockwell.com readers are anarchists?

Should we decide appropriate weight by the number of books currently in print about each school of thought? Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography is a good start for anarcho-capitalism. Hogeye 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your first sentance. It is more correct to say that there is near-consensus that there is a philosophy which calls itself anarcho-capitalism, and that that philosophy claims to be part of anarchism.
As far as weight goes, the entire article needs to be trimmed significantly. Sections are much too long. Individualism needs to be chopped severely. Most sections need to be no more than the equivalent of an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the main article of that subject. Chronological ordering of the emergence of a movement / philosophy to social prominance should order the latter sections which are primarily historical: this would result in anarcho-capitalism's section being listed last, which is apposite in terms of its significant difference with most other areas.
Are you honestly suggesting that Cannibis users are anarcho-capitalists?Fifelfoo 05:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that cannabis producers and distributors engage in capitalist counter-economic behavior in the free (aka "black") market, defying the state admirably. Hogeye 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A near-consensus that there's such a thing as anarcho-capitalism? What? Or a near consensus that anarcho-capitalists consider anarcho-capitalism as as anarchism? RJII 05:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
actually, I would guess post-left would come after an-cap, but I could be wrong (I don't know when post-left developed for sure, but I think it is pretty recent, like the last 20 years or so). Anyway, I don't believe there is consensus that an-cap is a form of anarchist philosophy per se, but that it is an offshoot (and in my opinion, perversion) of anarchism, specifically individualist. Therefore, it only deserves mention in the individualist section. And I second the Fifelfoo's comment regarding marijuana distrubuters (actually, he said users, but whatever), unless a large number identify as anarcho-capitalist. Show me cites for the "movement" aspects you are talking about (preferebly ones that received some media or academic attention) because I have not heard of any of those. Maybe there is a slight an-cap movement, but I doubt it is anywhere near the strength or visibility of anti-caps. And writting for/reading a magazine or book does not count as being part of a movement, that's armchair philosophy. Also, trimming sections is not a bad idea, as long as there is a clear link to that ideas own page. The Ungovernable Force 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you're not realizing that anarchism comprises both social movements and philosophical movements. Even if there were only 5 anarcho-capitalists, if their philosophy is influential in the field of political philosophy then that's a notable form of anarchism (philosophical anarchism). As I pointed out above, 5 anarcho-capitalist philosophers could have more of an effect on how society structures itself than 5000 left anarchists protesting in the street (and they probably do). Of course there are more than 5 anarcho-capitalists, but you see my point. Anarcho-capitalism consists of both social movements AND philosophical movements. Trying to compare the extent or popularity of social movement anarchism and philosophical anarchism is like comparing apples and oranges. It just doesn't make sense. Individualist anarchism is primarily philosophical anarchism. In fact, the term "philosophical anarchism" used to be an interchangeable term for "individualist anarchism." RJII 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that was ever a consensus. The consensus was that it has some place within the article. I don't even care if it calls itself anarchism within the article. What I don't want to see is a single watered-down definition that tries to squeeze all anti-state philosophies under the anarchist label. I also don't think it's a matter of how many people classify this way or that, but its actual relation to anarchism as a whole. I think anarcho-capitalism is very notable within right libertarianism, but approach any generic anarchist discussion group and you won't find a very supportive reaction. In the case of anarcho-capitalism, its notability within the field might be more hinged around the question of whether it is a form of anarchism than the actual philosophy it represents, and its rejection of ideas common to most the rest of anarchism, prominently that of an oppostion to hierarchy and power, and the lack of necessity in anarchist society for either. Sarge Baldy 05:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said Sarge. The Ungovernable Force 05:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently there's not consensus on whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Thus we can predict a permanent edit war on Template:Anarchism sidebar and probably also the introductory paragraph. Hogeye 05:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo wields an editorial knife

Examples of my suggestion for section lengths:

Individualist anarchism (Liberal anarchism)

Main articles: Individualist anarchism, American individualist anarchist, Mutual aid, Mutualism

Individualist anarchism developed primarily in France and the United States in the 19th century, combining features of socialist political economy with a desire for a laissez-faire market society of individuals.

In the 19th century liberalism was slandered as anarchy by monarchists. Liberals desired liberty, a minimal state, individual rights, and popular government. Frederic Bastiat represents this anti-state trend in liberalism. For Gustave de Molinari and other économistes laissez-faire economics led to demands to privatise the state. Henry David Thoreau and Josiah Warren represented a US tendency towards individual anarchism. Warren had participated in a failed communal experimental community, and blamed the community's failure on a lack of individual soveriegnty and a lack of private property. Warren proceeded to organise experimenal communities which respected what he called "the sovereignty of the individual' at Utopia and Modern Times.

 
Benjamin Tucker

Benjamin Tucker became interested in anarchism through Josiah Warren and William B. Greene. Tucker formalised an individualist anarchism which incorporated: Greene's ideas on mutual banking; Warren's ideas on cost as the limit of price (a heterodox variety of labour theory of value); Proudhon's market anarchism; Max Stirner's egoism; and, Herbert Spencer's "law of equal freedom". Tucker strongly supported "private property" as an exclusive domain generated by individual labour, and a market economy for trading in private property. Tucker's mutualism differs from capitalism as it sees exploitation in the wage labour process. Labor-value individualists who followed Tucker believed that in a laissez-faire system, the ability to make a profit would be nearly non-existent due to increased competition.

Other 19th century individualists include Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Victor Yarros.

Murray Bookchin writes that individualist anarchism was attacked by the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists in the early 19th century as being "petty-bourgeois exotica" and that "they often attacked it quite directly as a middle-class indulgence, rooted far more in liberalism than in anarchism." Individualist anarchism was marginalized in France and the United States in the 20th century due to the popularity of anarcho-communism and syndicalism. It has achieved little success outside of the Anglophone countries.

Political historian Carl Levy writes that"Since World War II, this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." However, labor-value individualist anarchism is still extant today, primarily in the United States, and is currently espoused by Joe Peacott and Kevin Carson.

Anarchism at work

See also: Anarcho-syndicalism
File:Flag of Anarcho syndicalism.svg
The red-and-black flag, coming from the experience of anarchists in the labour movement, is particularly associated with anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalism and Industrial Unionism are two early 20th century working class industrial movements which sought to overthrow capitalism, states and institute a worker controlled society.

In the late 19th century, anarcho-syndicalism developed as a movement pursuing industrial actions, especially the general strike, as the primary strategy to achieve anarchist revolution, and "build the new society in the shell of the old". Most anarcho-syndicalists shared a belief in anarchist communism as the best form of the future society, although not all anarchist communists agreed with syndicalism.

After the 1871 repression French anarchism began to resurface and influenced the Bourses de Travails of autonomous workers groups and trade unions. From this movement the Confédération Générale du Travail (General Confederation of Work, CGT) was formed in 1895 as the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement. Emile Pataud and Emile Pouget's writing for the CGT saw libertarian communism developing from a general strike. After 1914 the CGT moved away from anarcho-syndicalism due to the appeal of Bolshevism. French-style syndicalism was a significant movement in Europe prior to 1921, and remained a significant movement in Spain until the mid 1940s.

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was founded in 1905 in the United States. It espoused industrial union, and sought to use the general strike to usher in an Industrial Commonwealth (a stateless society). At its peak in 1923 the organization claimed some 100,000 members in good standing, and could marshal the support of perhaps 300,000 workers, the IWW's influence extended to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. While not explicitly syndicalist or anarchist, the IWW organised using working class rank and file democracy, and embodied a spirit of resistance and freedom which has inspired many Anglophone syndicalists.

Spanish anarchist trade union federations were formed in the 1870's, 1900 and 1910. The most successful was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour: CNT), was founded in 1910. Prior to the 1940s the CNT was the major force in Spanish working class politics. It had a membership of 1.58 million in 1934. The CNT played a major role in the Spanish Civil War. See also: Anarchism in Spain.

In the 1910-1917 Mexican Revolution anarcho-syndicalists like Ricardo Flores Magón were key figures. This success has been influential for Latin American anarchism. This influence extends to the Zapatista rebellion and the factory occupation movements in Argentina and elsewhere.

In Berlin in 1922 the CNT was amongst trade unions who joined together to form the International Workers Association, an anarcho-syndicalist successor to the First International.

Contemporary anarcho-syndicalism continues as a minor force in many socities; much smaller than in the 1910s, 20s and 30s. Anarcho-syndicalists in general uphold principles of workers solidarity, direct action, and self-management.

Comments on pruned example sections

I still think both those sections are too long, but I pruned them without removing content pertinant to a "header article" on anarchism.Fifelfoo 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the second anarcho-syndicalism section is to be deleted. 70.178.26.242 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
you should set up an account so we can keep track of you (numbers are hard to remember). If you plan on contributing significantly, I suggest you consider an account (that's why I set one up, b/c of this page). The Ungovernable Force 06:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
How much CNT do we need on these pages. Anarchism at work, a bloated Spanish Revolution section, plus a bloated syndicalism today. Here's what I'd suggest for syndicalism today:

Anarcho-syndicalism

Main article: Anarcho-syndicalism.

The largest organised anarchist movement today is in Spain, in the form of the Confederación General del Trabajo and the CNT. The CGT claims a paid-up membership of 60,000, and received over a million votes in Spanish syndical elections. Other active syndicalist movements include the US Workers Solidarity Alliance, and the UK Solidarity Federation. The revolutionary industrial unionist Industrial Workers of the World also exists, claiming 2,000 paid members. Contemporary critics of anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary industrial unionism claim that they are workerist and fail to deal with economic life outside work. Post-leftist critics such as Bob Black claim anarcho-syndicalism advocates oppressive social structures, such as work and the workplace.


Sections that should be deleted:
  1. The platformist "tradition" is a minor branch of anarcho-communism.
  2. Post-left isn't even a coherent view. Could be mentioned in critiques of anarcho-communism.
  3. Post-structuralism ditto.
  4. Insurrectionary anarchism is a loose tactical ploy that might apply to any school.
  5. Small a anarchism - both versions are unnotable anti-intellectual sects.
Sections that should be combined into one Issue Groups section: Anarcha-feminism, eco and green anarchism, Xtian anarchism, White/Black/National anarchism, and anarcho-primitivism.
If that is done, then the anarcho-capitalist section would become the last historical school, and there would be no Contemporary Anarchism section. But there would be an Issue Groups section with links to Anarcha-feminism, eco and green anarchism, Xtian anarchism, White/Black/National anarchism, and anarcho-primitivism articles. Hogeye 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you about platformism, but it should be subsumed under the Russian Revolution section, due to the close relationship between Makhnovism and Platformism. Platformists are influential and significantly different to vague anarcho-communism, mainly due to their rigid organisation. I think that "Post-left" "Post-structuralism" "Insurrectionary anarchism" and "Small a anarchism" could all become one-line-wonders in a section titled "Eclectic, predominantly US, anarchist positions 1980-2005". If they're getting chopped, then Post-leftism needs to survive due to Bob Black's theoretical impact on US anarchism. I'm against putting the "single issue movements" under one heading, in part because anarcha-feminism isn't a single issue movement. Nationalist anarchism can be chopped or onelined (should be BJAONed as an internet phenomena of non-notable status). Primitivism needs to be addressed shortly but seperately (its just so bizarre in comparison to everything else). The entire article needs to become much much much less US focused, preening essensially US phenomena back to intro paras is a good way forward in this regard.Fifelfoo 06:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
random question, but what is BJAON? Also, post-left is important in my opinion and should have at least a few sentences. Same with primitivism. I will say I have no sources to back that up, other than my own observational experience. And hasn't anarcha-fem been around for quite some time? Sounds like it should have at least a paragraph. And all (except maybe national anarchism) should have links to their respective pages. The Ungovernable Force 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
BJAON stands for Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense. Its a potential vote on Articles for Deletion in wikipedia, which says, "This is garbage, but its so ridiculous that we should keep it to laugh at it." The nonsense gets moved out of the wiki and into a project page of bad jokes and deleted nonsense somewhere. An-fem has been around since the late 19th century, unfortunately the 19th century an-fem critiques of actual anarchist practice are still pertinent. Fifelfoo 07:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I've been there, funny stuff. And yeah, national anarchism deserves it. And yeah again, there is still a lot of sexism in the movement, and I'm guilty at times, as all men are. On a somewhat related note, I actually tried reading the SCUM Manifesto on saturday, but it was too ridiculous to finish. I thought I was supportive of radical feminist ideas, but that lady is insane (literally). Seems like a joke, but I don't think it was. I mean, c'mon, kill all the men to end sexism? I guess it would work, but sounds a little drastic. Ok, a lot drastic. The Ungovernable Force 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I had in mind: Pruned anarchism article. Hogeye 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner is an anti-capitalist

Latest comment: 18 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Found a good essay on this at info-shop: [37] That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who work it. Like Benjamin Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and co-operating workers -- rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his Letter to Cleveland Spooner writes: "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." [quoted by Eunice Minette Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 148] max rspct leave a message 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And this about Benjamin Tucker [38] -- max rspct leave a message 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows that the labor-value individualists were not capitalists. Nobody argues that they are. You have to drop the labor-theory to convert to anarcho-capitalism. Spooner advocated that each individual start their own business (private ownership of the means of production) so they wouldnt have to share the profits with employers. Sounds like a good strategy. RJII 18:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So why do you keep putting that there was a very strong pro-capitalist slant to these american anarchists? -max rspct leave a message 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't. The point is made over and over that they oppose profit. The opposition to profit is what makes them non-capitalist. But that doesn't mean that they have don't have similarities with anarcho-capitalists. They do. They support private ownership of the means of production, a market economy, money, and banking. RJII 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why then is it stated in the Tucker link above that: "Tucker believed that bankers' monopoly of the power to create credit and currency is the linchpin of capitalism. Although he thought that all forms of monopoly are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking monopoly is the worst, since it is the root from which both the industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which they would wither and die." And:
here are, of course, many differences between the anarchism of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and that of Tucker. Tucker's system, for example, does retain some features usually associated with capitalism, such as competition between firms in a free market. However, the fundamental anarchist objection to capitalism is not that it involves markets but that it involves private property and wage slavery. Tucker's system was intended to eliminate both, which is why he called himself a socialist. This fact is overlooked by "anarcho"-capitalists who, in seeking to make Tucker one of their "founding fathers," point to the fact that he spoke of the advantages of owning "property." But it is apparent that by "property" he was referring to simple "possession" of land, tools, etc. by independent artisans, farmers, and co-operating workers (he used the word property "as denoting the labourer's individual possession of his product or his share of the joint product of himself and others." [Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 394]. For, since Tucker saw his system as eliminating the ability of capitalists to maintain exploitative monopolies over the means of production, it is therefore true by definition that he advocated the elimination of "private property" in the capitalist sense.

-max rspct leave a message 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Tucker believed that bankers' monopoly of the power to create credit and currency is the linchpin of capitalism. Although he thought that all forms of monopoly are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking monopoly is the worst, since it is the root from which both the industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which they would wither and die." This is right on the mark. What Tucker means by the banking monopoly is the requirement of having to get permission from the goverment (a charter) to start a bank and issue money. The regulations causes a quasi-monopoly situation. Tucker believed anyone should be able to start a bank that wished, without any regulations whatsoever. All individualist anarchists believe in free banking, including anarcho-capitalists. If the banking monopoly is the "linchpin of capitalism" then anarcho-capitalists also oppose the linchpin of capitalism. RJII 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The writer saying "wage slavery" is a little misleading. Tucker supported wage labor. What he opposed was profit being deducted from wages --he thought it was exploitative --depriving one who works of the portion of the value of his labor (nevertheless he believed in the right to contract for profit). If you want to call working for less than the full produce""wage slavery" fine, but it should have been explained by the author that Tucker didn't oppose wage labor. RJII 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Tucker, like the anarcho-capitalists, believe that private property comes from labor --a person has the right to own the product of his labor. RJII 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"A person has the right to own the product of his labor"
This is the principal claim of the socialism!
Note libertarian socialists use "private propierty" in other sense than yours:

"In this Tucker followed Proudhon in rejecting modern conceptions of private property, in which property beyond that generated by labor and use is considered legitimate entitlement. As Gary Elkin writes in Benjamin Tucker - Anarchist or capitalist?, "Tucker advocated *possession* but not private property, believing that empty land, houses, etc. should be squatted. He considered private property in land use (which he called the "land monopoly") as one of the four great evils of capitalism.""

From Benjamin Tucker article.
For a libertarian socialist private propierty is theft (Proudhon: Property is theft!) --83.97.228.16 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
For a libertarian individualist, private property is liberty (Proudhon: "Property is liberty!") Hogeye 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is a terminology issue. For libertarian individualists, as Tucker or Proudhon (a form of socialists, they called themself socialists) the term "private propierty" has another sense that for american (USA) right-wing libertarians (see above). You confuse anarcho-individualist, mutualist and libertarian socialist terminology. I think you have an historical error. Well, maybe in your country and for your ideology there is a terminology, but this not an "Official Standard", its only your ideology terminology. Anarcho-individualists and libertarian socialist has another terminology. For Proudhon (and all libertarian socialists) *_private_ property*, was state-privilegied burgueois propierty, and *_propierty_* workers propierty. You can have your terminology but you can't change the history and terminology of another people than you (as Proudhon, Tucker, libertarian socialists or me). You cannot impose to libertarian socialists, anarcho-individualists, mutualists, the history and me, your terminology. This is an encyclopedia, not a american (USA) rigt-wing libertarian site. NPOV --83.97.228.16 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Conclusion: in Proudhon's terminology, State-privileged burgeois propierty (private propierty) is theft, and workers propierty (propierty) is liberty. You can have your terminology but you can't change the history and terminology of another people than you as Proudhon for example. --83.97.228.16 21:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
83> "Well, this is a terminology issue."
Right. I suggest that we use modern terminology rather than 150-year-old terminology that today's encyclopedia readers won't understand. It isn't an ideological issue; most Americans, even anarchists, realize that Proudhon's terminology is non-standard.
83> "For Proudhon (and all libertarian socialists) *_private_ property*, was state-privilegied burgueois property..."
I'm flexible. Using Proudhon's terminology, anarcho-capitalists are strongly opposed to private property. We agree totally that state-decreed and imposed property is theft. Now, do you really think that this encyclopedia should say that anarcho-capitalists are against private property? Or would this simply confuse the hell out of most readers? IMO we should use standard terminology, and avoid misleading obtuse historical usages. Hogeye 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm flexible too. With The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy terminology anarcho-communist are strongly favourable to private propierty, because they recognize self management and anarcho-communism is voluntary and recongnize individual propierty of individual workers. Anarcho-communism is compatible with a proudhonian style anarchist (like me).
I think that we should use this Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy terminology, *but* there is should be noted in articles that libertarian socialists use a classical socialism terminology, proudhonian style, where "socialism" is another concept totally different from modern definition of socialism. Similar case of "liberal" term in USA, that have changed.
Some people (as me and all libertarian socialists) use today socialism, private propierty and propierty as in _classic proudhonian_ terminology sense, not in modern sense. --83.97.228.16 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The quoted Anarchist FAQ is (as usual) wrong when it says, "However, the fundamental anarchist objection to capitalism is not that it involves markets but that it involves private property and wage slavery. Tucker's system was intended to eliminate both, which is why he called himself a socialist."

In fact, Tucker supported private property. He supported private sticky property in everything but natural resources; he supported private possession property in natural resources. In modern terminology, he was capitalist rather than socialist in this regard.

The FAQ writer shows total confusion when he writes, "In this Tucker followed Proudhon in rejecting modern conceptions of private property, in which property beyond that generated by labor and use is considered legitimate entitlement." He's confusing who can legitimately own property with how can wealth be legitimately gained. Property gained through labor/use and held by an individual is, by definition, private property. Hogeye 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

> Property gained through labor/use and held by an individual is, by definition, private property.
But, _only_ in the american (USA) right-wing libertarian terminolgy that you suppose a Standar, but it is _not_ a Standar, it is only your ideology terminology. Proudhon, Tucker and all libertarian socialists used and use another terminology where "private propierty" is State-privileged burgeois property. Anarchist FAQ writers are right. They uses this other terminology. They don't have any obligation to use right-wing libertarian terminology, because it is not an Standar. NPOV --83.97.228.16 20:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken that this is non-standard "american (USA) right-wing libertarian terminolgy." From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"The right to private property is the social-political principle that adult human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others."

This is the standard definition used by virtually all English-speakers. There is no qualification whatsoever that private property be "generated by labor." Hogeye 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Given his anti-capitalist views, I just wonder how Spooner intended to operate the privately-owned mail-delivery company he founded in an attempt (suppressed by the government) to compete with the U.S. Post Office. Surely he wasn't going to personally hand-deliver every letter himself? Or was he a hypocrite, railing against wage-labor but hiring employees himself? *Dan T.* 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Spooner (and other LTV individualist anarchists) were not against paying someone to do a job; they were against profiting from it. I.e The payment to the carrier plus the cost of Spooner's administrative time should equal the price of the stamp; there should be no markup. Hogeye 23:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon's "What is Property"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After reading What is Property again, I added a paragraph of critique to the Wiki article What is Property?:

In What is Property, Proudhon claims to prove by contradiction ("property is impossible") that past justifications of private property are logically fallacious. Critics point out that the "proofs" do not contradict any widely held assumptions, but only Proudhon's notion of equality of outcome. As such, the "proofs" will not be convincing to those not sharing an extreme egalitarian notion of a just society. Furthermore, Proudhon's scholarship in relating opposing theories of property is suspect, e.g. his critique of Charles Comte's Traité de la propriété seems to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Comte's thesis.

Yes some - though not all - of his arguments 'by contradiction' rely on egalitarian premises. But you need to give citations for these 'critics'.Bengalski 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News flash! Wikipedia is publicly editable. Rather than contesting an entry and then locking it up, the person who thinks that anarcho-capitalism deserves more space SHOULD HAVE JUST EXPANDED IT! His failure to do so proves that he is, in all probability, just a troll. Here's a neat anarchist concept: contribute to the communal discussion rather than calling on authority to lock it up for the rest of the people.
False assumption flash! The page protection was done by Voice of All, unsolicited as far as I know. According to his history, Voice of All has never edited the Anarchism article, which makes one wonder why he intervened at all. Hogeye 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal status update - Anarchism

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To all editors: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This is a status update regarding a mediation request relating to the ongoing dispute on this article. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism. Interested parties may wish to read my initial suggestions there, and comment as appropriate. Thank you very much for your participation. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Assassinations

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is it that the assassinations and terrorism of the late 19th/early 20th century only get a couple paragraphs of mention? The assassinations ended the lives of many important heads of state, and they established the reputation of anarchists as dangerous radicals. In a way, they were much more important to the development of anarchism than a lot of things presently in the article. At the very least, there should be another article listing those important figures who were assassinated by anarchists.--71.112.234.168 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole section called Propaganda by the Deed, with four paragraphs and a photo. That seems like plenty, especially since most anarchists don't (and didn't then) approve of such actions. If you'd like to write a whole article on propaganda by the deed, go for it! Hogeye 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
See propaganda of the deed and anarchist terrorism - Nihila 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism/Archive_32&oldid=926170369"