Talk:Anarchism/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Infinity deleting information

Infinity, stop deleting sourced relevant information. The "Anarchist FAQ" says it was written by "social anarchists" and they say they "reject" individualist anarchism. "However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism" Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? This should be noted. That's why they say private ownership of the means of production is not compatible with anarchism. RJII 16:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And, about Tucker, Tucker does not define capitalism, hence, he doesn't say he opposes capitalism, but rather says he opposes state-backed monopoly privileges for capital. You're trying to make it look like Tucker is arguing against anarcho-capitalism. Arguing against capitalism and arguing against anarcho-capitalism, is not the same thing for individualists. I'm not saying Tucker doens't oppose capitalism, but that he doesn't oppose private ownership of the means of production (or wage labor) --he favors a free market economy. RJII 16:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC).. Tucker is cool lol

How is that relevant to the argument? Why aren't all the authors of all the sources labelled as left/right whatever?

It's relevant because it's a communist criticism. Communists oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage labor. RJII 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

read Kropotkin or Malatesta. Both explicitly state that self-employed workers and peasants would retain their tools/land in communist-anarchism. That is because it is free communism. Like the individualist anarchists, they argue for "occupancy and use" and apply this to workplaces as well as land. Logically, this is the only consistent anarchist position as the boss holds a monopoly of power of their property (as confirmed, ironically enough, by Murray Rothbard). BlackFlag 09:00, 24 February 2006

It doesn't say Tucker is against private MOP. It doesn't say Tucker doesn't favour a free market economy. All it says is that Tucker thinks capitalism is un-anarchistic and/or authoritarian. Tucker doesn't argue for or against anarcho-capitalism before he was dead before it got invented. You were trying to link the two together. Infinity0 ^talk 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker is not attacking anarcho-capitalism. He's attacking state-backed monopoly privilege for capital. If you want to know whether he thought anarcho-capitalism was compatible with anarchism, he called Auberon Herbert a "true anarchist." RJII 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And Herbert rejected the label! As did other "voluntaryists". It should be noted that the individualist anarchists attacked the "voluntaryists" as being hypocrits and for defending the existing distribution of (coercively produced) property. And, of course, capitalist property rights (particularly in land). Tucker excommunicated anarcho-communism from anarchism, so should we exclude Kropotkin from anarchism? User:BlackFlag 02:02, 22 February 2006.

Here's what you put: "Others, such as some individualist anarchists, take a different approach, arguing that the state, by necessity, exists in capitalism, since state-backed monopolies bestow privileges for capitalists, allowing them to accumulate power and capital." Where does Tucker argue that? You're making up things that are not in the source. 17:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't state all the stances of all the authors; why don't you create a page for Iain McKay and call him a leftist anarchist there? Infinity0 ^talk 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would you want to hide it? Of course it should be stated. The Anarchist FAQ is a very partisan source that says it's out to discredit anarcho-capitalism. The arguments it levels against it are from a communist perspective. That's very important for the reader to know. RJII 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the arguments it levels against it are from an *anarchist* perspective. The FAQ also states that it seeks to show why "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Which it does, imho. Also, if "voluntaryism" is "anarcho"-capitalism, then the voluntaryists themselves would have agreed with the FAQ! Herbert explicitly rejected the label anarchist, for example. It seems strange that his followers ignore his opinions on such matters! Is the FAQ "very partisan"? It is written by anarchists and so is very partisan in favour of anarchism. As every anarchist I've come across rejects the idea that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism, I would suggest that it accurately reflects anarchist opinion on this matter. But then I do get the impression that for RJII the opinion of anarchists does not seem to matter much to him, a strange position to take if you are producing a document explaining what ideas anarchists hold. BlackFlag 09:08, 24 February 2006

Or, you could make a page on An Anarchist FAQ and state their position there. Infinity0 ^talk 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Forty years ago, when the foregoing essay was written, the denial of competition had not yet effected the enormous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens social order. It was not yet too late to stem the current of accumulation by a reversal of the policy of monopoly. The Anarchistic remedy was still applicable. - from the first paragraph of the Tucker source. Infinity0 ^talk 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What about it? Tucker is opposed to State restrictions on free market competition. RJII 17:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You wanted the source arguing "s-b monops allow caps to accum p+c". FAQ writers not communist, they are anarchist. Infinity0 ^talk 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are anarchist, but anarcho-communists, syndicalists, etc. They say they're "social anarchists" and they reject individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's why they're so down on private ownership of capital and wage labor. Condemning private ownership of the means of production isn't a generic anarchists argument, but a "social anarchist" one. RJII 17:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Individualists anarchists do allow accumulation of capital. But, they think HUGE accumulations --in a disparity sense -- cannot occur with state intervention causing it. RJII 17:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you're making it seem like "social anarchists" take up 50% of anarchists. They take up more like 95%. They are anarchists. Also, by saying "these guys are communists", you're also implying "therefore, obviously they will oppose capitalism, so don't trust what you read". Infinity0 ^talk 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Individualists, which includes anarcho-capitalists, are huge in number. I'm not saying don't trust what you read. I'm pointing out that they're arguing from a "social anarchist" perspective. If communism has a bad name, it's not my fault. RJII 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, point out they argue from a "social anarchist" perpective on their own article. Adding that section bloats up the article. If you want to add it in, you must note that they are the vast majority of anarchists. Also, "Ind inc. a-cap" is your own POV, I'd appreciate it if you stopped spewing it out repeatedly like it was the truth.

Ind anarchists don't support wage labour, stop kidding yourself... Infinity0 ^talk 17:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up." -Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism
• " Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." -Benjamin Tucker, Labor and Its Pay

RJII 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, dictate its wages. Their wages would be equal to the products of their labour; whereas wage labour inherently is not. It says "wages" and not "wage labour!". Infinity0 ^talk 17:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage labor means paying wages for labor --purchasing labor. The individualists support that. RJII 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Who pays you the wage? If it's a customer, that's a labour service, not wage labour. Wage labour specifically means employment. Infinity0 ^talk 18:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you just admit that paying labor wages doesn't imply wage labor? Thank you for again proving the ambiguity of the term. MrVoluntarist 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

See [1] - "Wage labour is the mode of production in which the labourer sells their capacity to work as a commodity."

An Anarchist FAQ uses this definition [2]: "Looking at capitalism, we find that under wage labour, people sell their creative energy and control over their activity for a given period."

Great. So that proves my point that the concept of "wage labor" as differentiated from "labor paid with wages" is confined to Marxist circles, and that the term is not intended as a mere combination of words. MrVoluntarist 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

An Anarchist FAQ uses that definition too, so it's not just confined to Marxist circles. I suppose I was mistaken too, about the combination of words. But the meaning's not much different. Infinity0 ^talk 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep claiming that the FAQ writers are communist/syndicalist? Nowhere do they say that. Infinity0 ^talk 17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They call themselves "social anarchists" and they say that social anarchism includes communism and syndicalism. Obviously they're arguing from a communist perspective if they oppose private ownership of the means of production. RJII 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ also says that Mutualists like Proudhon were social anarchists. It backs up its analysis with quotes from Proudhon, so it is arguing from an *anarchist* perspective, not an exclusively communist one. It also notes that communist-anarchists like Kropotkin and Malatesta supported the right of self-employed people to their own land and tools. That an "anarcho"-capitalist thinks that advocating "occupancy and use" equals communism shows how far it is from anarchism. [[User:BlackFlag|BlackFlag] 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please, let's avoid using the edit summary as if it were the talk page. The edit summary is to tell what you changed and why, not to have a full conversation. It's better to have the conversation on the talk page instead. Thanks. --cesarb 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism Section

I just wanted to drop by and say I think this is probably as good as we'll get it, and I think this is fairly ok. The Ungovernable Force 17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The very fact that anything involving capitalism is acknowledged as part of anarchism is dispicable. It it should have any section whatsoever, it should be one or two sentences saying that due to the blatantly coercive and hierarchical institution of capitalism, it could NEVER be a part of anarchism and every anarchist in history and every real anarchist today that is either in the news, involved in any anarchist projects, and any anarchist prisoners are ALL 100% resolutely against capitalism. The illusion of this manifestation is an invention of the internet, "anarcho (cough cough)" capitalism would not have a single leg to stand on if it weren't for a few people on internet message boards talking about it and doing NOTHING besides that. Anarchism has ALWAYS been against ALL authority and hierarchy. Anti-capitalism was one of the driving forces behind the rise in movements that first called themselves "anarchist." There have been movements throughout world history that were anarchist before this but before this "capitalism" as we know it today didn't exist and so the negative energies then were focused on the states and economic systems of the day.

I always laugh when people say anarcho-capitalism is an "invention of the internet." Anarcho-capitalism was around long before the internet. If it's big on the internet, it's because the internet is giving people a voice. The internet reflects the voices in society. And the more people that have access to the the internet, the more the internet reflects the true ideas of society. The people talking about anarcho-capitalism on the internet are REAL PEOPLE. They're not ON the internet. Anarcho-capitalism is huge in the real world and the internet is a reflection of that. You just never saw them because they weren't out marching in the streets and throwing bombs and making spectacles of themselves. Now you see them, because they use their words rather than bombs. Anarcho-capitalism is only going to get bigger, especially because the more you fight it, the more you dispute it and make a controversy over it, the more attention it gets, and the more it grows. RJII 18:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalism is huge in the real world"? Really, how do we know? I've only met one and I've been in the anarchist movement for 20 years. I doubt any of my non-political friends have heard of it. Oh, I forgot, "they weren't out marching in the streets" -- which makes you wonder how RJII knows the numbers are "huge." And I loved the "bombs" reference -- very sad. btw, I'm happy to ignore and not "fight" "anarcho"-capitalism -- once they stop calling themselves anarchists. And I doubt that it will grow once the internal contradictions of it are exposed by anarchists. Which we are doing. But to be honest, the only reason we are doing that is because it calls itself "anarchist" -- in spite of its self-proclaimed forefathers rejecting the label! For an ideology so rooted in property, it seems ironic that it wants to steal the anarchist name! User:BlackFlag 15:36, 24 February 2006

Leftist hackers control the gateways, my friend. Anarcho-capitalism consists of a few people who can only bribe the rich with promises of more wealth. They don't fool the rest of the world. Infinity0 ^talk 18:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Did you even know that Wikipedia is run a free market libertarian capitalist? RJII 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying Jimbo Wales is an anarcho-capitalist is like saying J.M. Keynes was a socialist. Run? In what way? You know, I'd be scared at that mozilla party flyer. If you're using firefox, you could be running communist code! ;) Infinity0 ^talk 18:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's an anarcho-capitalist. I'm saying he's a free market libertarian capitalist. The only difference is he doesn't want to privatize defense. RJII 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay: but that means he's a libertarian. I also find the idea of anarcho-capitalism contradictory. Anarchism is precisely a system that is "without rule" -- that rejects authoritarian relationships in all domains of society. How can people who believe in a system that by definition supports the control of the means of production (and thus of meaningful social power) by a minority of people consider itself 'anarchist'? Furthermore: anarchism is not just a theory, it was formulated as part of a larger historical coalition of anticapitalist workers' organizations.

Anarchism isn't just anti-statism, it's anti-authoritarianism; as such, "anarcho-capitalism" fails the ultimate litmus test. Don't take it from me; look at the two tables of anarchism that someone posted above, in which "anarcho-capitalism" shares relatively few ideas with any of the other anarchist schools of thought. And the ideas that it does share with mutualism (reformist, private property & product of labor, anti-redistribution, individualism) make it sound much, much more like classical liberalism (or neoliberalism) than anarchism. Just looking at this taxonomically: why would we consider these to be part of the same category? Monkey-Man 07:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I view anarchism as being a system where there is no government and no laws. Indeed most normal people out there have this view of anarchy. Indeed if you look at the dictionary the definition of anarchy is: the complete absense of government and law. My view of anarchy is that it is a system without government and law. The only possible system of anarchy is capitalist. The only anarchy in the world is Somalia and it is completely capitalist. Anti-capitalism is completely unnecessary to anarchism. In fact it is clear when you look at anarcho-communist criticisms of Proudhon that anarchy will eventually lead to some form of capitalism. Proudhon believed people where innately equal so if you made them free then there would be equality but this is false IMO. A good example of anarchism is nature. However in nature it is obvious that there is no egalitarianism. Indeed private property (e.g. territorialism, nesting behaviours etc) are evident throughout the natural world and there is gross inequality (e.g. a few male lions getting all females). Also socialist anarchism makes absolutely no sense and is plainly contradictory. The reason is obvious: there is no way to guarantee equality without a central authority. It is also obvious that most forms of socialist anarchism cannot work unless everybody has the same political beliefs. But why should people think the same way? For instance, I believe in capitalism and there are others who believe in socialism. Why should everybody believe in socialism? Real anarchism would allow people to form there own social organizations and enter and leave them whenever they wanted. Anarcho-capitalism allows this sense it doesn't have the unnecessary constraint of equality. People could join a socialist society or a capitalist firm in anarcho-capitalism.

Once upon a time I was an anarcho-capitalist, and I also would have contended that it was the only "real" anarchism. However, now I see it related only very tenuously. Anthropologists would certainly disagree with you that egalitarianism is impossible; it's only impossible in extremely developed and complex societies. Native American society was fairly anarchist, and so was Freetown Christiania, and the only reason these projects failed is because of outward forces. Also note that one definition of government is "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution" and anarcho-capitalism believes strongly in retaining this. Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to a state, and a nation, but it does not oppose government or laws. It only wants to transfer the power to govern to private industry. Your criticism of socialism makes no sense to me. If you have a central authority, you can't possibly have equality, you have a corrupt power structure. And why would people need to be socialist? No one would force anyone to be socialist, since for one thing politics would disintegrate and, since anarchism is voluntary, those who did not like the arrangement would be free to leave. Ideally, of course, there would be no need for anyone to do so, but the option would remain. Sarge Baldy 09:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Real anarchism would allow people to form there own social organizations and enter and leave them whenever they wanted." Anarchists agree, except they do not think freely joining a totalitarian organisation due to economic necessity equates to anarchy or freedom. In "anarcho"-capitalism people could sell themselves into slavery, does that mean the slave is free or that he/she is living an anarchist life? Of course not. Calling capitalism "anarchy" makes as much sense as calling the current state system "anarchy" as there is no world government. User:BlackFlag 12:02, 10 March 2006

POV editing

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Communist and syndicalist anarchists tend to argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.

• FAQ source is not communist OR syndicalist. Not is this argument limited to coms and synds.

The FAQ was written by self-called "social anarchists." That's everything except individualist anarchism. Claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchist always from from communist or those with communist sympathies. RJII 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarhcists, on the other hand, do not level this charge against anarcho-capitalism.

• No source given for this claim; RJII cites "lack of sources" as evidence. That's because all the major ind-anarchists ARE DEAD and a-capitalism didn't live in their day.

There are a lot of living individualist anarchist theorosts. Kevin Carson, Larry Gambone, Joe Peacott, Keith Preston, etc. None of them say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. If you really want I'll put up sources from individualist anarchists that say that it IS a form of anarchism. RJII 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How are they notable and how are they significant? Yes please, I'd like those sources. Infinity0 ^talk 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Carson and Gambone are among the most prominent contemporary mutualist writers. I think, however, that what they would say about anarcho-capitalism would be a bit more guarded than RJII indicates. Kevin Carson actually credits me (blush) with convincing him that anarcho-capitalism shares roots with the rest of the anarchist tradition. But he also cites a distinction between "anarcho"-capitalists and anarcho-"capitalists" that I proposed in discussions on the anarchy-list (with Iain MacKay, Chuck0 and others), suggesting that some anarchocapitalists share more roots than others. Once upon a time, both Carson and I were individualists who argued that anarchocaps weren't anarchists. Personally, i just don't think the "who is a true anarchist?" question is interesting anymore. Libertatia 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The crucial thing to understand is that each school of anarchism uses the term "capitalism" differently. There is no common ground to communicate between schools of anarchism when you use the term. Ok, so an anarchist says he opposes capitalism. So what? What does that mean? Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism, according to the mutualists' definition. RJII 19:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the mutualists definition? Infinity0 ^talk 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They call themselves "social anarchists" and they say that social anarchism includes communism and syndicalism.

• So, why does that limited arguments to only "coms and synds tend to argue"?

Obviously they're arguing from a communist perspective if they oppose private ownership of the means of production.

• Why so?

So, it helps the reader to know who is making the argument. They aren't representatives of all of anarchism. We agreed to use the FAQ as a PRIMARY source --for what THEY think. RJII 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you are pushing your probation. Why did you turn the critcism section into a "About the writers of the Anarchist FAQ" section??? Infinity0 ^talk 18:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you dare threaten me. RJII 19:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then stop trying to discredit An Anarchist FAQ by putting undue weight that they're social anarchists. Infinity0 ^talk 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had about enough of you. You are EXTREMELY disruptive. RJII 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Only because I disagree with you? Infinity0 ^talk 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, guys. Please try to resist getting into a squabble right now. Take a few steps back and take a breather. --AaronS 19:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, RJII, get on IRC. irc://irc.freenode.net/ Infinity0 ^talk 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No way. I'm not going to argue with you just for the sake of arguing with you. I'm here to help Wikipedia. RJII 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in #anarchism. Infinity0 ^talk 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have some calm

Everyone take a deep breath. I've asked RJII to provide a source for the self description of the anarchist FAQ authors as "social anarchists". Could someone also explain what the statement Others, such as some individualist anarchists, take a different approach, arguing that the state, by necessity, exists in capitalism, since state-backed monopolies bestow privileges for capitalists, allowing them to accumulate power and capital. means. Is it supportive or opposive? Hiding talk 19:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity wrote that, and it's just made up. The source it links to doesn't argue that. It never even mentions the word "capitalism." RJII 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the first edit you made today said "Tucker defined capitalism as a state backed monoply for capital" and you used this source. Now you come and mention it doesn't contain the word "capitalism". So why did you put up that claim in the first place?? Infinity0 ^talk 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I hadn't put the second source in yet. I wasn't able to due to your editing. It's a secondary source indicating how the individualists defined capitalism. RJII 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposive; it's saying that capitalism is by necessity authoritative, and anarcho-capitalism won't change that. Infinity0 ^talk 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Forty years ago, when the foregoing essay was written, the denial of competition had not yet effected the enormous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens social order. It was not yet too late to stem the current of accumulation by a reversal of the policy of monopoly. The Anarchistic remedy was still applicable.

Today the way is not so clear. The four monopolies, unhindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust, and the trust is now a monster which I fear, even the freest banking, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy.

Tucker argues against State intervention in the economy --against the state creating monopoly power that causes huge accumulations of capital which denies people without political connections cheap access to capital due to the lack of competition in lending. His position is that in a true laissez-faire environment that couldn't happen. He's saying there that intervention has caused so much wealth disparity over time that going laissez-faire now wouldn't be able to solve the problem. (And that was an addendum he added to the article late in life) RJII 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They think the state IS the capitalists.

Moreover, like the social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists were aware that the state was not some neutral machine or one that exploited society purely for its own ends. They were aware that it was a vehicle of class rule, namely the rule of the capitalist class over the working class. As noted above, Spooner thought that that "holders of this monopoly [the money monopoly] now rule and rob this nation; and the government, in all its branches, is simply their tool" and that "the employers of wage labour . . . are also the monopolists of money." [Spooner, Op. Cit., p. 42 and p. 48] Tucker recognised that "capital had so manipulated legislation" that they gained an advantage on the capitalist market which allowed them to exploit labour. [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 82-3] He was quite clear that the state was a capitalist state, with "Capitalists hav[ing] placed and kept on the statute books all sorts of prohibitions and taxes" to ensure a "free market" skewed in favour of themselves. [quoted by Don Werkheiser, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 218]

They think that the state is giving monopoly privileges for capital, yes. And, that amounts to a merging of state and private interests. Of course. RJII 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm lost here. You're using one source to claim "some individualist anarchists"? That's bad form to start with. Also, what claim is the statement attacking? Which part of anarcho-capitalist beliefs is it in opposition too? To my eye anarcho-capitalists have rejected state based capitalism; their view is of voluntary entered transactions. I'm not going to argue the merits of that view, that's not what we are here to do, but unless there's a source you can cite of an anarcho-capitalist thinker stating that belief, you can't attack it. The Anarchist FAQ already makes the point that such exchanges can't be voluntary, to my eye.

• (Edit conflict) As to defining the aiuthors of "An Anarchist FAQ", there does need to be some transparency on that front. RJII cites this "while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism" as the basis for claiming them to be social anarchists. I would ask you all to consider an alternative, and describe the FAQ as written, initially, from the perspective of a refutation of anarcho-capitalist theory as a form of anarchism.[3] There needs to be some description, since they are a primary source; we should contextualise the source so the reader can determine the validity of the information. Hiding talk 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll remove the individualist anarchists/state, since there is only one source. I would rather the FAQ be talked about on its own page, rather than bloating up this article. Infinity0 ^talk 20:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And how about conceding that we should state what perspective the FAQ is written from --they're "social anarchists" and they're setting out explicitly to discredit anarcho-capitalism. They're not speaking for all anarchists. We know this at least because they also oppose individualist anarchism. RJII 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an anarchist website, and social anarchism is the mainstream anarchist movement. Individualist anarchists oppose wage labour too, and there's no need for a separate heading. Infinity0 ^talk 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No individualist anarchists do not oppose wage labor. Stop denying blatant support of wage labor:

• "Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up." -Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism
• "Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." -Benjamin Tucker, Labor and Its Pay

That's not wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Regarding the anarchist FAQ, it has to be mentioned here. It's not as far as I know, notable enough for its own page as yet. When it is published I see no reason not to have an ebtry, but at the moment if we have articles on the Anarchist FAQ, sadly it opens the door to having articles on the Manic Street Preachers FAQ and the like.

Also, can someone explain why we need both

• Most self-described anarchists deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, arguing that capitalism runs contrary to an egalitarian power structure and is an inherently authoritarian institution. Anarcho-capitalists argue that many dictionaries define anarchism as being a "rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority," which they say includes anarcho-capitalism.

and

• Opponents argue that wage labour (and hence capitalism) are unanarchist, being authoritarian in nature[24] and that it is essential to anarchism for such practices to be abolished. For example, "An Anarchist FAQ"[25] argues that "social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination".[26]

They seem to say the exact same thing. Hiding talk 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

K, I'll merge it.

"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." Lysander Spooner, Letter to Cleveland. Opposed wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not saying he opposes wage labor. That's saying that if everyone has access to private ownership of capital that there will be more people becoming self-employeed. With it being so easy to start a business, it doesn't make sense to work for someone else. "FEW or no persons...would consent to labor for wages for another." RJII 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He wishes wage labour to be minimised - he opposes it. "Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist, an independent producer." [Eunice Minette Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 151] Infinity0 ^talk 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you found a secondary source. Schuster is exaggerating a bit, but that's ok. Tucker clearly supports wage labor. And, "Making every individual a small capitalist"? Now, we have a source for Spooner supporting capitalism. RJII 21:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know how to read? The source says that every individual would be "an independent producer." How can *everyone* be a "small capitalist" and there still be wage labour? Bad terminology by Schuster, she means everyone would be a member of the "petit bourgeoisie" (i.e. self-employed farmers or artisans). To twist her comments into Spooner supporting capitalism (where the vast majority are wage slaves) is pretty sad. But I'm not surprised. User:BlackFlag 25:43, 24 February 2006

It depends on how you define capitalism. Some Marxist-oriented people define it as private ownership of the means of production. If that's how you define it, then Spooner is a capitalist. I don't define it that way, though. Private ownership of the means of production is a necessary condition of capitalism though. RJII 07:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker never says he supports wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the merging. Now can we get agreement that there should be qualifying text regarding the Anarchis FAQ per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Primary, secondary and partisan sources and anarchism? I favour something like "a collaborativly compiled document initially constructed to refute anarcho-capitalism as comnsistent with anarchist thinking." It does not tie up the text to heavily, but if someone can shorten the text but keep the spirit of the words or the definition of the FAQ, feel free. Hiding talk 21:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to be pointed out that these are self-labeled "social anarchists." Otherwise, it gives the impression that it represents all schools of anarchism. They certainly don't represent the individualist anarchists, as they argue against them. RJII 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They represent the vast majority of the schools of anarchism. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. RJII 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, rather than argue about that, can we thus focus on what I suggested. Hiding talk 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How about modifying that to, "a collaborativly compiled document by "social anarchists" initially constructed to refute anarcho-capitalism as consistent with anarchist thinking." Something like that? RJII 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not helpful. I can't source a self description of the FAQ authors as social anarchists. Hiding talk 21:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean you can't source that? That's a primary source description. They refer to themselves as social anarchists. RJII 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know all the writers were social anarchists? How do you know ANY of them are social anarchists? They label themselves as "anarchists". Infinity0 ^talk 21:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't. And, you don't know that all the writers were even anarchists. But, collectively, they are representing themselves as "social anarchists" and use the terminology "we." RJII 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do they say they are social anarchists? Infinity0 ^talk 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already indicated where. I'm tired of you ignoring things I say and sources I provide. RJII 21:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How does "Social anarchists reject individualist anarchism" mean the writers as social anarchists?? Infinity0 ^talk 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Your source reads "while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism". There's no definite assertion that they are social anarchists; the "we" could merely mean "we" and not be connected to or drawing on the "social anarchist" phrase. See below for a thought. Hiding talk 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, if I provide point blank proof that the writers of the FAQ collectively call themselves "social anarchists" will you concede and not fight it being mentioned in the article? RJII 21:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"A collaboratively compiled document partly against anarcho-capitalism"? Infinity0 ^talk 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's moving forwards. To address RJII's concerns, howabout "A document collaboratively compiled by certain online anarchists partly against anarcho-capitalism"?

"Many online anarchists" would be more accurate. Infinity0 ^talk 21:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, if I provide point blank proof that the writers of the FAQ collectively call themselves "social anarchists" will you concede and not fight it being mentioned in the article? Are you trying to hide that they're social anarchists or are you just not convinced that they are? RJII 21:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see and discuss the proof before we commit to anything. Hiding talk 21:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that they are. They call themselves anarchists, and the FAQ is being published as an anarchist FAQ, not a social anarchist FAQ. It covers a wide range of anarchist views. Infinity0 ^talk 21:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, get ready to cave in: "To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." [4] Now, are you going to show some integrity and allow it to be noted in the article or are you going to try to come up with some other excuse not to mention it? RJII 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a good source and allows the description here. Hiding talk 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if you make it clear that they represent the vast majority of anarchists, as I said before. Otherwise it puts undue weight, and makes them seem like the fringe views, not the anarcho-capitalists, as it is. Infinity0 ^talk 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that they represent the vast majority of anarchists"? I don't think they do. RJII 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• How do you source the fact that they represent the vast majority of anarchists? Hiding talk 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the biggest anarchist website. Infinity0 ^talk 22:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus, that FAQ is mirrored on many other sites too. Infinity0 ^talk 22:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• That doesn't source the fact. To be fair it needs to be an established fact, written down. Hiding talk 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The website is not the FAQ. The website hosts the FAQ. The FAQ is not the only thing on that website. And, just because the web site gets a lot of visitors it doesn't mean everyone who visit agrees with the FAQ. I'm visiting the website. Do I agree with it? To think everybody who read it agrees with it is really naive. I don't think for a second that everything in the FAQ is representative of most anarchists. RJII 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

'Represents the vast majority of anarchists' is going too far - I think I'm reasonably up on 'social anarchism' in my part of the world and I never heard of this site until I saw it here. Then on the other hand I think it would be wrong to say they represented 'social anarchism' either, or indeed 'communist' or 'syndicalist' anarchism or any other 'school'. Can't we just put it - some opponents of anarcho-capitalism say x, for example infoshop faq - making clear that these are notable opponents of anarcho-capitalism without claiming they speak for any greater body than themselves.Bengalski 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As for written down, the FAQ says it best - We think that we have produced a useful on-line resource for anarchists and other anti-capitalists to use. Perhaps, in light of this, we should dedicate this anarchist FAQ to the many on-line "libertarian" capitalists who, because of their inane arguments, prompted us to start this work. Then again, that would give them too much credit. Outside the net they are irrelevant and on the net they are just annoying. - The infoshop.org website is far bigger than all anarcho-capitalism put together. And the community isn't just an online community either.

Also, a website's visitors is mostly made up of regular visitors; and you are not a regular visitor, RJII. The FAQ is a main part of the site - the faq's alias hostnames redirect to the infoshop version, and it's the most updated version. People wouldn't visit the site unless they agreed with it. Infinity0 ^talk 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed a regular visitor, and a regular viewer of the FAQ. That doesn't mean I agree with everything in it. It has value --some correct information and interpretations, along with a lot of shoddy stuff. It's also good to see what the contemporary communist anarchists' arguments are against individualist anarchism. RJII 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bengalski's suggestion. In fact, it was what the current version says, "some opponents say, such as". RJII is just determined to label them. Infinity0 ^talk 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's not quite true. Bengalski notes it should mention they notably oppose anarcho capitalism. Hiding talk 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Right, here's the latest compromise attempt then:

In the text we describe the source as "a collaborative document compiled partly to refute anarcho-capitalism." and in the footnote we note "The compilers of An Anarchist FAQ have declared themselves to be "social anarchists". Would that please everyone? Hiding talk 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Better to quote them exactly. "The writers of an Anarchist FAQ place themselves "in the 'social' strand of anarchism". But apart from that, that's good. Infinity0 ^talk 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"A collaborative document written by self-labeled "social anarchists," which was compiled primarily to refute anarcho-capitalism." RJII 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The primary reason is to introduce anarchism to non-anarchists, as it says in the introduction. Also, the quote marks are degrading. Infinity0 ^talk 23:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Degrading?! I don't understand why you would think that. They put it in quotes as well: "the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." RJII 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need them? You're writing the phrase in a full sentence, they refer to a name. Infinity0 ^talk 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You need them BECAUSE it refers to a name. Just normal grammar. The alternative is italics. How's that? RJII 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just leave it out; you're not putting "anarcho-capitalist" in quotes... Infinity0 ^talk 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a widely used term. "Social anarchism" is a neologism used to encompass anarcho-communism and syndicalism. It's strange to see a proprietary term like that without quotes around it. But since, it's prefaced with "self-labeled" I don't mind. I'm sure someone will come along and put quotes around it --it's too glaringly awkward without it. RJII 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It includes non-individualist anarchism, ie. mainstream anarchism. You're the one pushing for it to include that term, when "anarchist" will suffice. Infinity0 ^talk 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying here. What? RJII 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Social anarchism isn't "anarcho-communism and syndicalism", it's all the non-individualist strands, ie. mainstream anarchism. So, using that term is unneeded, since "anarchist" is enough. Infinity0 ^talk 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ says "Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on) ..." I disagree that individualist forms are not mainstream. Communist anarchism is fastly becoming fringe. Few people go for communism anymore. Of course, the "social anarchists" are going to present themselves as if they're the mainstream. But, I'm not falling for it. RJII 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Even if it was "mainstream" you'd have to specify what mainstream includes and what it excludes. RJII 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Social anarchism isn't just anarchist communism. You're deluding yourself. In the real world, no serious anarchist endorses anarcho-capitalism. To quote the FAQ writers, "outside the net they are irrelevant, on the net they are just annoying". Infinity0 ^talk 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're misguided. Anarcho-capitalism is huge. RJII 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? Is that why I hear news all the time about anarcho-capitalist demonstrations against state intervention? Infinity0 ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is philosophical anarchism. They influence things through philosophy, rather than going out and flipping cars over, smashing shop windows, marching around with banners, etc. Take a guess which method has been more successful at influencing the political economy in the world. RJII 16:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism isn't the same thing as market fundamentalism. The IMF is market fundamentalist, not anarcho-capitalist. The IMF has influence political leaders, but everyone else hates them, since they're responsible for unfair trade treaties. Anarcho-capitalists haven't influenced anything. And the fact that you think anarchism is "going out and flipping cars" just shows that you know nothing about real anarchism. Infinity0 ^talk 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism hasn't influenced anything? Oh really? If you that's what you want to think, go ahead. I know better. RJII 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If by "influence" you mean "influenced a few influential people who then proceeded to fuck the rest of us over" then yes, I suppose it has affected a lot of people. Infinity0 ^talk 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting it. RJII 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then anarcho-capitalism is and has never been about educating people, but seizing power. Rich people only like it because it provides them with an opportunity to become even more powerful. There are no poor anarcho-capitalists. Infinity0 ^talk 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! RJII 16:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How is one person hijacking the debate on this page to such a degree??!!! 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a hell of a lot closer to *neoliberalism* than anarchism; allowing 'anarchocapitalist' views to dictate the content of an article on anarchism is just ridiculous.Monkey-Man 07:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron deleting note that the criticism doesnt come from individualist anarchists

"That's just not true" is not good enough. Do you know of an individualist anarchist that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism? Benjamin Tucker even called Auberon Herbert a "true anarchist," and Herbert fully supported interest, rent, and profit. RJII 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There were no anarcho-capitalists at that time -- of course there wouldn't be any criticism at that period. To make the positive claim that no individualist anarchist questions the pedigree of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, you need to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on nobody but yourself. What you're essentially asserting is that God exists because nobody can prove that he doesn't. --AaronS 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there were. Auberon Herbert was an anarcho-capitalist, and Tucker called him a "true anarchist." Herbert just didn't call himself an anarcho-capitalist --the term wasn't invented yet. But, I know you're going to say that's irrelevant since he didn't call himself an anarcho-capitalist, and that's fine. But, contemporary labor-value individualist anarchists don't argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism either. Sure, the burden is on me to show that there are no individualist anarchists that say it's not a form of anarchism. But, I could say: "We have not found any individualist anarchists that deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism." RJII 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense. People like Auberon Herbert and Gustave de Molinari didn't call themselves anarchist, and I don't think that was just some freak coincidence. They like most people saw their philosophies as incompatible with anarchism. It's as if you think anarchism doesn't exist outside of the United States. The vast majority of anarchists probably hadn't even read anything about it. With the exception of a few American individualists like Tucker, it was only anarcho-capitalist revisionists who decided to retroactively call these people anarchists to create their own roots. And I actually tend to see voluntaryism as not necessarily anarcho-capitalist. If everything is contractually based, I don't know why you're necessarily left with capitalism, whatever Herbert himself had to say. If anything I consider voluntaryism the purest form of liberal anarchism, and much more similar to individualist anarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Sarge Baldy 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you could say that. It sounds a lot like a Kansas Board of Education notice on evolution, and it wouldn't contribute anything to the article. And yes, unless you can find a non-partisan source that says that Herbert was an anarcho-capitalist, despite the fact that he never called himself one and was never called one by his contemporaries, it is irrelevant. The burden is still on you. --AaronS 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated note, no one has yet come up with even an original-research reason why Molinari's, Herbert's, and Spencer's political philosophies diverge from anarcho-capitalism. The Anarchist FAQ doesn't even contest this. MrVoluntarist 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Molinari's 'Production of Security' reads much like anarcho-capitalist stuff on PDAs - though as Rothbard says he would have 'baulked at the term'. We've had plenty of argument here, which I think is basically right, that you can't just pick out some writing 100 aeons before and say 'this thing by A sounds like what my school X is saying now, therefore A was one of us, whether he would have liked it or not'. Plus of course in Molinari's other work he supports the state - there are archived discussions on that you can look at. Herbert supported limited states, explicitly denied he was anti-state let alone an anarchist. Much seems to be made of Tucker's comment that H was a 'true anarchist' - you would think Herbert's own views on the matter would count for at least as much as Tucker's. As for Spencer, even in 'the right to disobey the state' or whatever it's called he says the state is a 'necessary evil'. My approach would be, at most, to describe these as 'antecedents' of ancapism in the same way we have diggers, taoists, et al down as antecedents of anarchism. These post hoc attributions need to be treated with care.Bengalski 20:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He would have "balked at the term" not because he opposed anarcho-capitalism, but because the term "capitalism" had not even been uttered until 1854 (as far as historians know), and even then it did not refer to an economic system, but to the mere ownership of a large amount of wealth. It's only in the 20th century that it refers to what it does now --a laissez-faire system. [5] Of course he would have balked at the term. RJII 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) And, of course, "anarchist" was only used as a pejorative back then. RJII 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's rubbish RJII - eg. when was Marx's 'Capital' published? What were those volume subtitles again? Or never mind Marx, read Proudhon on capitalism. - but I think this is another discussion that's been done to death before. As for Molinari, you can find his very self using the term in eg. 'questions economiques', [6]

or 'cours d'economie politique' [7], and very much talking about economic systems.Bengalski 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Marx Das Capital was not until 1857, and he didn't use the term "capitalism" but "capitalist." And, the "capitalist production form" was not conceived as a laissez-faire economic system. Proudhon used the term "capitalist" in 1867. Look at old dictionaries if you need evidence that capitalism was not defined in the 19th century as it is now. That's the problem with some of the anarchists here ..you're sticking to outmoded definitions and it's causing communications problems. RJII 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC) By the way, where do you see Molinari using the term "capitalism"? RJII 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Laissez-faire is not capitalism. And that link doesn't say that either. Infinity0 ^talk 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: "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" If you want to communicate effectively with people in the modern world, you need to use our definitions. Otherwise, you just cause problems for yourself. 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you wrote this, RJII? "Laissez-faire is capitalism" is market fundamentalist POV. People in the modern world all acknowledge capitalism to be private MOP with free market. Nothing about laissez-faire. Infinity0 ^talk 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A "free market" is laissez-faire --the lack of state intervention. RJII 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an unregulated market. A free market is a broad range. Also, how about using a real dictionary, such as the OED?

• capitalism - "a economic or political system where the means of production are run by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"

Wow, it doesn't even mention free market! Infinity0 ^talk 21:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rather than by the state" ..in other words, laissez-faire ..a free market. RJII 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is non-sequitur. A market can have trade restrictions on it. Infinity0 ^talk 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, M-W says "mainly in a free market". Infinity0 ^talk 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. It doesn't have to be absolutely free to be capitalism, but it is to be very free. Anarcho-capitalists want an absolutely free market. RJII 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, capitalism isn't laissez faire. That phrase is only mentioned once in the wikiquotes, and from a rightist "Investment terms" dictionary. It's not the common meaning. Infinity0 ^talk 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Laissez-faire doesn't mean absolutely free market either. It means minimal intervention. "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" [8] RJII 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though it wasn't an absolutely free market in the U.S. Benjamin Tucker appreciated what economic freedom there was: "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism." RJII 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find that anywhere, and Tucker called himself a socialist. Infinity0 ^talk 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in Martin, 1970, page 275. He's talking about the State forms of those systems. He opposes State Socialism. RJII 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, are you claiming that Kenysian economics is not capitalism? CJames745 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not the best source, but dictionary.com seems to think that capitalism implies usury. "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." CJames745 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And Brittanica.com differentiates between laissez-faire and capitalism. "In the 20th century the Great Depression effectively ended laissez-faire economics in most countries, but the demise of the state-run command economies of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (see communism) and the adoption of some free-market principles in China left capitalism unrivaled (if not untroubled) by the beginning of the 21st century." CJames745 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Loaded Words

There are some seriously loaded words that keep causing problems here, and I think we need to find ways to remove the problem. The word capitalism is one. Socialists argue that capitalism is concentration of capital, while capitalists argue that it is a free market. Wage labor is causing some problems, because to socialists it necessarily implies profit, while to capitalists it merely means receiving money for labor worked. I'd like to think that this problem could be solved by saying socialists oppose employment? There is also the problem of the definition of socialism. To anarchist socialists, socialism means that the only source of wealth is labor and that only labor should be rewarded with wealth. To capitalists, socialism means a control economy. I think that for this article to make sense, and to eliminate the semantics causing so much debate here, it is necessary to define these terms in the manner that they are referred to by their respective philosophies. That is, use a different definition in each section, and point out that that is what we are doing. Anybody? CJames745 23:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. We can't communicate because everybody is using different definitions for the crucial terms. Communicating and settling things is really inefficient here. Each school of anarchism defines terms differently. RJII 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One way of tackling the problem would be orient at least part of the article historically, so that we can introduce changes in terminology as different factions emerge. I'm considering proposing just that sort of rearrangement for the mutualism entry. There, we are probably talking about at least four or five different varieties of "mutualism." The connections between them are real, and the development of variations in the doctrine is entirely explicable, but not yet explained. It is possible that if we did historical justice to some of the shorter, more specific entries, we could devote more of the main Anarchism entry to the exploration of contemporary schools (which some folks seem to think is desirable.) Libertatia 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Another possible way would be to put a little box for each school of anarchism with the defintions for their terms. For example, see the definition box in the anarcho-capitalism article. RJII 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This ariticle is probably best dedicated to the history of anarchism (including contemporary history), and the information about the schools split off, and those boxes RJII suggests put in their own articles. Infinity0 ^talk 00:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if doing some of the history in smaller pieces might make it easier to get qualified folks to dig in a little more seriously, or to let those of us currently at it specialize a bit. On RJII's boxes: it might take quite a few little boxes, but acknowledging the differences in vocabulary—between factions and in different eras—helps the reader be sensitive to the kind of things that trip us up here, even when we're aware of them. A little of both approaches may be necessary. Libertatia 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could make the boxes really small. The value of seeing the definitions each school of thought uses would be enormous. RJII 00:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage labour shouldn't be a problem, since capitalists rarely use the term. Infinity0 ^talk 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it has caused problems in the past. In fact it might even be better to remove the term from the article altogether and just use usury or profit, because that is the aspect of wage labor that is opposed. Still I think some mention of the wage system should be there, which is why I suggested refering to it in terms of the employee/employer relationship, a heirarchy few anarchists view favorably. CJames745 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage labour isn't just "selling labour" - it's the mode of production where labour-power is sold. Even individualist anarchists oppose that. Infinity0 ^talk 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not just profit that the communists oppose. They oppose wage labor altogether --profit or not. Labor is not supposed to be bought and sold. Check out Benjamin Tucker in a dispute with communists over it: [9] RJII 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, communists oppose all payment, but mutualists and collectivists do not. Infinity, I agree with your definition of wage labour but it is also a confusing definition because it can make it sound like all socialist anarchists oppose payment even if they sponsor labor notes. It's more important to get the concept than the language across. Only communists are against payment, collectivists and mutualists believe in payment equivalent to labor worked. A statement about the employer/employee relationship is much more vital. CJames745 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I started wage labour. The distinction between the formal and informal uses could be expanded upon, I suppose. I mean, what else can we call it? "The capitalist mode of production" is even more loaded terminology. Infinity0 ^talk 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptists

A while back, I think it was MrVoluntarist who questioned the veracity of Bertrand Russell's claim that the Anabaptists were communists by claiming that he was a partisan source. I don't know much about Arthur Bestor, but he says the same in "The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary", a 1948 article in The Johns Hopkins University's respected Journal of the History of Ideas: "...the reason why the invention of this active term [communist] was delayed until the nineteenth century was that prior to that time the advocates of community of property had appeared so sporadically that no collective name for them was needed... There were no communists; there were only Anabaptists, or Diggers, or Shakers, or Labadists, or Herrnhuters, or Rappites, or Zoarites." So, that's one more scholarly source. --AaronS 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like it says the Anabaptists weren't communist. But your point is a strawman anyway. (I'm serious this time.) MrVoluntarist 04:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the context of the quotation is that Bestor is saying that those people were communists, but that they wouldn't have been called that, because there weren't enough of them to develop such a label. So, no, he is saying that they were communist. --AaronS 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Bestor is a communist. Of course he's going to believe communism has long, deep roots anywhere and everywhere. That's what people who believe in communism want to believe. MrVoluntarist 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find information that he was (he's dead, you know) a communist? I did a Google search and couldn't find much, though I did find this with regard to his criticism of Progressive education: "Despite his political liberalism, however, Bestor's criticism resonated with conservative opponents of Progressivism and public education. Over time, Bestor adjusted his views to accommodate his increasingly conservative audience." [10] Doesn't seem like your typical communist darling to me. --AaronS 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I thought we were allowed to make up authors' allegiances as a facade to remove sources. We're not? MrVoluntarist 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you ever have anything substantive to add, or do you just like to insult and defame your fellow editors? I'm just wondering. Although, I have to say that I take it as a compliment that you lose so much sleep over me. What do you want, flowers and chocolates? Get over it. --AaronS 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. Why did you make up that three authors criticizing anarcho-capitalism were anarcho-capitalists? I mean, if making up allegiances of authors you want to exclude isn't okay, why did you do it? Or is this another thing were you say "for pro-anarcho-capitalist stuff, I hold the standard that making up obviously false allegiances is okay. For references about communism, it's not." ? Help me out here. What is acceptable and what isn't? And if someone makes up something obviously false or obviously without basis, what's the appropriate reponse. I'm just trying to learn how to deal with Wikipedians like you. Help me out. MrVoluntarist 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that this discussion ended weeks ago. I already admitted my mistake. Would you like me to admit it again? Alright, I made a mistake, then. Now, what exactly will it take to get you to move on and get over it? Or are your irreversably damaged by it? You know, MrVoluntarist, people make mistakes. And sometimes they're just because people make honest mistakes, not because the people who made them are bad or evil or want to hurt you. Next time someone makes a mistake, try to assume good faith instead of attacking them for weeks. It's not healthy to be so angry and obsessive for so long. --AaronS 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist, please stop deleting this discussion. You've already done so three times, I believe. It's hard to keep track, because it keeps getting lost in the edit history. Also, if you are going to blank an entire section of the discussion, it is dishonest to label it as a minor edit in your edit summary. You are clearly acting in bad faith, and if you persist in deleting this thread in order to prove a silly and childish point to a completely different editor, then I'm going to seek some recourse. Lastly, if you are going to call my initiation of this discussion "trolling," I'd like to see an explanation. That's a personal attack. --AaronS 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII deleting the Tucker quote

"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 404]

Tucker is opposed to wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You're deleting relevant parts out of the passage. He's coming down on anarcho-communists for opposing wage labor. Here is the full quote: "If the men who oppose wages - that is, the purchase and sale of labor - were capable of analyzing their thought and feelings, they would see that what really excites their anger is not the fact that labor is bought and sold, but the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labor, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labor by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labor, and that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all gratuitously. And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labor, and then, when there will be nothing but labor with which to buy labor, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury."

You need to take out the false reference in the article. You're using this to claim Tucker opposes wage labor? It says exactly the opposite. Tucker supports wage labor. Read the "An Anarchist FAQ" written by anarcho-communists that you're so into. It also condemns Tucker for supporting wage labor and employment. RJII 17:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He's coming down on anarcho-communists for opposing wages, not wage labour. Read the definition of wage labour; it's not just "paying wages for labour". The An Anarchist FAQ says exactly that Tucker (and all anarchists, inc ind-anarchists) opposes the system of wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 17:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition of wage labor from the page you provided: "Wage labour is the mode of production in which the labourer sells their capacity to work as a commodity." Tucker supports that, obviously. "labor is the only thing that has any title to be bought or sold" -Tucker in the same text. Tucker is arguing against the commmunists oppositin to wage labor, as the communists define it. RJII 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Capacity to work" is labour-power, not labour. By selling labour-power, he is selling his creative energy and control over his own actions. Not just labour. Infinity0 ^talk 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker has no objection to anyone who wishes to sell their "capacity to work." RJII 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker has no objection to anyone who wishes to sell their labour. He opposes -

• "dependent on it for their living"
• "privilege of changing masters"

Both are characteristics of wage labour (or employment). Infinity0 ^talk 17:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple. He supports wages. He believes that in laissez-faire wages would be higher, and the employee would not need to contract to have part of his wages deducted as profit to the employer. "Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down [the elimination of State intervention] will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also." (State Socialism and Anarchism). RJII 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he supports wages, but he opposes wage labour. Well done. Also if you're going to put up a dispute tag, make the notice NPOV, and not just another way to push yours. And stop thinking I'm trying to misrepresent Tucker on purpose. Infinity0 ^talk 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He supports wage labor. He employers paying wages to laborers. "any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." (An Anarchist FAQ, LOL) RJII 17:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"He supports wage labor. He employers paying wages to laborers." is non-sequitur as wage labour isn't merely paying wages for labour. Infinity0 ^talk 17:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is an employer paging wages to a laborer. It's very simple. RJII 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the wage labour page I give two references, both defining wage labour to be not just paying wages for labour. Infinity0 ^talk 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that anarcho-communists want to abolish all payment for labor? When anarcho-communists say they oppose wage labor, they mean they oppose an employer paying an employee wages --whether profit is deducted or not. They don't want to allow an individual to sell his labor to an employer. Instead, they want a system where people recieve "according to their needs" rather than according to their labor. Tucker believes people should be compensated for their labor, with wages. RJII 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, by wage labour they (anarchist communists and everyone else) mean exactly wage labour. By "abolition of private property" they mean wages. Also, how is this relevant to anything? Infinity0 ^talk 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And by private property, individualist include wages as well. It's relevant because if you use Marxist terminology, you confuse the reader into thinking that Tucker opposes wages being paid for labor. And, it's not true. Are you interested in making things clear to the reader, or are you interested in obfuscating things so that the reader is deceived into believe that Tucker opposes wages for labor? RJII 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wage labour" is not Marxist terminology, it's a widely used term to refer to that specific relationship in capitalism. Most people realise it's the same thing as employment, and wouldn't call a self-employed plumber, for example, a wage labourer.

Also, if you're going to use the "readers can't understand this" argument, most readers understand "capitalism" to be private MOP with a free market but you're going around saying it's "laissez faire"? It's not even the "scholarly definition", whereas the "scholarly definition" of wage labour is that specific system. Infinity0 ^talk 18:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, most people do not understand capitalism to be private MOP in a free market. EDUCATED people do, of course. Most have no clue what capitalism is, especially your run-of-the-mill amateur anarchist. Most decry capitalism without being able to define it. Laissez-faire and free market are the same thing, except free market implies even more lack of restrictions that laissez-faire. It implies economic anarchy. RJII 18:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Free market isn't a definition of capitalism; Keynesian capitalism recommended government intervention. Free market is only a coincidental characteristic. More people know more about capitalism than you think. Most anti-capitalists are educated; even children in third world countries know about the economic policies affecting them. Also, since you haven't shown anything against wage labour, I'm removing the tag. Infinity0 ^talk 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Keynesian capitalism"? LOL. Whatever. If you remove that tag, I'll just put it back. I'll keep this up for the next 5 hours until I go the gym. RJII 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's common to hear phrases such as "capitalist policy in the 50s was driven by keynesian economics". Infinity0 ^talk 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a really loose use of the term "capitalism." People throw the term around loosely, no doubt. RJII 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting for no reason is disruptive. Seriously, I've given you the definition of wage labour about ten times. Are you really saying Ben Tucker supported that?? Infinity0 ^talk 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're deleting the tag when the dispute is not settled is disruptive. Yes of course Tucker supported wage labor. RJII 18:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then give a reason why Tucker did not oppose wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 18:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because he thought that people should be paid the "full product" of their labor. They should be compensated for their work. "Wage labor is defined as work for cash, shares or in kind" (Bradley 1987; Bradley et al 1990) [11]

And that source is relevant how? It's not a political definition, it's from an obscure source on historical economics. Infinity0 ^talk 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was obscure, it wouldn't be on the internet. It's not "on historical economics." That's one of the many things that bugs me about you. You won't read or comprehend the sources I provide you. That's the normal definition NPOV definition of wage labor --being paid wages for labor. RJII 19:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No shit? You just linked me a 35-page document and I skimmed through it quickly to see what it was about. It seems to be doing a study on the distribution of labour in households in various cultures and times. The definition isn't a matter of POV. "Wage labour" is normally used in the sense of the system, as is defined.

If it was obscure, it wouldn't be on the internet. - funny, you were using the exact opposite argument to deny "An Anarchist FAQ". I think the quote was something like "anyone can publish anything they like on the internet". Infinity0 ^talk 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No I wasn't. I was arguing against using the FAQ as a secondary source because it lacks credibility. The writers have no qualifications to comment authoritatively on primary sources. RJII 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, the normal definition of wage labour is the one I gave. Infinity0 ^talk 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wage labor is work performed under direction of an employer in return for a wage or salary." [12] -Alistair (Alix) Howard PhD RJII 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"I was formally, like yourself, sir, a very warm advocate of the abolition of (black) slavery. This was before I saw that there was white slavery. Since I saw this, I have materially changed my views as to the means of abolishing Negro slavery. I now see clearly, I think, that to give the landless black the privilege of changing masters now possessed by the landless white, would hardly be a benefit to him in exchange for his surety of support in sickness and old age, although he is in a favourable climate." [quoted by Kenneth R. Gegg, Jr., Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 113]

Exactly what wage labour is. Infinity0 ^talk 17:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not a quote from Benjamin Tucker, but from from George Henry Evans.[13] And, he's talking about the right of homesteading, not "wage labor." RJII 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Tucker, for example, always called himself a socialist-anarchist and while he was not opposed to wage labour, he argued that under individualist anarchism labour would not be exploited and non-labour income (i.e. profit, interest and rent) would disappear (and, as noted above, logically his ideas point towards co-operative labour and self-employment as the economic basis of anarchy)" Voltairine De Cleyre: Her revolutionary ideas and legacy RJII 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product." -Mutualist.org, by Kevin Carson. RJII 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Workers are propertyless and forced to wage labor because they cannot finance their self-employment: the state monopoly over money is the problem. Let the people issue their own private, fiduciary moneys and the choice between working for an employer or for oneself will become entirely voluntary. This is the individual anarchism (or anarco-capitalism) championed by Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker in America and Gustave de Molinari in France." A RATIONAL THEORY OF SOCIALIST PUBLIC OWNERSHIP RJII 21:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So, he doesn't oppose wage labor. He oppose profit from being deducted from the wages. And the way he want to do this is to get rid of banking regulations which will keep interest rates near zero (due to increased competition in lending). Then, it would be much easier for a person to go into business for himself, by borrowing money from the bank at a negligible rate of interest to purchase his own means of production (tools, machines, etc). If he does that, if he obtains his OWN means of production, then he doesn't have to use someone else's means of production and agree to give the owner the profits in exchange for that use. There would still be wage labor in individualist anarchism, because of course, for various reasons, For example, not everyone wants to borrow the financial capital and risk not being able to pay back the loan, and get a bad credit rating. Also, it's a lot of work to start your own business. If you want to take the easy way out and choose to work for someone else, your wages would be higher since the State is not intervening in the economy --your wages would be at their "natural rate" which would align with the wages that accords with the labor theory of value. Employers wouldn't be able to take a profit because there would be a lower supply of people wanting to work for others, which of course causes wages to rise. "Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also." Read State Socialism and Anarchism for once. After you read about and understand individualist anarchism, THEN, comment. Don't make just make guesses and hope they're right. RJII 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talking of "State Socialism and Anarchism", the 1911 postscript is very relevant here. Tucker argued that "concentrated capital" made individualist anarchism impossible. As he said, "freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy" the trust. Clearly, he saw a situation when the state did not exist ("freest competition") but workers were still exploited and, consequently, it was not anarchism. This suggests that his comments on "two classes" would be applicable under "anarcho"-capitalism. This obviously flows into the individualist anarchist criticisms of "voluntaryism," namely that it would produce a society of two classes in which own class was forced to sell their labour to another who owned the means of production. If Tucker was not opposed to this (the reality of capitalism) then he would not have criticised the "voluntaryists" and not written his postscript. User:Blackflag 08:45, February 2006.

Tucker and wage labour 2

Also, (assuming Tucker is against wage labour) (saying this is an assmuption for the purposes of NPOV) Tucker would have criticised anarcho-capitalism, since in anarcho-capitalism wage labour is allowed. So it doesn't matter whether he criticised a-capitalism specifically or not, and he couldn't have since it wasn't around in his day. Infinity0 ^talk 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism was around. It was called Voluntaryism. Tucker had no real problem with it. He said that if it was implemented it would result in the inability to profit. Just like contemporary individualist anarchist Kevin Carson argues. RJII 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC) RJII 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalism was around. It was called Voluntaryism." And its supporters *explicitly* rejected calling themselves anarchists. So it is fair not to call it a form of anarchism, given this. As for "Tucker had no real problem with it" that is false. The Individualist Anarchists noted that "voluntaryism" involved keeping the existing distribution of property and then saying "no more coercion." They noted that this was hypocrisy and said that the poor would be right to expropriate land and capital (Yarro, as quoted in "Benjamin Tucker and the Champions of Liberty"). User:BlackFlag 8:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Also, please realise that "wage labour" is not a type of labour but a system of production. Infinity0 ^talk 17:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin R. Tucker - Auberon Herbert and his Work And, note that Tucker calls Herbert a "true 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!" -Tucker in Liberty (vol. 15, no. 6, p. 16). And, for Carson, read The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand. RJII 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC) .

Tucker excommunicated Kropotkin from anarchism, which means he is hardly a reliable guide to who is and who is not an anarchist! Herbert himself explicitly rejected the label anarchism. Between Herbert and Tucker, I think I'll stick with Herbert on what he thought his ideas should be called. Moreover, Kropotkin did not list "Voluntaryism" as a form of anarchism, nor did Nettleu. If it was "anarcho"-capitalism then, obviously, social anarchists rejected the idea that it was anarchist. So let me make a suggestion, change references to "anarcho"-capitalism to "voluntaryism" and note that its founding fathers rejected the label anarchist/anarchism. Seems fair to them and to anarchists. [[User:BlackFlag] 08:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That source doesn't say "true anarchist" nor does it mention wage labour, or being employed. Infinity0 ^talk 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does say he's a true anarchist --not the link on the net, but in Liberty volume 15, no 6, page 16. He doesn't come down on Herbert for wage labor, because he support wage labor, of course. RJII 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an very wide assumption. Also, please give a source showing Herbert supports wage labour, since it doesn't mention that. (Similarly, Tucker allows "free trade" including wage labour, but still opposes it and wants to abolish it.) The two quotes I gave show that he is in clear opposition to wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 18:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. The show support of wage labor. Herbert supported wage labor: [14] RJII 19:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By this, you are using Tucker's non-action to assume his position; the quotes I gave show his position directly. Which is clearer? Infinity0 ^talk 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying. RJII 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm deducting Tucker's position from things he said; you're assuming Tucker's position from things he didn't say. Infinity0 ^talk 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We already know that Tucker didn't oppose wage labor. He opposed profit being deducted from wages. RJII 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Which means he was an anti-capitalist, as the FAQ notes. And as the FAQ notes, Tucker did not oppose wage labour (although,logically, he should have). However, did argued that under individualist anarchism labour would receive what it produced. This made him an anti-capitalist from an anarchist perspective. To quote Alexander Berkman: "If labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism." (What is Communist Anarchism?, p. 37) User:BlackFlag 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wage labor is work performed under direction of an employer in return for a wage or salary." - under the direction of an employer, yes...

Now you are quoting [15]? WOW man, you are such a hypocrite! First you have a go at me, claiming "An Anarchist FAQ" is not credible, then you attempt to use this as a source? It doesn't even say who the author is!

Anarcho is the author. I'm using your standard. You said as long as an article was sourced and well written, it's credible. If we have the "anarchist FAQ" then this also counts as a primary source. RJII 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a look then: Tucker, for example, always called himself a socialist-anarchist and while he was not opposed to wage labour, he argued that under individualist anarchism labour would not be exploited and non-labour income (i.e. profit, interest and rent) would disappear

"Non-labour income?" Under wage-labour the income for the capitalists is non-labour. So, the author doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Infinity0 ^talk 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The author knows exactly what he's talking about --non labor income would dissapear. In other words, profit would disappear, not wages. There is no necessity that profits have to be deducted from wage labor. RJII 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, RJII, "not wages" not "not wage labour". It's ironic that you're using a libertarian socialist article to push your POV. I understand what you are saying, I'm saying what you are saying is what wage labour is. A lot of people have it confused, that's all, (and I was until a few days ago) but that's exactly why I started that article. Infinity0 ^talk 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What's my POV? My main interest has always been individualist anarchism. Wage labor is simply being paid wages for labor, whether profit is deducted or not. Tucker supports it. He oppose PROFIT from being deducted from wage labor. Communists oppose wage labor, period. RJII 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the specific definition of wage labour. How about I add "used to mean wages for labour informally" to wage labour as clarity that the formal meaning is NOT that? Infinity0 ^talk 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because you're wrong. The "formal" meaning is paying wages for labor. Wage-Labor. Duh. RJII 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. It's the name for the "unique social relationship in capitalism", to quote An Anarchist FAQ. Infinity0 ^talk 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Anarchist FAQ is written by communists. Don't you get it? They oppose individualist anarchists AND anarcho-capitalists. It's very low quality document for reliable information. We know that. They just make things up. RJII 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went through and replaced every instance of wage with payment and every instance of wage labour with employment. Can we stop arguing semantics now? CJames745 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but Infinity needs to take out Tucker as a source, because Tucker supports payment by an employer to an employee for labor (wage labor). RJII 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Employment isn't unique to capitalism, though. Only wage labour is. Infinity0 ^talk 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage labor is not unique to capitalism. Profit is unique to capitalism. Wage labor exists in individualist anarchism AND capitalism. Voltairine de Cleyre said that the "essential institutions of Commercialism are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference by the State," and that "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism" would exist in individualist anarchy. RJII 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like I said "employment isn't unique to capitalism; wage labour is". Infinity0 ^talk 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we need a different word still. What socialists don't believe in is a boss, but that word doesn't sound professional enough. Still maybe that's what would work best. In any case, Tucker did not believe in a boss. Enough semantics. CJames745 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker had no problem with a boss. "any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." RJII 23:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a hypothetical situation in which he describes the current establishment. Infinity0 ^talk 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a hypothetical situation. It's called "anarchy." He has no problem with employer/employee in a laissez-fair market. RJII 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he was describing the current situation where some employers were oppressing their employees. Above quote shows Tucker was against "privilege to choose masters" - which is wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What?! But, he was saying *IF* if were a laissez-faire situation, then ""any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." But, he also opposed violence being used against employers in the real world situation. He thought people should be allowed to make any kind of contract they wish with anyone they wish. RJII 23:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he wasn't! We've discussed this source before; the context was something like "let there be just laws; then <rest of quote>". Infinity0 ^talk 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he was. Here's the fuller quote: "Let Carnegie, Dana & Co. first see to it that every law in violation of equal liberty is removed from the statute-books. if, after that, any laborers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive "scabs," or shall attack their employers' watchmen, whether these be Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, or the State militia, I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." There you have it. RJII 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I just said... "let there be just laws". He's not describing anarchy, but the current situation and a hypothetical one which isn't anarchy. Infinity0 ^talk 23:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker and wage labour 3

"Workers are propertyless and forced to wage labor because they cannot finance their self-employment: the state monopoly over money is the problem. Let the people issue their own private, fiduciary moneys and the choice between working for an employer or for oneself will become entirely voluntary. This is the individual anarchism (or anarco-capitalism) championed by Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker in America and Gustave de Molinari in France." A RATIONAL THEORY OF SOCIALIST PUBLIC OWNERSHIP - The source you gave, RJII, implies this. They make the distinction between "wage labour" and "employer". If as you say, wage labour was only "labour for a wage" then working for yourself gives you a wage too - wage labour. But it's not called that. So your definition is wrong. Infinity0 ^talk 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a distinction between "wage labor" and "employer." No, you are dead wrong if you think that working for yourself is what is meant by wage labor. Wage labor means an employer is paying you wage. Tucker does not oppose that, and does not think it's exploitative as long as it's in a free market. RJII 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously you said "wage labour is only labour for a wage - wage-labour, duh lolol". Now you're adding "employer". Why's that? Infinity0 ^talk 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone pay anyone a wage unless they were the one's employing them? Come on. It's just understood that if you're getting a wage for a labor, someone is paying you. RJII 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker thinks nobody would participate in it in a free market. So he obviously DOES think it's exploitative. Infinity0 ^talk 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Why won't you take the time to actually read Tucker? Why won't you read State Socialism and Anarchism? Why do you insist on making claims when you have idea what you're talking about? RJII 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

An "employer" is whoever is paying you for your labor. RJII 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read that link you posted (can't remember where it is). I don't know if it's the whole thing. From it though, it's obvious he detests the current system of employment, and believes that in a fully free society, it won't happen (naturally). Just because he allows it doesn't mean he doesn't hate it. Otherwise why would he wish to minimise it?? Infinity0 ^talk 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet that source makes the distinction between "wage labor" and "self employment". It's clear employer means not the employee. Infinity0 ^talk 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"the choice between working for an employer or for oneself will become entirely voluntary." Tucker doesn't oppose that. What are you talking about? He has absolutely no problem with someone contracting with an employer for employment and a wage. RJII 23:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't understand this. Tucker's position is that it's State regulations on banking that is causing individuals to have hardship in starting their own businesses. If banking were deregulated then people could borrow capital at low interest, which would reduce the supply of people seeking employment by others and cause wages to rise. He explains this in State Socialism. READ IT!!! He doesn't oppose wage labor at all. He oppose LOW wages caused by state intervention in the economy. And he opposes the difficulty of borrowing capital to start your own business because of state intervention. If the State stops regulating banking, then capitalism (in the sense of profit-making) disappears. But, wage labor does NOT, because not everyone wants to borrow and risk the capital, as well as make the effort, to start their own business. RJII 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There's one quote showing nicely that Tucker doesn't like employers (as in capitalists in wage labour). I can't remember exactly, and I'm too busy right now to find it, but it says something to the effect of "no-one will be a buyer of labour". It really can't get more explicit than that. Also, in one of the quotes above he says something like "when they search through their emotions they will find that it is not buying/selling of labour that makes them angry, but the fact that one class of people is entirely dependent on selling their labour, and another class is relieved of labour because they have the capital to buy it".

As for the state, ind-anarchists acknowledge they and the capitalists are the same thing; why's this relevant?

And yes, I do understand that wage-labour is allowed; but they specifically formualted mutualism to minimise it. Infinity0 ^talk 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker would never say "no-one will be a buyer of labor." He says the OPPOSITE. Everyone will be a buyer of labor. And, "something like" is not good enough. Here is the quote: "If the men who oppose wages - that is, the purchase and sale of labor - were capable of analyzing their thought and feelings, they would see that what really excites their anger is not the fact that labor is bought and sold, but the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labor, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labor by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labor, and that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all gratuitously. And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labor, and then, when there will be nothing but labor with which to buy labor, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." That's BLATANT support for wage labor. RJII 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you still using wage labour to mean "wages for labour"? Because that quote is against the formal definition, where employers and employees are separate concepts. By "buyer of labour" I meant "and not seller". Of course, if everyone is a seller of labour, everyone is a buyer too. But Tucker means EVERYONE. So really, there would (ideally) be no such thing as "employer" or "employee" - everyone would be both and the terms would be meaningless. Infinity0 ^talk 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The formal definition of wage labor is wages for labor. Tucker supports wage labor. Whether or not you want to call it a employer paying the wages is irrelevant. All he is saying is that people won't have an income without laboring. RJII 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, man, I've given about 2 sources directly stating the definition and about 3 implying it. I've even acknowledged that "wage labour" is informally used for your meaning. What more do you want? I'm off for tonight, see you tomorrow. Infinity0 ^talk 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've given sources for what wage labor means. It's not "informal." It's the correct meaning. Wage labor means WAGES being paid for LABOR. Duh. RJII 00:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Workers are propertyless and forced to wage labor because they cannot finance their self-employment

Self-employment is wages for labour. But that source makes the distinction. And no, you haven't given relevant source. Infinity0 ^talk 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, self-employment is wages labor IF it's labor that you're selling. And, yes I have given you two sources defining wage labor. RJII 00:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That source makes the distinction. If wage labour was defined as you say, they wouldn't make the distinction. Infinity0 ^talk 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you READ? "Workers are propertyless and forced to wage labor because they cannot finance their self-employment: the state monopoly over money is the problem. Let the people issue their own private, fiduciary moneys and the choice between working for an employer or for oneself will become entirely voluntary. This is the individual anarchism (or anarco-capitalism) championed by Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker in America and Gustave de Molinari in France." OF course they make a distinction. What are you saying??? RJII 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And that text in bold implies what? It doesn't say both are wage labour; the first sentence distinguishes self-employment and wage labour specifically. Infinity0 ^talk 00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't usually call self-employment wage labor. It's technically wage labor if you're selling your labor, but wage labor is more often understood to be someone that is laboring on someone else's means of production that gets paid for it. That's something that Tucker does not oppose. Rather, he wants to make sure that the person that owns that means of production is laboring as well --that he doesnt have an income without laboring. And, the way to do that is to deregulated banking. RJII 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're extrapolating your own meaning... I'll go dig up some more stuff on this tomorrow. Infinity0 ^talk 00:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not. It's as plain as day if you would just take the time to read. He opposes people having an income without working. But, the reason for that being possible is the State. RJII 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, how you are ever going to survive your probation I do not know. I was not "vandalising". :| Infinity0 ^talk 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're committing vandalism if you remove a dispute tag when you know damned well that the dispute it not resolved. RJII 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd be fine with me making clear the definition. Infinity0 ^talk 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the quote you gave above says "the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers." This is an explicit statement that he doesn't believe in employment. He believes in a market where people trade their labor. There will be no wage-payers or wage-receivers, just laborers. I don't want to argue semantics so I'm not concerned here about whether we call this wage labor. The point is, it needs to be noted in the article that only anarcho-capitalists believe there should be a distinction between employer and employee. CJames745 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But, that's not true. He's just saying that the employer will labor too if banking is deregulated, so essentially there will not be a difference between employee and employer. He is not opposed to someone that doesn't own his own means of production and getting a job from someone who does --that's what employment is. It's clear from this statement that he doesn't oppose employmee/employee situations: "Let Carnegie, Dana & Co. first see to it that every law in violation of equal liberty is removed from the statute-books. if, after that, any laborers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive "scabs," or shall attack their employers' watchmen, whether these be Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, or the State militia, I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." He opposes the idea of an employer only in the sense of someone who is recieving an income without laboring --that is, someone not paying the employee the full produce of his labor. But, he doesn't think it's the employers fault, but the State's fault for regulating banking. The distinction about anarcho-capitalism that needs to be made is that anarcho-capitalists don't mind if an employee is paid less than his full produce, because they think value is subjective rather than intrinsically based in labor --they think profit is ok. Tucker thinks a person should be paid his full produce. He does not oppose employer/employee relationships AT ALL. RJII 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here it is stated another way: "For those who do not know, capitalist wage work (or profit) is the social relationship where an employer (one who owns the places and means of production) receives more money then employees for equal time worked within a company. Rather than both the employer and employee being paid equally for equal time worked (which would then be non-capitalist and therefore non-exploitive employer and employee relationships which could exist within an Individualist Anarchy as stated by Benjamin Tucker), the employers unfairly pay themselves more money than employees for equal time worked resulting in the robbing of the employee's part of their income." [16] RJII 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And, here is Tucker defending the right of employer/employee relationships, in argument against State Socialism: "What becomes then of the personal liberty of those non-aggressive individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer..." [17] It's up to the individual whether he wants to work for himself or for someone else. Tucker has absolutely no problem with that. RJII 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The two quotes portray exactly what I am trying to tell you. The fist quote explains how Tucker believes "employers unfairly pay themselves more money than employees for equal time worked resulting in the robbing of the employee's part of their income." The second quote explains that this should not be combatted with legislation as state socialists believe. So there you go, he opposes the distinction between employee and employer, and he opposes force against that distinction. CJames745 04:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything :"the distinction between employee and employer." There reader has no clue what it's talking about. The lack of distinction is that the employee and the employer both get equal pay for equal time worked. (Also, note that the text is claiming that the other sources are talking about this, but they're not.) RJII 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Which links, you mean the ones to wage labor? You're right, I'll remove the link.

No, I mean the sources. He's got 4 sources sources listed that he claims are saying the same thing. Tucker is the only source that's saying anything remotely like that. Another thing, Tucker is not criticising anarcho-capitalism in that essay, so what's the point? RJII 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarhco-capitalism didn't exist. But he is saying that the employee/employer relationship is unfair, or if you want me to change the semantics "wage-payers and wage-receivers". CJames745 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it did exist, but was called "voluntaryism" and he criticized it, but accepted it believing that it amounts to the same thing as individualist anarhcism --but that's another story. But, what ABOUT the employee/employee relationship is unfair? It's not the fact that an employee has an employer, but the fact that the employer is paying the employee less than his full produce --that he profits. If an employee is paid the full produce he has no problem with it. And agains, the employer is not at fault, but the state is for making profit possible by reducing competition among employers. RJII 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved, then. Call the section on "anarcho"-capitalism "voluntaryism" -- it only seems fair, given that its supporters did not call themselves anarchists. For example, Herbert explicitly rejected the term anarchist. Levy stated that "no Individualist would every call himself an Anarchist." He also noted that while individualist and communist anarchists disagreed on many subjects "their agreement [on others] entitled them equally to the general designation of Anarchist." (Benjamin R Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, p. 193 and pp. 194-5). User:BlackFlag 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the section to tidy it up a bit and try to clarify Tucker's stance on wages. I didn't cut it down in an attempt to censor anybody so if you have any problems go ahead and add in more info. CJames745 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely getting better. RJII 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just curious, what does this mean? "Instead he advocated a free market for capital as well as labor." This makes it sound like somebody could profit from capital instead of labor, IMO. CJames745 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker's thing was that the State regulated banking. You have to get a charter to start a bank and issue your own private money --it's not a free market. He thinks that there were no more regulations (free banking), then there would be a proliferation of banks. All these banks competing to lend capital would drive interest rates to near zero. Then anyone who wanted to go into business for himself would be able to get a near zero interest loan and buy his own means of production. Then, with a much larger amount of people self-employed (owning their own means of production) the number of people seeking employment by using the means of production owned by OTHERS would be severely reduced. That would raise wages because businesses would be competing with each other trying to get laborers. Wages would rise to their "natural rate" rather than their artifically low rate. He is upset that there is a free market in labor, but not a free market in capital. "Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital." If you can find a clearer way to say it, go ahead. RJII 05:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full quote: "On discovering this, Warren and Proudhon charged the political economists with being afraid of their own doctrine. The Manchester men were accused of being inconsistent. The believed in liberty to compete with the laborer in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury. Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital. But how to correct this inconsistency, how to serve this gander with this sauce, how to put capital at the service of business men and laborers at cost, or free of usury, - that was the problem." He was saying that the current market is biassed in favor of capital. I changed it to reflect that. Here is what I put "Instead, he advocated a market where competition didn't favor capital over labor" CJames745 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I decided to change it so it says "Instead, he advocated a deregulated market which he felt would no longer favor capital over labor." This is the cross between liberalism and socialism that american mutualists favor. The point being that legislation in the market allows capitalists to compete with workers but not the other way around. CJames745 09:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to take the dispute banner under anarcho-capitalism down? Tucker's position on wages seems to have been cleared up and it has been noted that he wasn't speaking explicity against anarcho-capitalism. CJames745 10:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. It needs to be clear that he doesn't oppose buying and selling labor. I want to make sure it's clear that his position is not like the anarcho-communists. He doesn't oppose buying and selling of labor. I just made a modification. RJII 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker and wage labour 4

RJII, you give a extremely long winded explanation of Tucker which completely misses the point.

Yes, the capitalist-state is giving employers privileges so that they can employ workers at low prices. Blah blah. That's what wage labour is. A separate class of workers and employers. What does it matter whether Tucker thought the state was the cause? He still wanted the system to be abolished.

When everyone works, then there is no more wage labour. Simple. Unless you're still defining "wage labour" as "wages for labour", in which case it is only you that is defining that this way.

"Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist [sic!], an independent producer." [Eunice Minette Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 151]

• Distinguishes wage labour from self-employment.

Workers are propertyless and forced to wage labor because they cannot finance their self-employment:

• Distinguishes wage labour from self-employment.

[18] Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system based upon wage labour. Under capitalism a small group of people, the capitalist class, owns the means of production (land, factories, mines, etc.) and the working class (the majority of the population) must sell their labour to the capitalist class in order to survive.

• Another formal definition of wage labour

[19]This perspective explains her move from individualism to mutualism, aswage labour obviously fits this criteria. The key evil in patriarchy is that one person in the contract becomes dominated by the other (as Voltairine noted, the marriage contract meant the "sale of the control of your person in return for 'protection and support'" ("The Gates of Freedom")). Yet this is also the case for the wagecontract. The difference is that the wage contract involves the sale of the control of your person for some of, rather than all, the hours in theday. Thus a consistent feminist, like a consistent anarchist, must also oppose wage slavery, unless they subscribe to the rather implausible assertion that vacating your will for eight plus hours a day for weeks, months, or years on end is fine but not over 24 hours a day via marriage.

• The source you quoted that "Tucker does not oppose wage labour". From the above extract it is clear that the writer uses "wage labour" to mean "wages for labour" and "wage contract" to mean "wage labour".

the natural wage of labouris its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income.

• Similarly, Tucker uses "wage" to mean "labour products".

You think he's saying that people should be payed in kind?! That's not true. He believes in monetary payment. RJII 16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"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."

• Spooner wishes wage labour to be minimised - ie opposes it.

[20] What Proudhon really objected to with respect to private property was the earning of income from the labour of others through such means as rent, interest and wage labour.

• Proudhon opposes wage labour. Also, this author distinguishes "wage labour" from "labour".

"the labourers . . . [are] kept in the condition of wage labourers, [Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p. 47]

• Spooner distinguishes mere "labour" from "wage labour".

And so on... really, wage labour isn't "wages for labour". Even the ind-anarchists used the formal "marxist" definition, as you call it.

I know the position. The problem is the term "wage labor." It's a primarily and originally a communist term. If a communist says he opposes wage labor, he means he opposes the buying and selling of labor. That's what I think when someone says they oppose wage labor --I figure they're communists. Individualists didn't use the term, because they supported buying and selling of labor. A few modern mutualists use it however, because of the communist influence on the language, and they mean it as someone that is hired to work using someone else's means of production, and they say there's nothing wrong with it. For example: "I have to stipulate that there’s nothing inherently wrong with wage labor." -Kevin Carson Contract Feudalism RJII 16:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's primarily an anti-capitalist term. It's not just limited to communists, but the whole of left-wing politics. Infinity0 ^talk 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as different people have different meanings we can't use the term, without explaining the communists/anti-capitalist usage. Contemporary individualists say they don't oppose wage labor, because they are anti-communist. RJII 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The meaning is explained well enough in the article. ONE person, Kevin Carson says he doesn't oppose wage labour, but he obviously isn't using the formal definition, since he's a mutualist. Besides, what else are you going to name the unique capitalist system of production that is wage labour? Infinity0 ^talk 16:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the individualists have ever said they they oppose "wage labor," as far as I know. What they oppose is people not receiving the full value of their labor, which they believe is caused by State intervention preventing a free market. RJII 16:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote above, Spooner distinguishes labour from "wage labour," and calls employees-only "wage labourers" in another quote. Infinity0 ^talk 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so he does use the term, "wage labourers." But, that doesn't mean he opposes the buying and selling of labor. When communists say they oppose wage labor, they mean they oppose the buying and selling of labor. That's why we can't use the term without explaining it. RJII 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, when anyone uses "wage labour" they mean the system of production. When communists oppose the buying and selling of labour (ie. wages) they say abolition of trade/property. And, it is explained. Infinity0 ^talk 16:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, when communists say they want to abolish wage labor, they mean they want to abolish the buying and selling of labor. RJII 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. Marxists.org defines wage labour clearly. And so does Marx himself. Infinity0 ^talk 17:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

From Marxists.org: "Wage labour is the mode of production in which the labourer sells their capacity to work as a commodity." Tucker fully supports the "the mode of production in which the labourer sells their capacity to work as a commodity." RJII 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't "their capacity to work" is labour-power - he's selling his own liberty to the employer. Tucker is against that. Infinity0 ^talk 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And no, I'm not misleading people; I'm educating them on what wage labour really is. ffs... Infinity0 ^talk 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No he doesn't oppose that. If someone says: "I'll sell you an hour of my labor," Tucker has no problem with that. That's what individualist anarchism is all about. RJII 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not wage labour. In wage labour when you sell labour-power your employer chooses what to do with it - he controls what you do. And in wage labour you have no choice but to sell your labour-power, because it's the only thing you can do. Infinity0 ^talk 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's abolutely false. When you get a job, you sign up to do a certain operation. The employer cannot legally make you do something you did not contract to do. If he asks you to do something that you didn't contract to do, you just leave. You didn't sell him your liberty. Tucker has no problem with someone selling someone else a certain amount of labor doing any particular thing. RJII 17:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Deadlines? Threat of firing? Tucker has the problem with "privelege of changing masters" (quote above) and "depend on labour for survival" (exact quote above) Infinity0 ^talk 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not talking about an employer there. He's talking about someone that holds claim to land that he's not using. He charges rent to the freed black slave to use the land, when the unused land should be free for anyone to use. RJII 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the point is under wage labour the majority are so poor they have to accept any "contracts" that come their way. Infinity0 ^talk 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So? That's not Tucker's point. The individualists recognize that one has to work, either for themselves, or someone else, in order to surivive. They want to INSURE that people have to work to survive --that no one should receive in income without working. And, they want individuals have the right to buy and sell labor. RJII 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"privege of changing masters" was exactly talking about wage labourers. He was saying that slaves being freed would only become wage labourers, which isn't any better. Ind-anarchists want everyone to be able to work, but no-one to be able to force people to work for them. Which is wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 17:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No he's not. He's talking about LAND. Read this article for more information. The Free-Soil Movement The quote is there in context. RJII 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And it's not even a quote from Tucker, but from George Henry Evans! RJII 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're coming from a communist direction and you're trying to apply it to the individualists. Individualists do not make such arguments. RJII 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was formerly, like yourself, sir, a very warm advocate of the abolition of slavery. This was before I saw that there was white slavery. Since I saw this, I have materially changed my views as to the manner of abolishing negro slavery. I see now clearly, I think, that to give the landless black the privilege of changing masters now possessed by the landless white would hardly be a benefit to him in exchange for his surety of support in sickness and old age, although he is in a favorable climate. If the southern form of slavery existed at the north, I should say the black would be a great loser in such a change.

The quote is clearly about wage labour, since it says "landless". The quote was from a book called "Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty" so I assumed it was for Tucker. But it says Evans influenced the ind. anarchists a lot.

the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour.

If Tucker supported wage labour, why would he devise a system to minimise it? Infinity0 ^talk 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not Benjamin Tucker speaking. That's George Henry Evans! [21] And, he's talking about a right to homestead. It has nothing to do with "wage labor."

He didn't support a system to minimize it. He wanted a LACK of system --a free market to MAXIMIZE wages. He wanted people to be able to borrow capital at a low interest so that they could buy their own private means of production. That way the pool of non-MOP-owning individuals seeking employment from those that DO own means or production would be smaller which would send wages up. Are you familiar with supply and demand? RJII 17:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot apply the communist mindset to the individualists anarchists. That's where you're going wrong. RJII 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're refusing to use the definiton of wage labour. Tucker opposed the division between the class of employers and the class of employees. That is obvious. Infinity0 ^talk 18:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But in what sense? You can't just say that. It doesn't mean anything without an explanation. He means the division between people working for a living, and people not working for a living. As long as an employer's income is from his own labor, he has no problem with it. RJII 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not wage labour, then, is it. :| Also, stop adding irrelevant quotes. "abolish usury" is completely irrelevant and confusing. Infinity0 ^talk 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is wage labor. Wage labor is the buying and selling of labor. If an employer pays someone for his labor (wage labor), that's fine for Tucker. What Tucker doesn't like is if the employer derives income from the employees labor rather than his own labor. And, the way to help insure that this is the case is to institute complete laissez-faire so that market forces drive wages up. Lysander Spooner owned the American Letter Mail Company. Do you think he delivered all the mail himself? RJII 18:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. Read the definition. Wage labour is the buying and selling of labour power. If an employer gets all his income from other's labour, that's wage labour, and Tucker opposes it. Infinity0 ^talk 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not what wage labor is. Even from Marxists.org: "Wage labour is the mode of production in which the labourer sells their capacity to work as a commodity." Tucker supports that. RJII 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"If the men who oppose wages [Kropotkin and the other COMMUNISTS] - that is, the purchase and sale of labor - were capable of analyzing their thought and feelings, they would see that what really excites their anger is not the fact that labor is bought and sold, but the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labor, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labor by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labor, and that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all gratuitously. And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labor, and then, when there will be nothing but labor with which to buy labor, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." -Tucker RJII 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Marxists.org also acknowledges the existence of classes of only-employers and only-employees. Read all of it. That quote says exatcly that Tucker is opposed to wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Tucker is arguing against Kropotkin in Labor and Its Pay? It's because Kropotkin, a communist, wants to get rid of wage labor. Tucker is arguing to KEEP IT. He is OPPOSING the communist position on wage labor. You're trying to make it look like Tucker supported the communist opposition on wage labor. He did not, and I'm not going to allow you to twist his ideas. RJII 19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to make it look like Tucker supported communists. Stop assuming bad faith. I think you're too biased on this to look at the question objectively; you've been saying I'm coming from a communist perspective, why?? The concept of wage labour is not just used by communists, and the article in no way implies that Tucker was a communist.

You're forcing through the point that Tucker was against communism; great, except that it already says it in the article, and that is not relevant to the anti-anarcho-capitalist criticism. Your complaint that "wage labour implies communism" is based on your own bias; please stop trying to make it out like it's misleading to readers.

Kropotkin wants to get rid of all monetary exchange for labour; it's not the same thing as wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what wage labor is. The buying and selling of labor. From Marxists.org: "Wage labour is the mode of production in which the labourer sells their capacity to work as a commodity." RJII 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for a way to make Tucker look like he's opposing anarcho-capitalism, this is not the way to do it. He doesn't make the anti-wage labor argument. You're trying to attach communist ideas to him, and it doesn't work. RJII 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to attach communist ideas to him. "capacity to work" isn't labour. Wage labour specifically includes the employer-only and labourer-only classes (if you read more than just the FIRST SENTENCE from marxists.org), which Tucker is trying to get rid of. Infinity0 ^talk 20:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Selling one's "capacity to work" means selling one's labor. Tucker supports wage labor. RJII 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "capitalist system of production (wage labour)". Wage labor does not equate with the "capitalist system of production." Wage labor exists in labor-value individualist anarchism as well, as Tucker points out. RJII 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, "capacity to work" is not only labour. Secondly, that's not even the whole of wage labour. Tucker was against employer-emmployee division. That's a definining characteristic of wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Capacity to work" is labor. Just saying he was "against employer-emmployee division" doesn't tell you anything. That's what I'm trying to tell you. What does he mean? He means that he wants everyone to have to work to have an income. If the employer is working as well, then the distinction between employee and employer blurs. RJII 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, wage labour is to be minimised in ind-anarchism, as Spooner says "all the great institutions, employing a great number of wage labourers, will be broken up". Infinity0 ^talk 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Spooner is not Tucker. There is no "individualist anarchism" where all the theorists agree on everything. RJII 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker opposing Marxism: "What becomes then of the personal liberty of those non-aggressive individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer..."

"capacity to work" is not labour. Otherwise it would read "work" instead of "capacity to work". And, that quote is vague and uninformative, unlike the ones I gave where he opposes the split explicitly. Infinity0 ^talk 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No the quote is not "vague." He's explicity opposing the Marxists who want to forcefully prevent people from being employers and employees. RJII 20:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In your words, and without using the term "wage labor," what does he mean? RJII 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker wishes to end:

• divison between employers and employees
  • one class - employers derive their income from other people's work
  • one class - employees have to work to survive

Infinity0 ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, he wants everyone to have to work to survive. So why don't you allow the article to say that? RJII 21:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And, note that not everyone owns means of production, so some people will have to work for others until they are able to purchase their own means of production. He doesn't oppose that. He just wants to make it easier for people to own their own private means of production, by making loans easier to get. There will always be people who choose not to take out a loan and risk it, and take the easier route by working for others. Of course he recognizes this. RJII 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Settled? Remove the dispute tag? RJII 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's close, but I made a few changes. I didn't feel it was necessary to state Tucker's position on private property. That can be done elsewhere. I also wanted to make it clear that he believed that under a free market only labor could buy labor. I'm ready to remove the tag if these changes are fine with you. CJames745 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was necessary to state that he doesn't oppose private ownership of the means of production because the sentence prior is opposing anarcho-capitalism for supporting private ownership of the means of production. The reader needs to know that Tucker doesn't stand with the "social anarchists." I saw you wrote that capital wouldn't be able to buy labor. I don't hink that's clear. He doesn't oppose paying for labor with a capital good. RJII 20:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, watch your language. Stop accusing me of putting a "communist pov" into Tucker. Infinity0 ^talk 23:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, what's the problem? There is no mention that Tucker opposes wage labour, only that he opposes the distinction between employers and employees. Infinity0 ^talk 23:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that without saying what he means by that. He doesn't mean that he opposes employee/employer situations. He means that an employer shouldn't receive an income without working. If the employee and employer are both dependent on their labor for their income, the distinction between employee and employer blurs. RJII 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So, all this discussion amounts to Infinity wanting to use a misleading marxist definition for "wage labor." I suggest you simply not use the term. Say something like, "Tucker supported the right offer or accept employment for wages, but preferred wages to be the full labor value of the product. He thought profit would be insignificant without State intervention in the economy." - Hogeye

You say I'm uneducated for refusing to use a market-fundamentalist definition of capitalism; you say I'm misleading for wanting to use the educated version of "wage labour". :| Infinity0 ^talk 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloating

RJII, please understand I am NOT trying to "inject communist POV into Tucker". I'm just interpreting what I'm reading. I used "wage labour" because that is the shortest way to say what he was talking about.

You're trying to explain and justify from your POV all the detailed intricacies of Tucker in one paragraph, because you think it misleads the reader. I don't understand how. I've removed the references to wage labour, now all it says is that he opposed the separation. How is the reader possibly misled now?

The paragraph is only meant to detail Tucker's differences between anarcho-capitalism, not give a full explanation why. That's already done elsewhere. Trying to justify everything so that the reader see things "your way" is both POV and inefficient - it bloats up the article, and repeats stuff unnecessarily. What's wrong with it right now? Infinity0 ^talk 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you say he opposes the separation between employee and employer, then you need to explain what he means by that. He means that employers should have to labor for their incomes as well. He doesn't mean there are no more employee/employer situations. If you're trying "to detail Tucker's differences between anarcho-capitalism" that's not the way to do it. The difference lies in their respect theories of value. Tucker doesn't like profit. Anarcho-capitalists do. It has to little to do with employer/employee. Tucker explicitly says people should have a choice between working for themselves or working for others. RJII 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Tucker likes people to work for themselves - he encourages a system where nobody would want to work for another. That his differences from anarcho-capitalism is purely based on the theory of value he subscribes to is your own POV. There is nothing to suggest that whatsoever in his own writings. Infinity0 ^talk 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course he likes people to work for themselves. This is not a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists like entrepreneurship just as much. "That his differences from anarcho-capitalism is purely based on the theory of value he subscribes to is your own POV. There is nothing to suggest that whatsoever in his own writings." LOL! All I can do is laugh at that. That just proves that you've read NOTHING. RJII 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert to RJII. Infinity is misleading the readers to think that Tucker opposes employee/employer relations, and doesnt want the reader to know he supports private ownership of the means of production

RJII, you're getting paranoid. It says Tucker supports private MOP. And he DID oppose employer/employee relations. Infinity0 ^talk 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You just deleted the note that he supported private ownership. And, no he did not oppose employee relations. But you can't be bothered to read the source that shows that. And, you're screwing up the article because of that. RJII 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It says in the article "ind anarchists oppose split but do not oppose private mop". At the moment I have no idea what your quarrel is, the wording is succinct and does not imply anything false about Tucker or the ind anarchists. Also, why are you removing the link to wage labour? Infinity0 ^talk 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading what you wrote leads the reader into believe that Tucker doesn't support employer/employee relations. So, my problem is your deleting this: "To be sure, he did support the liberty of individuals in either "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." RJII 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't want me to start quoting the critical "Anarchist FAQ" that says he supports employer/employee do you? RJII 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It said "[he] was against prohibiting it altogether." which is much less long-winded than your unnecessary quote. Infinity0 ^talk 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's misleading. That gives the idea that he was against it but allowed it. He wasn't against it. You could also say that anarcho-capitalists are against prohibiting it altogether. RJII 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He was against it, though. He specifically wants to minimise it. Infinity0 ^talk 20:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

When did he ever say that? RJII 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone shall be a labourer exchanging with fellow labourers." Infinity0 ^talk 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't say he's against employment. That means that employers will work, as well. RJII 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he's against employment either. Infinity0 ^talk 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, stop adding weasel words into the article. It is not just anarcho-communists who are against anarcho-capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pathetic. I could write an individualist condemnation of anarcho-capitalist easily. You just don't know what you're doing because you don't understand individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with employment. RJII 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And, you need to stop that false attributions to Tucker. He never says that he opposes the "split" between employees and employers. That's complete bunk that you made up. He says he wants the "distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out." That's not the same thing as saying he wants the distinction between employees and employers to be wiped out. Put the quote in so everyone can see for themselves what he's saying. We don't need your editoralized distortions. RJII 21:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That quote is in there already. Read it. The article does NOT say Tucker opposed employment, so I don't know what you're talking about. Infinity0 ^talk; 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He never says he wants to eliminate the distinction between employee and employer. Stop making things up. RJII 21:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out." Infinity0 ^talk 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. So, stop deleting that from the article and distorting to say that he wants the distinction between employer and employee to be wiped out. RJII 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference? Infinity0 ^talk 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that a wage payer is someone who pays someone wages, and a wage receiver is someone who receives wages. What constitutes an employer and employee relationship, in this context, is that someone owns a means of production and is allowing someone who doesn't own a means of production to operates his means of production and is paid wages for it. Tucker does not oppose that, as long as the employer is laboring as well and not just sitting back and getting an income from the employee's labor. RJII 21:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A wage-payer, in this context, is always an employer. Otherwise he is self-employed, and pays himself, and in that case there is no distinction. Infinity0 ^talk 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

False. You can still pay an employee his full produce and still be an employer. Just leave the direct quote in, so the reader can see for himself. We don't need your distorted editoralizing. RJII 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, are you ever going to stop calling people "censor" just because they are trying to condense down information?? :| Infinity0 ^talk 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "factual accuracy tag" because now it doesn't say Tucker opposes wage labour. Left the NPOV tag in case you have further quarrels. Infinity0 ^talk 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Section ordering

VolatileChemical, why did you decide to re-order the sections? I'm not sure you got it all right; "Russian Revolution" doesn't seem to belong under "labour movement". Infinity0 ^talk 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII WP:NPA

RJII, stop accusing me of distorting words. Your version says exactly the same thing as mine does, but mine is shorter and does not include weasel words like "Unlike anarcho-communists". What's your problem? Infinity0 ^talk 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what you're doing. You're distorting his words. And, you're making up things that he never said. RJII 21:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My version says exactly the same thing as your version does... :| Infinity0 ^talk 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If it did, then you wouldn't oppose it. RJII 21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what you said in your edit summary: "there is no difference in meaning between my version and your version. grow up." If there is no difference, the why wouldn't you leave my version. It could be because you want YOUR version there, just because it's YOUR version. Who needs to grow up? I don't want your version there because it's WRONG. 21:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's too long, hence why the section is called "Bloating". What's wrong about it? Please detail the differences between my version and your version. A list would do nicely. Infinity0 ^talk 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

False. You can still pay an employee his full produce and still be an employer. Just leave the direct quote in, so the reader can see for himself. We don't need your distorted editoralizing. RJII 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is relevant how? I don't see what that point has to do with the fact that wage-payer == employer and wage-receiver == employee. Infinity0 ^talk 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because Tucker doesn't say that he wants to eliminate the disintinction between employer and employee. Wake up. RJII 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your line of thought. I just explained why wage-payer == employer, and you said "You can still pay an employee his full produce and still be an employer." which has nothing to do with that. Infinity0 ^talk 21:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker supports wage-paying. RJII 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And, you have the nerve to accuse me of violating WP:NPA (no personal attacks) just for saying you're distorting Tucker's words, when you're the one saying "grow up." What a joke. RJII 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusing someone of distorting facts and "injecting communist POV" is a PA. Telling someone to grow up is not. :| Infinity0 ^talk 21:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, RJII, I'm not out to "get you". I'm not reverting only because it's your version :| but because I actually think my version is better. Infinity0 ^talk 22:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. It's not better. It misrepresents Tucker. It's obvious you're coming from a communist POV and you're trying to interpret Tucker through that lense. Tucker does not in any way oppose employee/employer situations, and does not oppose wages. RJII 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever complaints you have against my version, it does not excuse putting this crap into it instead:

Individualist anarchists, however, do not lodge the communist complaints against anarcho-capitalism.

The complaints against anarcho-capitalism are anarchist, not communist. Stop thinking everything against capitalism is communist. I really thought you had better sense than that.

Tucker does not in any way oppose employee/employer situations, and does not oppose wages. - the paragraph explicitly mentions "wages would be driven up", what's your problem? Also, the paragraph says he "was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether."

Seriously, please list and quote one thing wrong with the paragraph as it stands. It does not suffer from quotitis unlike your version, nor is there the spiteful "unlike anarcho-communists" which is totally un-called for and false. Infinity0 ^talk 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what it said before:

"Similarly, individualist anarchists were also opposed to this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism (but were not opposed to private ownership of the means of production). For example, Benjamin Tucker argued for this distinction to be "wiped out" so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers"[13]. He advocated a deregulated market where he felt wages would be driven up to their "natural rate"[26], but was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether. [27](Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.)"

Instead of endless flaming from both sides, let's go over this sentence by sentence and figure out what is wrong. I don't see any problems with it as is. I think it represents both sides quite fairly. If there is a problem with saying "this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism" what is a better way of wording it. I recall earlier it said something about a separate class of non-workers who profited, and I think RJII was fine with it, so I don't know what is different here. Could you clarify? CJames745 01:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the first sentence is wrong: "Similarly, individualist anarchists were also opposed to this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism." Nowhere does Tucker say that. RJII 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is my proposed entry. "Unlike the anarcho-communists, individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker supports private ownership of the means of production and supports the liberty of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Tucker wanted "not to abolish wages," but ensure that an employer could not recieve an income with laboring, so that "the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a laborer exchanging with fellow-laborers.". To acheive this, he advocated a deregulated capital market which he thought would bring about more enterpreneurship which would in turn help drive wage up to their "natural rate" --"When two labourers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one labourer, wages rise.". (Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.)

RJII, two quotes above show he says that. Infinity0 ^talk 12:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest adding something like:

"Individualist Anarchism also opposed capitalist property rights, particularly in land, in favour of an 'occupancy and use' system of possession. Social anarchists note that Tucker's support of non-exploitative (i.e. non-capitalist) employer/employee relationships violates this principle. In addition, they also note that such relationships contradict their opposition to the state as a monopoly of authority over a given area. The employee is obviously subject to the authority of the employer within the former's property. Unlike 'anarcho-capitalism', Individualist anarchism can solve this contradiction by applying 'occupancy and use' to workplaces as well as land as per Proudhon's mutualism." BlackFlag 08:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a separate point, which could well be added. In fact, I'll go add it now. Infinity0 ^talk 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing about "workplaces" is incorrect. Workplaces are the product of labor. Land is not. RJII 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you keep repeating "Tucker does not support wage labour". I'm not going to bother arguing over it, except point out that it does say it in the article.

You say: "Similarly, individualist anarchists were also opposed to this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism." Nowhere does Tucker say that.

Tucker quote: "distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out". Then in the above section I showed that wage-payer == employer, which is where the discussion left off. Please explain why "wage-payer" is not the same thing as "employer", in this context. Infinity0 ^talk 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is turning into a lecture about individualist anarchism rather than a short criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Here is what we have:

Similarly, individualist anarchists also opposed this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism (but were not opposed to private ownership of the means of production). For example, Benjamin Tucker argued for this distinction to be "wiped out" so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers"[13]. He advocated a deregulated market where he felt wages would be driven up to their "natural rate"[26], but was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether. [27](Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.)

Individualist anarchists opposed capitalist property rights, particularly in land, in favour of an "occupancy and use" system of possession (Proudhon's mutualism). It may be argued that Tucker's support of non-exploitative (ie. non-capitalist) employer-employee relationships violates this principle, and contradicts opposition to the state as a monopoly of authority over a given area. However, individualist anarchism solves this contradiction by applying "occupancy and use" to workplaces as well as land, unlike anarcho-capitalism.

Let me see if I can shorten this

Similarly, individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker argued that under anarchy "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers"[13], although he didn't believe employers should be outright prohibited[27]. Instead, he felt that a deregulated market would drive wages up to their "natural rate"[26]. (Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.)

Individualist anarchists also oppose property rights in land, favoring instead "occupancy and use." Unlike anarcho-communists, however, individualist anarchists do believe in private ownership of their own labor.

I think that fairly represents everybody's opinions on the matter without taking up so much space. Should we go ahead and put this up? Are we ready to move on? CJames745 03:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree as it removes the reference to *capitalist* property rights. It also removes social anarchist criticism. BlackFlag 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the statement "he didn't believe employers should be outright prohibited." This gives the reader the impression that he was against employment. And, BlackFlag, we can't say "capitalist property rights" without explaining what you mean by that. Tucker supported the same rights as anarcho-capitalists in the product of labor, including the means of production. What he differs in, is in natural capital --land, since it's not the product of labor. RJII 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Anarcho"-capitalists, yes, support a Lockean position on land rights. Individualists support a Proudhonian position -- which they extended to houses (Tucker explicitly stated that a tenent would be treated as a guest and not have to pay rent). As for "produce of labour," that is obviously wrong as "anarcho"-capitalism consider profit, interest and rent as all valid extractions from the produce of labour. Individualist anarchists do not. BlackFlag 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think CJames's version is fine. It's concise. BlackFlag - the more detailed criticisms can be moved to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Tucker did not support employment - he wanted to minimise it. Infinity0 ^talk 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. One could say he wanted to increase it. What he wanted to increase the number of businesses in proportion to the number of people seeking employment from those businesses. If that increases in the absolute amount of employment, that's fine. RJII 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume "within a constant population" is implied. Your argument can apply for absolutely anything - we'd have to rewrite the whole encyclopedia. Infinity0 ^talk 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does Tucker say he wants to minimize employment. RJII 16:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that either. Infinity0 ^talk 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It says he didn't want to "prohibit employment outright." This misleads the reader into thinking he opposed employment. He didn't want to prohibit AT ALL. He never expressed any dissaproval of it, but rather SUPPORT of it. RJII 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about... he specifically wants it so that no individual in their right mind would agree to employment (exact quote somewhere, will find it if you insist). Infinity0 ^talk 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of Spooner. RJII 17:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so where does Tucker say he supported employers? He wants them to be wiped out. Infinity0 ^talk 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He supports the liberty of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." [22] Never does he say he opposes employers, but the opposite. RJII 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He supports their freedom to do it; he doesn't support the actual act. That's where you're getting things confused.

"I detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Infinity0 ^talk 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. That's all in your head. Never does he say anything like that in regard to employment. He SUPPORTS employment. He has no ethical problem with it whatsoever. RJII 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He wishes all employers to be labourers too. He detests employment. He doesn't ever show approval for employers. Infinity0 ^talk 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he wishes all employers to work as well, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing. That doesn't mean he's against employment. And, yes he does show approval for employers. As the Anarchist FAQ points out: "If we take the creation of employer-employee relationships within an anarchy, we see the danger of private statism arising (as in "anarcho"-capitalism) and so the end of anarchy. Such a development can be seen when Tucker argues that if, in an anarchy, "any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen . . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." [Instead of a Book, p. 455] RJII 17:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We've been over that quote before. Also, "employers who work" means they are not emplyoers - he wants to get rid of employers. It's like saying "self-employed", you don't call that person an employer. Employer means employ other people to work for YOU. Infinity0 ^talk 17:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean that. Just because you work, doesn't mean you can't have emmployees. You can employee someone and still earn your own money by labor. RJII 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, you are working for someone else, and are still exploiting the people who work for you. Tucker is against that. Infinity0 ^talk 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Tucker is not against working for someone else. For Tucker, if the employee is paid his "natural wage" then he's not being exploited. RJII 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Since "anarcho"-capitalism is based on profit, rent and interest, we can safely say that Tucker would have considered workers within it as being exploited BlackFlag 09:56, 1st March 2006 (UTC)

Employer doesn't only mean working for someone else. Also, you're removing information from the article for no reason. Everyone else agrees on the selected versions. Infinity0 ^talk 17:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No they didn't. It's your misunderstanding of Tucker that's causing the problems here. RJII 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

At least 3 other editors approve of my version. Your version grossly misrepresents Tucker, and misses the point of the paragraph, which is to provide their arguments against capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 17:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. No one supports your version. RJII 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How does that paragraph equate Tucker with communists? It says that he supports wages and private MOP. Infinity0 ^talk 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By saying "similarly." Tucker is not similar to communists AT ALL. RJII 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And where are the communists' positions for the "similarly" to apply to them? Infinity0 ^talk 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And, stop deleting the note that the FAQ was written by communists. It's VERY relevant. RJII 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ wasn't written by communists. Infinity0 ^talk 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism.

" "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" [23] RJII 18:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And the FAQ also notes that Mutualist Anarchists like Proudhon are considered as social anarchists. Proudhon's opposition to wage labour is well known and documented, as is his support for co-operatives to replace it. His arguments against the former and for the latter are anarchist in nature and echoed by communists and syndicalists. BlackFlag 10:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well documented? I don't think so. Proudhon supported wage labor. What he thought was unjust was wages and prices not matching up (profit). Speaking of strikes, he said: "While threatening to strike, some of them, indeed the majority, have demanded an increase in wages, others have demanded a reduction in working hours, and still others both at the same time. Surely the have always known that increased wages and reduced working hours can only lead to a general price increase. And surely they know that it is not a question of reducing or increasing prices and wages, but of making them equal. This is the first condition of wealth!" (Political Capacity of the Working Classes) I don't know what the Infoshop "Anarchist FAQ" says, but if it says Proudhon opposed wages, it's wrong. That FAQ is not a credible source. RJII 16:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the notes, and referred to twice, hence why it is put in the notes. Infinity0 ^talk 18:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be right there where people can see it -rather than in the notes. It's very important, because you're making Tucker look like he agrees with the communists. Tucker even called anarcho-commmunist "pseudo-anarchism." I'll add that. RJII 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it says Tucker supports wages and private MOP. That's un-communist. "Pseduo-anarchism" is already in the article. Infinity0 ^talk 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop saying Tucker is similar to the communists. RJII 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am doing Anarchism as a project in school. Any advice?

http://www.infoshop.org/ Infinity0 ^talk 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that that FAQ is from a communist POV. You're not going to get good information out of it. Find a more neutral source. RJII 23:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, why do you keep insisting they are communists? Communism isn't anti-capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. " "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" [24]

And how does that mean they're communists? Infinity0 ^talk 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Communist-anarchists" means they're communist anarchists. Duh. RJII 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the writers are collectively social anarchists. Some of them may be anarchist communists. You can't say they all are as a whole. Infinity0 ^talk 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They say they're "communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on." Syndicalism is a form of communism. So, the FAQ is written by communists. They say they "reject individualist anarchism." If you accept the editorial in that FAQ you're going to get a distorted view of anarchism. RJII 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

from the very same webpage: "Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism." So please stop saying that social anarchism equals communism in the FAQ. If RJII cannot even get this right, what does it say about his other contributions? BlackFlag 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They call themselves "social anarchists". You're the only one putting the label "communist" onto them. Infinity0 ^talk 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Syndicalism is not a form of communism, it is a tactic. A lot of them believe in labor notes. A lot of them don't believe in a gift economy. I might even say most, but I don't really know the statistics on that. CJames745 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Alright, here is the current version. I changed the last sentence to point out the particular type of private property individualist anarchists advocate.

Similarly, individualist anarchists opposed the separation between the classes of employers and employees in capitalism. Benjamin Tucker proposed that under anarchy "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers"[13], although he argued neither to prohibit employement (despite his disapproval of it), nor to abolish wages.[26]. Instead, he felt that a deregulated market would drive wages up to their "natural rate"[27]. (Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.) Individualist anarchists also oppose property rights in land, favoring instead "occupancy and use." Unlike many social anarchists, however, individualist anarchists do believe in private ownership of the means of production based upon labor worked.

Any problems? I support this version. CJames745 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically, they also opposed property rights in things like houses as well -- the only exception to "occupancy and use" i've come across in Tucker is for workplaces. This seems a strange exception, imho. I would also note what "natural rate" is, namely the whole product of their labour. With these additions, I think it is okay -- although "property rights" is a bit vague. BlackFlag 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a good concise summary which I support. BlackFlag - if you have any details to add, you can add it to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which is a more detailed article. Infinity0 ^talk 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean we are prepared to remove the neutrality and dispute tags from the anarcho-capitalism section? CJames745 02:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII banned.

I have banned RJII from this article, for two weeks, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Types of anarchism

WTF?

1. 6 Types of anarchism

   * 6.1 Religious anarchism
   * 6.2 Anarchism and feminism
   * 6.3 Anarcho-capitalism
   * 6.4 Anarchism and the environment
   * 6.5 Other branches and offshoots

So suddenly communism and individualism do not exist? This article used to be very good. But recently ...

Someone tried to order the sections (User:VolatileChemical). I changed the title to "other types" for now. -- infinity0 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The scheme we were working to a while back, until everything got held up by edit-warring, was to structure the whole page more or less chronologically. That is, rather than splitting into anarchist 'schools' or 'types' on the one hand vs. historical events and movements on the other, the idea was to treat events and the development of ideas as a totality. RJII and Hogeye contested this - they wanted to separate out ideas and events and further split ideas into two big headings - 'individualism' and 'collectivism'. There was a vote taken a few months back (someehere in the archives) where basically everyone else supported the 'historical' version. Obviously we have new editors now who will have their own ideas, but I would recommend sticking with the historical approach, and I point anyone interested to the archives.Bengalski 20:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, you might need to look at the sectioning of the whole article. Atm, the first six are under "histroy" but the rest are not. -- infinity0 21:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well pending any further discussion I just put em all the same without any sur-heading.Bengalski 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Typifying in general is something we should shy away from. At present the article makes it sound like there are strictly distinct groups, even in reality anarchism is more fluid. Some of these labels aren't even really used by the people who fit them. Most anarchists identify as anarchists rather than more specific labels, presumably because the movement is unifying and rejects these distinctions.

We should also make it a point to shy away from a few key thinkers and talk about anarchism more generally. As it is people are using a handful of people to represent an entire philosophy, saying things logically akin to "individualist anarchism says X, because benjamin tucker says X and he's an individualist anarchist". If individualist anarchism was a rigid ideology rather than a theory, that would be a sound argument. But no two anarchists agree on everything, no matter how many ways you cut it up. Although they might share a common goal (i.e. the end of rule), their ideas about how best to accomplish it varies. Focusing on efforts by anarchists makes the thinking of anarchists clear in a more general sense. As it is I think we weight far too strongly on theorists. Sarge Baldy 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Article too long

I started a while ago (months) to split the article up into sub articles with only a small intro to each topic. However, then there was an edit war and the page got reverted and protected and I left Wikipedia for a while. The article is not nearly as good as what it was. However, I think it would be good if this project was started again. This would also spread out any edit wars, and only sub-articles would get the majority of the shit. (comment added by User:Harrismw)

That's not a bad idea, although really if you look at each section they aren't that big. Also, anarcho-communism and individualism do both exist in this article, but under history not types. CJames745 06:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro too long

As for shortening the article, maybe we could start with trying to trim the intro back down?Bengalski 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for a cut version:

Anarchism originated as a term of abuse used against early radicals including the Diggers of the English Revolution and the sans-culottes during the French Revolution. Whilst the term is still used in a pejorative way to describe "any act that used violent means to destroy the organization of society", it has also been taken up as a positive banner by self-defined anarchists.

The word anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (ruler, chief, king)"). Anarchism, as a political philosophy, is the belief that rulers are unnecessary and should be abolished. Anarchism also refers to social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions, particularly the state. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals, cooperation, mutual aid, and self-governance.

While anarchism is most easily defined by what it is against, anarchists also offer positive visions of what they believe to be a truly free society. However, ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics; there is also disagreement about how a free society might be brought about.

Bengalski 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it all though, it could be moved into a general "anarchist theory" section. -- infinity0 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a general 'anarchist theory' section would help us. The endless wiki disputes bear witness that condensing 'anarchist theory' into one section is a pretty hopeless task. There is no one anarchist theory, only many strands and ideas which are developed and contextualised through the whole page. In any case it's true that this page needs to be shorter not longer. The intro is never going to touch on everything - all it can do is point to some of the main themes discussed down the page.Bengalski 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not condense, but pick out the similarities and the characteristics all branches of anarchism have in common. -- infinity0 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record I tend to agree with Bengalski here, I think a lot of what we have in the article needs to be totally deleted, there seems to me to be a lot of redundancy. (BTW, I'm from Infoshop.org Infinity0, I'm keeping an eye out, but maybe Bengalski will do the cleaning before I can. How long is your block for btw?) --whynotanarchy 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blocked, and neither are you now (I asked Sarge Baldy to remove the semi-protection so you could edit). Happy editing :) -- infinity0 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

trimming the article

Yeah I'll do some trimming of the article - if people aren't happy with what I've cut out they can always revert it. But I think we really don't need to go into as much detail on all of the theoretical niceties. Especially the sections on individualism, Proudhon etc. where there was most edit-warring have become extended as people insisted on getting their points in. But this level of detail is really more suited to the pages dedicated to those subjects - here we need only a basic summary or pointer to the debates. I also agree with Sarge Baldy above that there is too much emphasis on theory - we could actually do with a bit more on history as a few important things aren't even featured. Off the top of my head I'd like to see brief paras on the Haymarket martyrs, ukraine, Tolstoyan communes, even Paris 68. And then we have almost nothing on other parts of the world - Latin American anarchism for one, and I'm sure other places I know nothing about.Bengalski 15:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I started doing some cutting - got as far as propaganda of the deed, I'll carry on further later if no one objects. I've been working on the principles: cut out duplication, quotes that say basically the same thing etc.; and all but the barest references to theoretical debates can be kept for the particular sub-articles.Bengalski 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags

Apart from RJII, is anyone in opposition to the removal of the POV and Inaccurate tags from this and Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism? -- infinity0 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, until edit-warring starts up again, I would leave a POV tag on the anacho-capitalism section only. (It may be against the wiki ideal, but this section is an argument for a permanent POV tag.)Bengalski 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this tag is at the top: "This article does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication and are not primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article.", when in fact there are a bunch of outside sources:

1. ↑ Russell, Bertrand. "Ancient philosophy" in A History of Western Philosophy, and its connection with political and social circumstances from the earliest times to the present day, 1945.
2. ↑ An Anarchist Timeline, from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1994.
3. ↑ Dictionary of the History of Ideas - ANARCHISM
4. ↑ MSN Encarta - Anarchism

or are you arguing that Microsoft is an anarchist organization? lotu5 15:08, 2 March 2006

It has been there for a long time. It just means that some parts of the article is uncited; not necessarily all of it. -- infinity0 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to fix that, then. :) --whynotanarchy

I had made a change to the anarcho-capitalism thread so that it said Tucker opposed the division of class instead of saying he opposed employment. I thought it was clearer because the definition of employment is vague. The intention here is to explain that he didn't want there to be a division of class into employers and employees, but rather a society of laborers exchanging with one another. Somebody changed it back. I'm curious why. Was it just to be concise? Because I did think it was an important distinction. CJames745 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I was sure it said he supported division of class... Anyway, RJII's complaint was that it needs to mention that Tucker supported employment, otherwise readers would think he opposed it. -- infinity0 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Tucker's precise views on employment and class are exactly the kind of thing that would be better left to sub-pages on individualism, Tucker, and/or anarcho-capitalism.Bengalski 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. I was trying to condense down that paragraph in the first place, but RJII kept arguing that it was misleading. We could cut out this bit:

although he argued neither to prohibit employement (despite his disapproval of it), nor to abolish wages.[24]. Instead, he felt that a deregulated market would drive wages up to their "natural rate"[25]. (Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.)

-- infinity0 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It still says "although he argued neither to prohibit employment (despite his disapproval of it)..." This is wrong. I demand a source that says he disapproved of employment. RJII 16:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is the sentence I just suggested to cut out. But as for your claim, Tucker wanted to destroy the class distinction, so it's safe to assume he opposed employment. Also, he says he supports their liberty, not their actual selfs, so it's safe to assume he did not support them. Also, you havne't provided a quote where he explicitly supports them, and since he opposes employer/ee class distinction, he would have explicitly stated he did support employers if he did, since his position is confusing and he would have known that. -- infinity0 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not "safe to assume." It's plain wrong. Tucker supports employment. I've provided multiple quotes. Stop telling me I haven't provided quotes. YOu're wrong that "he opposes employer/ee class distinction." RJII 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The only quote you have provided is the "strikers" one which is not at all clear he is talking about anarchy. -- infinity0 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

False. RJII 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But, since that's the one you remember. Let's look at your "Anarchist FAQ" on that: "If we take the first problem, namely the creation of employer-employee relationships within an anarchy, we see the danger of private statism arising (as in "anarcho"-capitalism) and so the end of anarchy. Such a development can be seen when Tucker argues that if, in an anarchy, "any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." [Instead of a Book, p. 455]" -Infoshop anarchist FAQ (written by communists). They acknowledge that he supported employment, and that's one of the reasons why they "reject individualist anarchism." RJII 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he supports the liberty of such relationships. That quote doesn't say Tucker thought employers were a good thing. -- infinity0 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course he thought employers were a good thing. How else is someone with no means of production supposed to make an income? Employers serve a useful purpose. By his support of wages, that tells you that he supports employment. But more, importantly, you haven't provided a source saying he disapproves of employment. RJII 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Employers wouldn't be called employers, since they are also employees and work too. Employer means the guy gets his income from employing others. -- infinity0 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So to be an employer means you have to sit on your ass doing nothing? That's not what employer means. An employer is someone who own a means of production that allows someone else to use his means of production and pays them to operate it. That's not what Tucker is opposed to. What he wants is that the employee's wages come from the labor of the employer. RJII 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See comments on Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. -- infinity0 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would support taking out the whole paragraph and move this debate to 'anarchism and ancapism'. All we should do on this page is state that most anarchists (not 'communists' or 'individualists', but simply most anarchists) oppose capitalism, and direct the reader to debates elsewhere. If RJII won't accept such a bare phrasing we should take this debate to some kind of vote or even arbitration, but adding chunks into the article to carry on the argument there isn't the right approach.Bengalski 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. So cut out that part above I suggested? -- infinity0 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This also needs to be taken out: "Similarly, individualist anarchists opposed the separation between the classes of employers and employees in capitalism." First, of all, by "similarly" you're equating him with the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ. Secondly, it's wrong. Nowhere does he says that he opposes a class distinction between employers and employees. What he opposes is a class distinction between some who work for a living, and others that don't. ANd, there is no necessity that an employer has to be someone who doesn't work. RJII 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not equating him with communists, stop saying that. He DID want to wipe out the distinction between employers and employees - he wanted everyone to be an employee. -- infinity0 17:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was equating him with communists. I said saying that you're making him look like he shares the communist idea on employment and wages, by saying "similarly." He did NOT want to "wipe out the distinction between employers and employees..." He wanted to wipe out the distinction between "wage-receivers" and "wage-payers," meaning that everyone should have to work for a living. RJII 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ"? The FAQ, as it says, is produced by social anarchists. It lists communist, syndicalist, collectivist and mutualist as schools of social anarchism. That RJII continues to equate social anarchist with communist anarchist says it all. For his information, anarchist opposition to wage labour is found in Proudhon. You need not be a communist to oppose it. I do wish RJII would get his facts right. User:BlackFlag 11:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the following on anarcho-capitalism would be plenty:

Anarcho-capitalism

Main article: Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that desires a stateless society with the economic system of free market capitalism. Unlike other branches of anarchism, it does not oppose profit or capitalism. Consequently, most anarchists do not recognise anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism.

Murray Rothbard's synthesis of classical liberalism and Austrian economics was germinal for the development of contemporary anarcho-capitalist theory. He defines anarcho-capitalism in terms of the non-aggression principle, based on the concept of Natural Law. Competiting theorists use egoism, utilitarianism (used by David Friedman), or contractarianism (used by Jan Narveson). Some minarchists, such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and Robert A. Heinlein, have influenced anarcho-capitalism.

Some anarcho-capitalists, along with some right-wing libertarian historians such as David Hart and Ralph Raico, considered similar philosophies existing prior to Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist, such as those of Gustave de Molinari and Auberon Herbert Opponents of anarcho-capitalists dispute these claims.

The place of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism, and indeed whether it is a form of anarchism at all, is highly controversial. For more on this debate see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Bengalski 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. RJII 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If "considered similar philosophies existing prior to Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist," is included, then arguments against anarcho-capitalism should be included too. -- infinity0 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is made clear that these antecedent claims are both partisan, and disputed. We can have all the arguments against ancapism we want in the sub-page - there's no need to go through them all here. Otherwise we're giving far too much space to a marginal philosophy.Bengalski 17:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. Why remove "oppose wage labour"? At least the opposition to class distinction should be mentioned. -- infinity0 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, it looks desperate. RJII 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you include the mention of wage labour, employees etc. then we do need another para explaining the diff between wage labour and wages, all the debate about Tucker etc. bla bla bla ... if we talk about class then may need to go into all the debate about equality bla bla bla .... and I just don't think it's really necessary - profit and capitalism are definitely the main points, anyone interested further can read all about it on the sub-page. You've got valid points, just they don't need to be in the main article. Bengalski 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd delete it if I could, but Infinity, who has been edit-warring, tried to file an arbitration case against me to keep me from editing Wikipedia, so I was banned from editing this article for two weeks just based on that fact that he REQUESTED arbitration. Never mind that it never went to arbitration so the charges were never proven. RJII 19:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop complaining. You weren't deleting it, you were re-writing it so that it lost its point and make things more complex than needed. Consider yourself lucky; the probation has a one-year ban attached to it, and you got two weeks. -- infinity0 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out to others your methodology of filing an arbitration case to try to get me banned for a year instead of trying to reach a consensus. I have legitimate concerns, and I know I know what I'm talking about when it comes to individualist anarchism. The stuff you write about individualist anarchism is extremely flawed, as it tries to relate it to the communist POV. Getting me banned from Wikipedia doesn't make the problem go away. RJII 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[25] shows the differences I made to the section during the whole edit war. You didn't accept any of it. -- infinity0 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept unsourceable information and flawed interpretation. RJII 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, your bolding of the above text is laughable. You made Firebug quit wikipedia. -- infinity0 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that's laughable is your request for arbitration. And, no I did not make Firebug quit Wikipedia. Don't make false claims. RJII 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't make false claims about my "methodology of filing arb cases". :| -- infinity0 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's really funny that you accuse me of making Firebug quit Wikipedia, when I have no such power to do. You're the one trying to force me off of Wikipedia by filing a dubious arbitration case. RJII 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, man. I can't force the Arbitration Committee to do anything. I'm not paying them. -- infinity0 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You filed the aribration case knowing I was on probation (as the result of a similar attempt to censor me), knowing that I could be banned for year. If I was banned for a year, you wouldn't have to deal with my objections. Fortunately, the arbitrators can see through that stuff. RJII 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not forcing the arbitration committee to do anything! You were at liberty to do whatever you want! No coercion involved! :| -- infinity0 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not forcing the arbitrators to do anything. You're trying to pursuade them to force me off of Wikipedia. You failed. 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really :| I just wanted a break from you accusing me of misleading readers. -- infinity0 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The two of you need a serious breather. In any case, the version posted above is about perfect in my opinion. Let's implement it (if it hasn't been already, haven't checked the article). Less is more. CJames745 23:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I went and did it. Like it says in the summary, I think it would be better to take info from previous versions and paste it into this version, rather than revert it, because the section was getting far too long. I also noticed that many of the other sections are decreasing in size, and I'm liking the way it looks. Very concise. Nobody would read the entire thing before if they didn't already know what anarchism was. CJames745 23:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

That article also needs work, perhaps more so than this article. Could someone go have a look at it? Most of the article focuses on the differences between ind-anarchism and a-capitalism; not enough focus is given to differences between soc-anarchism and a-capitalism. Also, it's kind of muddled up atm. -- infinity0 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've banned all the anarcho-capitalists, we can delete that section and the individualist anarchist section, and all their books!

Please sign your posts. Besides, RJII said he endorses the current version. And why would social anarchists have any desire to delete the individualist section at all? CJames745 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And why are you continually reverting it back to some ancient version without even posting a summary, 72.51.33.237? CJames745 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still around... I'm not actually an anarcho-capitalist (more of a minarchist libertarian), but I do favor individualism and capitalism, so the socialist/communist bloc hasn't managed to purge everybody who opposes their POV quite yet. *Dan T.* 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist communism section

Proudhon and Bakunin both opposed communism, which in their time was strongly associated with the statist ideas of thinkers such as Étienne Cabet. However, in the 1870s the majority of anarchists moved away from Bakunin's economic thinking (called "collectivism") and embraced communist concepts. The essence of the communist theory was that the means of production should be owned collectively, and that consumption goods should be distributed according to need rather than in relation to individuals' labour. [3]

An early proponent of anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque, notable as the first person to describe himself as a "libertarian".[4][14] Against Proudhon, he argued that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." He promulgated his ideas in his US published journal Le Libertaire (1858-1861).

However most other anarchists only moved towards communism some years later, following the death of Bakunin. The Italian section of the International was one of the first to embrace communism as a body at its 1876 congress.

The most important theorist of anarchist communism was Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin outlined his economic ideas in The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops Kropotkin's anarchism was based on his theory of mutual aid where co-operation is more beneficial than competition, illustrated in nature in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1897). Subsequent anarchist communists include Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Many in the anarcho-syndicalist movements (see below) saw anarchist communism as their objective. Isaac Puente's 1932 Comunismo Libertario was adopted by the Spanish CNT as its manifesto for a post-revolutionary society.

Some anarchists disliked this merging of communism with anarchism. This view was held by several individualist anarchists, who maintained that abolition of private property was not consistent with liberty. For example, Benjamin Tucker, whilst professing respect for Kropotkin and publishing his work[5], described communist anarchism as "pseudo-anarchism".[12]

This section changed recently. It seems that it has grown in size while the others have shrunk in size (unless it just looks that way because everything else is shorter). Lets keep it concise. I also wouldn't agree that the majority of anarchists became communist ones in the 1870s. This version seems more POV than the previous version. CJames745 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon and Bakunin both opposed communism, associating it with statism. However, in the 1870s many anarchists moved away from Bakunin's economic thinking (called "collectivism") and embraced communist concepts. Communists believed the means of production should be owned collectively, and that goods be distributed by need, not labor. [3]

An early anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque, the first person to describe himself as "libertarian".[4][14] Unlike Proudhon, he argued that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." He announced his ideas in his US published journal Le Libertaire (1858-1861).

Peter Kropotkin, often seen as the most important theorist, outlined his economic ideas in The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops. He felt co-operation is more beneficial than competition, illustrated in nature in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1897). Subsequent anarchist communists include Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Many in the anarcho-syndicalist movements (see below) saw anarchist communism as their objective. Isaac Puente's 1932 Comunismo Libertario was adopted by the Spanish CNT as its manifesto for a post-revolutionary society.

Some anarchists disliked merging communism with anarchism. Several individualist anarchists maintained that abolition of private property was not consistent with liberty. For example, Benjamin Tucker, whilst professing respect for Kropotkin and publishing his work[5], described communist anarchism as "pseudo-anarchism".[12]

I think that's still too long, but a little better. Suggestions? CJames745 00:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, after seeing it outside the editing box, it looks just right in length. CJames745 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The syndicalism section is also a bit too long. I made a few changes but it's still clunky in comparison to everything else. CJames745 01:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I decided to put up my version of the anarchist-communism section. Feel free to make changes or even revert it if necessary. CJames745 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Immediate banning at mere mention of anarcho-capitalism

I was banned within seconds of adding \"anarcho-capitalism\" to the anarchism template. Is this type of intolerance typical of Wiki?

Hogeye, is that you? I think you would have been banned for sockpuppeting, not the addition... -- infinity0 23:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that you banned me, thinking I was Hogeye?

I\'m not an admin. But judging from your edits, you were banned from using a proxy. hidemyass.com, right? you see those blackslashes (\"\\\") in front of those quotes up there? Every time you edit, \" gets turned into \\\", \' into \\\' and so on. That\'s why you were banned. -- infinity0 23:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ZING! >^________^< - FrancisTyers 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I guess I need to find a proxy that doesn\'t put in those slashes. I was using www.vrijsurfen.nl

Wikipedia policy dictates the banning of open proxies (see Wikipedia:No open proxies). So don't use one, whether it generates slashes or not. Sarge Baldy 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit moved here

I reverted this change to "Propaganda of the deed" because it made the section too big. Someone might be able to condense it down and re-insert it. -- infinity0 13:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda of the deed

File:JohannMost.jpg

Johann Most was an outspoken advocate of violence

Main article: Propaganda of the deed

Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts, including riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism by some anarchists. Some revolutionaries of the late 19th century encouraged acts of political violence, such as bombings and the assassinations of heads of state to further anarchism. Such actions have sometimes been called 'propaganda by the deed'. However, Paul Brousse (1844-1912), who was one of the first anarchists to popularize "propaganda by the deed," did not advocate terrorism. For him, and many other anarchists, "propaganda by the deed" means exemplary forms of direct action meant to inspire the masses to revolution. In his article entitled "Propaganda by the Deed," published in the August 1877 Bulletin of the Jura Federation, Brousse spoke about teaching the people "socialism by means of actions... propaganda by the deed is a mighty means of rousing the popular consciousness." [Reprinted in Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE-1939), ed. Robert Graham [[26]] Similarly, in his 1870 publication, "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis," Bakunin wrote that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda." [[27]]

One of the more outspoken advocates of armed revolution was Johann Most, who said "the existing system will be quickest and most radically overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the enemies of the people must be set in motion." Most's preferred method of terrorism, dynamite, earned him the moniker "Dynamost."

However, there is no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence in general. Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta, for example, wrote of violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force in revolutionary settings. But at the same time, they denounced acts of individual terrorism. (Malatesta in "On Violence" and Bakunin when he refuted Nechaev).[See Malatesta's article, "Violence as a Social Factor," The Torch, April 1895, reprinted in Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE-1939), ed. Robert Graham [[28]]

Other anarchists, sometimes identified as pacifist anarchists, advocated complete nonviolence. Leo Tolstoy, whose philosophy is often viewed as a form of Christian anarchism (see below), was a notable exponent of nonviolent resistance.