Talk:Anarchism/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Untitled

Proposed New Layout: The idea of reorganizing this page has been suggested below under the heading "Organization". A working version can be found here. Feel free to take part in the process.

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Organization

This has been discussed many times before, I'm sure, but I could find nothing on the most recent talk page about the organization of the article. Here is the current layout.

   * 1 Origins
         o 1.1 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
   * 2 Anarchism and workers' revolution
         o 2.1 Anarchist communism
               + 2.1.1 Kropotkin
         o 2.2 Anarchism and organized labor
         o 2.3 The Russian Revolution
         o 2.4 The fight against fascism
   * 3 Anarchism and the individual
         o 3.1 Max Stirner's egoism
         o 3.2 Individualist anarchism
   * 4 Issues in anarchism
         o 4.1 Ends and means
         o 4.2 Capitalism
               + 4.2.1 Anarcho-capitalism
               + 4.2.2 Neocolonialism and globalization
         o 4.3 Post-left and poststructuralism
         o 4.4 Feminism and anti-racism
         o 4.5 The environment
         o 4.6 Religion
   * 5 Criticisms of anarchism
   * 6 Cultural phenomena
   * 7 See also
         o 7.1 Historical events
         o 7.2 Anarchism by region/culture
         o 7.3 Books
   * 8 Notes and references
   * 9 External links

The article lacks a coheesive organizational structure in my opinion. I can't determine if this is an article about the history of anarchism, an introduction to anarchism, or both. I'm leaning toward both, but if that is the case, it needs to be more clear. This article may need two sections, one on anarchism as an ideal, and another on anarchism through history. Or perhaps each historical section needs a short aside regarding the ideals of each historical figure or organization. Thoughts? CJames745 07:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just now looking over the encarta article previously mentioned, and I think it serves as a good model for the organization of the article, although we would surely want to make some changes. The layout is essentially as follows.

   * 1 Introduction
   * 2 Origins of Anarchism
   * 3 Schools of Anarchist Thought
   * 4 Anarchism as a Social Movement
   * 5 Anarchism Since 1945

A fusion of the two might looks something like this? (First draft of course)

   * 1 Introduction
   * 2 Origins of Anarchism
         o 2.1 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
   * 3 Schools of Anarchist Thought
         o 3.1 Mutualism
         o 3.2 Anarchist collectivism
         o 3.3 Anarchist communism
               + 3.3.1 Kropotkin
         o 3.4 Anarchist Syndicalism
         o 3.5 Anarchism and the individual
               + 3.5.1 Max Stirner's egoism
               + 3.5.2 Anarchist Individualism
   * 4 Anarchism as a Social Movement
         o 4.1 First International
         o 4.2 Anarchism and organized labor
         o 4.3 The Russian Revolution
         o 4.4 The fight against fascism
   * 5 Issues in anarchism
         o 5.1 Ends and means
         o 5.2 Capitalism
               + 5.2.1 Anarcho-capitalism
               + 5.2.2 Neocolonialism and globalization
         o 5.3 Feminism and anti-racism
         o 5.4 The environment
         o 5.5 Religion
   * 6 Anarchism Since 1945
         o 6.1 Post-left and poststructuralism
         o 6.2 Post Anarchism?
   * 7 Criticisms of anarchism
   * 8 Cultural phenomena
   * 9 See also
         o 9.1 Historical events
         o 9.2 Anarchism by region/culture
         o 9.3 Books
   * 10 Notes and references
   * 11 External links

I would appreciate any thoughts on this possible alternative. CJames745 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, your draft looks quite good. --AaronS 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Although we can trace many schools back into the 1830s and 1840s, the influences of mutualism, collectivism and individualism peaked in the late 19th century, while those of syndicalism and communism grew in the early 20th century. So we can say that 'classic' syndicalism incorporates many ideas from mutualism and collectivism (and sometimes individualism) while 'classic' mutualism doesn't incorporate as many ideas from syndicalism and communism. The later sections (in the article) like the later developments (in our history) can refer to the earlier ones, but not vice-versa. Godwin could be 2.1, Proudhon, Warren and Stirner 2.2-2.4. Mixing systems and mixed systems (i.e. panarchism) could be 3.1 as an intro, then the details of each system starting with mutualism in 3.2, then individualism and collectivism in 3.3 and 3.4, and syndicalism and communism in 3.5 and 3.6 (though whether communism should focus on Kropotkin's or Platformism is beyond me), with post-stuff in 3.7 and beyond. Possession and Property could go between 5.1 and 5.2. Jacob Haller 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin seems more important than platformism. Maybe a bit of both though. I personally like both of the layouts so I have no real objection. The Ungovernable Force 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. Perhpase the "origins of anarchism" section would do better after the schools of thought section anyway, as, like the section on anarchism as a social movement, it is historical. I'll make some changes to this time line and place them in my talk page. CJames745 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of your talk page, just create a sandbox. Start a page titled User:CJames745/Sandbox. Actually, just click on the link and start typing. That way it doesn't take up a bunch of room on your talk page, screw up the formatting etc. Just a thought. The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I was actually about to ask how to do that. I'll do that now. CJames745 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. You can view the new layout at User:CJames745/Sandbox. Feel free to edit it. In fact I think we all should so that we can figure out how we want this article to be arranged. Would it be too presumptious to paste a link to this page at the top of the talk page? CJames745 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be ok. I'll go put it up now. The Ungovernable Force 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That layout seems well organized. Good work. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently too busy to do it, but if someone can actually cut and paste the current text into that order on you're test page, that would be nice. Anything that needs to be written can be done there. Once we have decided on a version we like, just cut and paste into this page. The Ungovernable Force 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It lacks talk about Jeffersonian democracy, which is important to understand philosophical anarchism. Intangible 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable, I had been thinking the same thing, so you pushed me over the edge. There is now a mosty-fleshed out version of the anarchism article based on the new layout. A few of the sections are missing, and some of the sections are taken directly from the libertarian socialism article. Maybe this project could solve some of the issues regarding that article as well (the discussion of a merger or redirect or whatever else.) Or just make them worse... CJames745 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

While I certainly admire the man, I'm not sure such a large quotation from him in this article is appropriate. The content is good, the placement is not. I'm going to move it to Anarchism in the United States, a sentence on Jeffersons point of view might be worth having somewhere in the article. - FrancisTyers · 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. The amount of original research that is being injected into this article is strange, to say the least. --AaronS 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be pointless to talk about anarchism without Jefferson. It's like starting at end of the novel, only reading the last 2 pages and be done with it. Instead, one starts of course at the beginning. Intangible 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as this is just your original research, it has no place in the article. --AaronS 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am only citing scholars...I could even have cited the 1889 article, if I wanted to. Intangible 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read True Civilization by Josiah Warren he cites Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. [1] Also, Voltairine de Cleyre cites Jefferson in Anarchism and American Traditions [2] TheIndividualist 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. It would be appropriate to put a sentence about Jefferson's influence on the individualists in the American individualists section. Bacchiad 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, TheIndividualist and Intangible. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Thomas Jefferson really influenced the Individualist movement as much as he may have influenced Libertarians/anarcho-capitalist (tho i think the notion of anarcho-capitalism is a falsehood) -vsthesquares

FrancisTyers moving my edit to another article

That was real cute, FrancisTyers, moving my edit to another article thereby getting it out of the way of this communisto-anarchist article and taking credit for my research at the same time. Clever. BTW, how many edits did you make on Sunday the 23rd, Francis? Let me count..uh 1, 2, 3, 4....9 edits in one day. You could get blocked for that if I'm not mistaken. I may be wrong but I believe there's a WP:3RR rule. Oh well, happy editing! Shannon^{duck talk} 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You said you're "not sure such a large quotation from him in this article is appropriate". Well, I and Intangible and Theindividualist do think it is appropriate. Vision Thing can't be here right now, but something tells me he would think it's appropriate, too. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was me (VoluntarySlave) who moved your section on Jefferson to Origins of anarchism. As I explained above, this is an article about anarchism, not about non-anarchists who influenced anarchism. If you think Jefferson is so significant an influence on anarchism as to be the only non-anarchist with their own section in the article, could you explain why?

Also, while I'm replying to you, I notice you added "the teachings of Jesus" as a precursor of anarchism. While I agree that many Christians have developed proto-anarchist (or actually anarchist) views based on their religion, are the gospels themselves directly anti-authoritarian? I'm not enormously familiar with them, so I'm not disagreeing with you, just asking for clarification. And giving a reference would be helpful, as the article on Jesus doesn't appear to discuss his politics. VoluntarySlave 08:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I've just noticed that FrancisTyers also moved your edit to Anarchism in the United States. I'll let him put forward his own reasons for moving your text out of this article, but I'd appreciate a response to mine. VoluntarySlave 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above. - FrancisTyers · 09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil! --AaronS 13:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Layout

A possible layout, mostly fleshed out, for the anarchism article can be seen here. Some of the information is from the libertarian socialism article. CJames745 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

your requests for info

VoluntarySlave, FrancisTyers, Aaron, I have already answered most of your questions above. I won't be caught in your mind games. I have answered your questions. Intangible has. TheIndivdualist has. Answering once is enough for any of us.

As far as the big section about Proudhon: Proudhon called himself an anarchist, agreed, but could not tell the difference between anarchy and government. So we may as well include a section on Daffy Duck and his influence on the movement.

This is an article about anarchism. Not Russian anarchism. Not European anarchism. Just anarchism. So it's not a big leap to assume that American anarchism (or the anarchism of other countries) should be included.

There is more on American anarchism that needs to be in the article. These edits are just a start.

I'll find references to show how Jesus was anti-authoritarian and revolutionary and he most certainly was. I can't account for why the revolutionary direction to his desciples was not included in the article Jesus, I didn't write it. I can imagine why, though, LOL.

You, socialist-communists just keep dominating this article like it personally belongs to you. It doesn't. You do the same thing to, or worse, stuff that you accuse other editors of doing, and then harass them to no end. Like what you are doing to Intangible right now, which I just discovered today.

To what ends will you go to guard this aricle and keep it communistic? How low will you people go? Please try and behave yourselves. Shannon^{duck talk} 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to attack you Shannon. But someone who claims to be an anarchist and is actively editing a site as such should not state that "The only government that I would even begin to trust is a libertarian Jeffersonian one" as trusting governments of any kind is antithetical to being an anarchist. Whether you can be a patriot to the United States of America and also truly be an anarchist i personally don't think so but i will remain tolerant of your views despite your apparent inability to be tolerant of people here who hold alternate beliefs from yourself. Intangible, you wrote, "No one in their right minds would call for abrogation of any form of state in the Jefferson era." Do you mean that no sane person would call for the abolishment of any form of state in the Jeffersonian era? What does that mean? Anarchists call for the abolishment of any state in every era. According to that statement, at least, you dont seem to understand the basic tenants of anarchism any better than Shannon and should therefore not be editing a site on the subject. This has nothing to do with who I agree with or not ideologically, or whether I am collectivist or not, it has to do with the quality and accuracy of an article that many people will view and on which Ancaps seem intent on pushing their POV. Piece, Blockader

You could not write about it. If you did, there was always the guillotine or a hanging. Of course people could live in communities far away from government control, but I doubt anyone living there did so because they were trying to live in "anarchism," they were looking for the Frontier. Intangible 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yes, and now it's our job to reinterpret history so that those people thought how we think they should have thought.</sarcasm> --AaronS 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is sarcastic about citing sources...Intangible 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shannon, I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a response to my question. Why do you believe that American non-anarchist precursors of anarchism are uniquely significant to understanding anarchism, such that they are the only non-anarchists who should have their own section in the article? Note that American anarchism (as opposed to American non-anarchism) is already included in the section on indvidualism. VoluntarySlave 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did individualist anarchism precede any influence of anarcho-communism in North America... Intangible 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the USA is where individualist anarchism started. Communism was not an American idea. Those who went to establish America were "rugged individualists" inspired by the classical liberals. Thomas Jefferson was basically an anarchist who saw government as an unfortunate "necessary evil" and whose strongly promoted individualism. The communists ideas came in from outside the country from a different mindset. PlayersPlace 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote Rudolf Rocker: "Men like Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Lysander Spooner, William Greene, Ezra Heywood and Benjamin Tucker were influenced in their intellectual developments much more by the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence than by those of any of the representatives of libertarian socialism in Europe. They were all hundred per cent American by descent, and almost all of them were born in the New England states. As a matter of fact, this school of thought had found literary expression in America before any modern radical movements were even thought of in Europe." Intangible 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Shannon

ROTFLMAO. --AaronS 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blockader. What's the deal with ending your comments with the word "piece"? If you mean "peace" why can't you say that? If you really mean "piece," would you explain why? I've corrected you on this before, when I thought it was just a one-time typo. Now it appears to be a habit. Does it mean something? --Christofurio 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (Peace).

Chris, by signing out with "piece" I am referencing a graphic common during the seventies which read "piece now" arranged around various firearms. i believe it was first employed/created by the weathermen or weather underground though i first encountered it on a American Indian Movement pamphlet. I liked the pun and have used it ever since. Piece, Blockader

Also, I was wondering where one might meet and engage some ancaps in face-to-face discussion. I'm not familiar with any among any of the anarchist groups or collectives in the southeast but then again why would an ancap join a collective? Would a libertarian party event be the proper place to find some? Just wondering. It seems like if anarcho-capitalists are anywhere it would be the southeast. Or maybe Montana.Blockader

I'm glad to discover that it isn't just poor spelling. As for anarcho-caps, you could probably find a few of us at LP conventions. Personally, when I joined the LP I was a standard-issue minimum-government type. I decided that anarcho-capitalism was a more consistent, and cogent, position somewhat later. But then I remained active in the LP for a couple of years before deciding that its activities were futile on its own terms and dropping out. So I know personally I wasn't alone in my anarcho-cap views during those two years or so.

As to why anarcho-caps don't join collectives -- we have nothing in principle against it. After all, no principle of mine prohibits me from contributing my time, and even a bit of cash now and then, to wiki, though I expect no profit from it. I could join a collective if I were made to feel welcome there. The problem is that some of our fellow anarchists don't make us feel welcome, because they believe we're statist wolves dressing up as sheep in order to infiltrate their flock or something. It is difficult to work together successfully with people who think you a wolf.

Finally: regarding the geography, the greatest concentration of anarcho-caps is probably in the Chicago area, where the U.Chi. combination of academic rigor and free-market fervor sets the stage properly. --Christofurio 15:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

the bickering

Can we all stop the bickering now and get down to improving this article in a friendly and collaberative manner? It is possible.

As to the further assaults on my understanding of anarchy, patriotism, etc. I will say this and then not say it again. I understand anarchy and I understand patriotism. I clarified what I wrote on my page concerning governments, etc. Patriotism to many Americans is good citizenship. It does not mean blind loyalty to a party or blind loyalty to a president, etc. It does mean keeping an honest eye on your government to ensure that it is the kind of government you would want to have. (We have a government whether we want one or not.) I hate this treasonous (Bush) administration as I hate the treasonous administrations of Bill Clinton and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and many more. Patriotism is being critical of, and not being afraid to express dissent of your government. Please read the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The definition you seem to be expressing is the one that these traitorous presidents, (Bush, Reagan, etc.) would have us all believe. I don't buy it.

Another thing about patriotism is this: As much as I hate these bastards, (the presidents that I have just mentioned), the idea of a foreign country like the allies communist China and Russia, or the European Union, for instance, coming in here and taking control gets me even way more infuriated. There has been socialist influence in the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century. But the blatant attempt at overthrowing this government, through the spreading of propaganda on the internet and through Wikipedia, honestly makes me sick. If communist China thinks it will take my country it has another think coming. Not while I'm alive and kicking. Shannon^{duck talk} 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, can you please assume good faith. I mean, as it turns out I actually am a Maoist propogandist seeking to undermine the US through the terrible power of Wikipedia (and we're doing pretty well. Go Hillary in '08!), but you shouldn't go around just assuming it. VoluntarySlave 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My God, this is too precious. --AaronS 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone so smitten with capitalism would denounce modern day China :?. As far as communist nations subverting the U.S. go I am holding out for Cuba cause they seem to come up with the best mixed drinks. Or if Chavez engineers a successful coup here we could all hang out with oil and cocaine! Hooray, Blockader

All I know is that the Revolution begins with Wikipedia!!!!1 --AaronS 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ursula K. Le Guin: "self-avowed anarchist"?

There is some controversy about whether Ursula K. Le Guin is an anarchist. Actually I've never seen her referred to as an anarchist except on this wikipedia page. Anyway, in attempting to discover an actual answer I have found the following three sources:

• [Michael Krasny] set out to ask a broad range of thinkers what they had read that had provided moral insight or served as a catalyst or paradigm of virtue, ethical behavior, or simply living the kind of life that makes a difference. What texts do they look to when they want moral guideposts or standards for ethical action?

Ursula K. Le Guin, Novelist

I read Lao-tzu and the Tao Te Ching at 14. My father had it around the house in the old edition with the Chinese text. I sneaked a peek and was and remain fascinated. Taoism is still an underlayer in my work. It begins talking about what we can't talk about--an old mysticism that intertwines with Buddhism and is practical and not theistic. Before and beyond God. There's a humorous and easygoing aspect to it that I like temperamentally and that fits in with anarchism. Pacifist anarchism and Lao-tzu have a lot of connection with each other, especially in the 20th century.[3]

• Q: How did you become a Taoist, if you would consider yourself one?

UKL: By reading Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, mostly. I don't have my library here so I don't dare try to give you any names of scholars and popularisers who helped me understand Taoism - I would forget most of them. I don't really know how one "is" a Taoist. I do know that Taoist ideas inform a great deal of my writing.[4]

• ELM: You have talked about dry times in writing, and how sometimes one must wait for the writing tank to fill. How do you deal with such fluctuations in your writing life? Have you noticed consistent cycles? What helps you get through the dry times and refill your writer’s tank?

UKL: You sit and wait and wait and wait and wait. And fret. And consult the I Ching, which tells you to wait. So you wait and wait . . .

Traveling is bad for fiction but good for poetry. That's the only cycle I have noticed.

Work always leads to work, so it's good in a dry time to have some interest to pursue, something I want to learn about (because I'm a head-worker). Like the Revolution of 1830, say. I read about it for years. Just because I liked it. I was very interested for years in sleep and dream research. In other years I read a lot of utopias, and about utopias, and about Gandhi, and about Anarchism. All those learnings, which I pursued purely because I was interested in the subject, turned into novels in the end.[5]

These statements hardly clear up the ambiguity, other than to illustrate that she claims pacifism as much as anarchism, and Taoism more often. She may "be" a Taoist, and maybe an anarchist and a pacifist as well -- note her disavowal and use of quotes around "is" -- or she may just be "interested in subjects" that "turn into novels." 67.168.216.176 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does this article refer to Le Guin? Blockader

She's been added to and deleted from the "examples of prominent publicly self-avowed anarchists" list under the Cultural phenomena section a number of times. 67.168.216.176 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe her prominence is in as much question as her "self-avowed" anarchism. Blockader

Are you kidding? She's one of the most prominent sci-fi authors alive today. If you want to describe what she writes as sci-fi, anyway. And she has anarchist themes in almost all her books. You only ever hear about The Dispossessed, but I think it's at least as clear in other works. She has said she's found anarchism fascinating, but stopped short of calling herself an anarchist. Someone cited a secondary source earlier that said she eschewed labels so that her work could remain accessible to a larger audience. But it is true she's not self-avowed. Whether that matters is another question. Sarge Baldy 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's the same one, the secondary source also says "Anarchism acts as an underlying theme throughout all of Ursula Le Guin's novels and short stories. It is portrayed in the different life forms and cultures encountered, and in the varied political systems and methods of social organization."[6] This is someone who confuses "anarchism as an underlying theme" with politics or anthropology as underlying themes. If "it is true she's not self-avowed," then putting Le Guin on a list of "publicly self-avowed anarchists" is unambiguously false, and surely it's not a serious "question" whether putting falsehoods in Wikipedia "matters." 67.168.216.176 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

UKL is one of the people interviewed in the documentary "Anarchism in America," which i would guess would be because she considers herself one.

Well, it's clear AK Press considers her one[7], but on the other hand there's some confusion about whether and on what basis she's even in the film[8]. Those of us who've never seen it can only hope somebody transcribes any relevant quotes. 67.168.216.176 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen an instance of her using the term to describe herself. But then again, I haven't seen Chomsky or Zinn describe themselves as anarchists either (the former being a "fellow traveler" and the latter claiming to incorporate "some" anarchism). Yet all three are definately associated with anarchism and associate themselves with it. It would seem odd to have no mention of Chomsky on the anarchism page, what if the description was just changed to "associate themselves with anarchism", as that would seem to apply to all three? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky has identified himself as an anarchist any number of times. Zinn has called himself "something of an anarchist" once in his life, which is why there's a link next to his name. It could be changed to "people who have written about anarchism" if that's really the kind of list we want. 67.168.216.176 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If writing The Dispossessed does not make her an anarchist, what would? Is William Morris or Etienne Cabet an anarchist? For more, see her own introduction to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Septentrionalis 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and OR

Thomas Jefferson is an extremely interesting historical and political figure, and admirable in many ways. His place in this article, however, is a bit dubious. Shannon, you claim that your edits are not original research, because they are referenced. I think that you might misunderstand what is meant by "original research." The policy, in a nutshell, is this: articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. What you present is a new analysis or synthesis of published materials that serves to advance the position that the history of anarchism can be traced back to Thomas Jefferson. You're not providing enough evidence from reliable sources to show that your claims are verifiable. Nobody is attempting to stifle your work, or attack you. We're just trying to make the article accurate. Alright? --AaronS 00:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just provided a quote from Rocker that says that individualist anarchism came from an earlier tradition, different from the one that produced European anarchism. Did you miss that one? Intangible 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And if you worry that I'm using a primary source here, this quote was noted in a review of Rocker's book by a Yale professor, who said that: "Rocker's conclusions concerning American radicalism is the most interesting part of his book. Pointing out the universal and inevitable movement of cultural influences back and forth among nations, he indicts the stupidity of the "one hundred per cent Americans" who distort the importance of such streams of influence and label radicalism as a foreign importation." Then he quotes Rocker, which quote I already provided somewhere above here. Intangible 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Aaron. Thanks. I know what OR is, I've read the policy and I don't think what Intangible and TheIndivdualist and I are doing can be considered OR. We are getting plenty of citations to back up our case. There is no way that anarchism in America has been influenced more by Europe and Russia than it has by Americans. We are getting more and more to back this up.

VoluntarySlave asked me: Why do you believe that American non-anarchist precursors of anarchism are uniquely significant to understanding anarchism, such that they are the only non-anarchists who should have their own section in the article? Note that American anarchism (as opposed to American non-anarchism) is already included in the section on indvidualism. Is this a trick question? Thoreau was an anarchist. Thomas Jefferson was an anarchist at heart but would have had a hard time getting his great fight for our freedom into the backbone of this country if he had admitted it to the other statesmen. Proudhon said he was an anarchist, didn't seem to be able to distinguish between anarchy and government, and his ideas sound exactly like Jefferson, who after all, came before him. The Russian and European anarchists get a huge portion of this article, while the American and individualists get a small crappy bit at the end of the article. It all started more in America, ironically, than it did anywhere else. If you can't follow what I have just written, then I don't know what else to say. Shannon^{duck talk} 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Shannon; I hadn't been clear as to on precisely what grounds you thought the section you added belonged in the article. Now I realize it's because you believe that Jefferson and Thoreau were anarchists. As far as I'm aware, this is not the generally accepted view of either figure. If you can find reliable sources to show that Jefferson and Thoreau are widely held to have been anarchists, though, then they ought to be in the article. VoluntarySlave 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think most people doubt Thoreau as an anarchist, though he never called himself one. Emma Goldman went so far to refer to him as "the greatest American anarchist", and he was an obvious influence on early environmental anarchists such as Edward Abbey. Sarge Baldy 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally like many of TJ's ideas and I think he may have held rudimentary anarchist ideals. However, many historians have posited that his beliefs were often unstable, even bordering on amorphous. Jefferson's continuously changing religious affiliations, for example. Though I guess these vacillations don't preclude him from being included in this article, they do throw into question what he actually believed. I think TJ should be excluded here simply based upon the fact that he not only helped found 2 governments (Articles and Constitutional) but served as president of one of them (twice), which are not the actions of an anarchist of any ilk. Blockader

Proudhon held governmental office. Does that mean he's not an anarchist? TheIndividualist 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon identified himself as an anarchist and is widely and traditionally identified as an anarchist by both anarchists and scholars. Jefferson never identified himself as an anarchist, only sometimes identified himself as even anti-state (which is not the same thing as being an anarchist) and is neither widely nor traditionally identified as being an anarchist by anarchists or scholars. But after all those things, the comparison is entirely valid. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"THE classic land for the efflorescence and experimentations of bourgeois Liberal-Anarchism was America. If bourgeois Anarchism called for free land, free capital, free labor, and free exchange, what country could appear more favorable than the United States? (*1) Indeed, in a country where Liberalism could afford to appear as Radicalism, could there be a sharp line drawn between Liberalism and Liberal- Anarchism? The conditions of American life not only had forced men into a certain pattern of individualism, but had also compelled them to idealize this individualism and to make it an end in itself. It was in the United States that the development of State versus Individual had reached its sharpest point. Liberalism and Liberal-Anarchism could well blend into one another....Indeed, there was plenty of patriotic precedent for the views of such Anarchism. The Liberal had declared: "The best government is that which governs least." The Anarchist merely added: "The best government, then, is no government." The American Revolution had recognized, both theoretically and practically, the Right of Revolution. This implied the superiority of moral law to government; and, using his conscience as his guide, Thoreau declared his own revolution. The American Revolution, then, was the great inspiration for early American Anarchism! Nay, more. Anarchism could be said to stem from the early settlers themselves. Were not Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dwyer in the seventeenth century perhaps the first Anarchistic persons to set foot upon this country? And what of the Quakers? In the nineteenth century, American Liberal-Anarchism simply broke its religious ties and stepped out in its own right." [9] TheIndividualist 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What you have laboriously detailed above would indeed make an interesting subject for a history or political science thesis or doctorate but I don't think you can show that it is a generally accepted idea among historians or political scientists. What you might do is to enroll in a accredited doctoral program, successfully defend this hypothesis before your committee, and then gain acceptance among the academic community. Then it would be appropriate in this article. Piece,Blockader

I don't really care if we mention Jefferson or Thoreau, but I think the quote from Jefferson was needlessly long. I cut it down, and honestly, I think that entire section could stand to be cut in at least half. I think it's interesting, but it doesn't deserve that much attention, especially not on this page. I think Orgins of Anarchism is a good place for a more thorough treatment of that topic. And although I agree with Sarge about Thoreau being considered an anarchist by many, I don't think scholars usually label him as such (anarchism is only mentioned once on his page here, in reference to the Goldman quote). It's OR for us to say he's an anarchist, unless we say who said it (and like I said, that section is already too long). The Ungovernable Force 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If the section is going to stay in, I think it needs to be reworked to make it clear what we're actually saying; currently it's just three quotes with little or no explanation of exactly why they're relevant (clearly, they have anti-state themes, but presumably, if Jefferson and Thoreau deserve a section of their own, there's more to it than that). In contrast, for example, the following section tells us that Proudhon a) called himself an anarchists, b) is considered by some to be the founder of modern anarchist theory, before it goes on to briefly explain his theory. A similar structure to the Jefferson/Thoreau section would be helpful, I think. VoluntarySlave 06:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source to verify a simple claim like this: Individualist anarchism finds its roots in 18th and 19th century American and French political thought, from non-anarchists like Thomas Jefferson to self-proclaimed anarchists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Something to that extent could work. "French" might be a bit too specific, but "European" is probably too general. Any thoughts? --AaronS 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism was invented by Josiah Warren. His influences were Thomas Jefferson for the individualist (classical liberal) philosophy and Adam Smith for the labor theory of value. Proudhon had no part in its origination but later was an influence through Benjamin Tucker. IndividualistAnarchist 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

continuing this discussion

Thanks to everybody for their input and comments.

This comes from WP:OR Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I would hardly refer to TheIndividualist's input as OR. There is little in there that even needs referencing as it refers to historical facts that are well accepted. He did add a reference. Let's just stop the need to make this article a left-leaning thing when it is a basic article about anarchism. TheIndividualist's statement is brilliant in it's insight, though. I don't think there is a policy against brilliant insight.

• This is an article about anarchism, not European anarchism, not Russian anarchism, not communist anarchism. Can we agree on that?

• An anarchist is one who would like to see a society with no ruling power. Can we agree on that?

• The left and the right, throughout history, have managed to create governments that insure the freedom of the rulers while minimizing the freedom of the ruled. Can we agree on that?

• The American revolution was an unheard of phenomenon when it happened. It was built on the influence of a number of men and women who had a wide range of ideals and motivations, some selfish, some not, thereby rendering it neither left nor right, but possibly a combination of the two. (What was liberal then is considered by some to be conservative now.) Please let's not start making value judgements here about laissez-faire philosophy or liberalism or conservatism (whose meanings are largely non-existent now). Study straight American history first then make judgements, at least. Not someone's take on American history, but the actual writings of some of these men and women. The actual actions that were done. I'm still pretty sure we won't all agree on that. There are plenty, involved in this debate, who do.

• Let's just work together toward creating a well-rounded inclusive article. Can we agree on that? Shannon^{duck talk} 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I really think you should read an encyclopedia entry on anarchism if you haven't yet. This article is actually less left-leaning than all of the one's I've read. Anarchism is typically regared as anti-capitalist (see here and here). The first article says it is "basically anticapitalist". The second one is a lot more in depth, but in a three page article there is only one paragraph on pro-market anarchism, and says it has been reborn as Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. I think you want to give undue weight to the more "right-wing" anarchists who have have very little impact on anarchism as a social movement and are not often given a whole lot of emphasis in other articles about anarchism. The Ungovernable Force 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable Force, when I study I like to study the actual history and the events that happened rather than rely on another researcher's point of view. I like to just get the facts and then draw my own conclusions. It's like reading a newspaper. One can read a right or left leaning paper, where some of the facts are left out, and come to right or left leaning conclusions. I would much rather just get the facts and make up my own mind about the event. Encyclopedias may spout all sorts of things but that does not necessarily make them correct. They often leave a few things out, according to the bias of the author. Look at Wikipedia for example. If I lived in, say the year 2100, and dug this stuff out of a capsule, I would be led to believe that socialism and libertarianism and communism were all the same thing. That classical liberalism and modern liberalism are the same thing or they don't exist independently of each other when they do. I would be led to believe that anarchism is socialism when it just isn't. It may be what some people want, but it's not what other anarchists want, no matter what some encyclopedia says. History is history, it should never be tampered with.

Are you seriously calling Jefferson and Thoreau right-wing? My God, that's off the wall. Jefferson endlessy fought for our freedom and he and some of his friends were threatened with their lives because of it. Thoreau was an anarchist. That's just fact and he stood up for what he believed in. You say that he didn't have a signficant influence on the world? Thoreau was an inspiration for both Ghandi and Martin Luther King, who both said this. Jefferson's writings and his brave struggles along with others like Patrick Henry and Daniel Shays, for instance, inspired the fight for freedom all over the world.

EbonyTotem left this edit summary when he reverted my edits, "reverting U.S. nationalist vandalism". If that isn't one attacking, bigoted statement, I don't know what is.

There are several of us that are trying to turn this into a well rounded article about anarchism, which is one that would include U.S. anarchism. You don't own this thing. It belongs to all of us. If it were a better article I would leave it alone. But I'm sorry. It needs work in order to make it a comprehensive piece on anarchy. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, Jefferson isn't even an anarchist. Second, Thoreau does have some anarchist leanings and is considered by some to be an anarchist, but as far as I know he is rarely labelled an anarchist by scholars. And by using right-wing, I wasn't refering to Jefferson and Thoreau since calling them anarchists is itself disputed. I was describing what I see as the general trend of trying to disassociate "anarchism" from it's anti-capitalist elements and instead present it as mere anti-statism. I think this wasn't clear from my original post and I see why you might have thought I was refering to those two. The difference between right and left anarchists is economic anyways, (and the distinction between right and left anarchists is usually made by an-caps, so I'm repeating what they would say, which is why I quoted it). Many "left" anarchist including myself don't think it's a very valid distinction since anarchism is traditionally viewed as anti-capitalist in all forms. You're the one who said the article is left-leaning, and you tried to balance this with your edits, which I would presume are right-leaning. Let me also say that I highly admire Thoreau and some aspects of Jefferson. That was in no way meant to be an attack on them. Regarding influence, I was refering to indiv-anarchists (particularly the pro-market ones) who have not led any kind of visible social movements (especially ones that have actually been labelled "anarchist"), whereas anarcho-communists, -socialists, and other anti-cap anarchists have.

As for that other users edit summary, I agree that it was out of line (and the edit was also questionable, since this is currently under discussion). I would have reverted to my version if you hadn't reverted to your's before I saw it (I was writing a post for this talk page at the time).

As for bias within scholarly sources, you're right, they are there and they will always be there. Unfortunately for you, wikipedia is based on researching reliable sources, and most reliable sources (rightly or wrongly) consider anarchism to be anti-capitalist. You seem to be making an exagerated claim though when you say "If I lived in, say the year 2100, and dug this stuff out of a capsule, I would be led to believe that socialism and libertarianism and communism were all the same thing." First off, the term "libertarian" originally described a subgroup of socialists anyways, so the only revisionists here are pro-market "Libertarians". In Europe, the term still often refers to socialists unless specified otherwise. Anyways, they might also think Libertarianism (pro-capitalist stlye) is synonomous with anarchism (as defined by academic sources and most anarchists) which is just plain false. They are seperate ideologies which is why they have seperate pages. That's not to say there isn't some overlap between the ideas because there clearly is, but they are not the same.

I admire that you like to make up your own mind on these things, but as I've said before, your conclusions do not belong on wikipedia but elsewhere. You are trying to redefine what anarchism means in a scholarly sense, but this is not the place to do so. Now, if you go get a book published on this that can be viewed as a reliable source, then we can discuss this again, but as for now you seem to be merely adding your own interpretation of anarchism into this article while going against most "reliable sources" (as defined by wikipedia policy). The Ungovernable Force 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly correct, Ungovernable, but don't expect anyone who wants to change this article from being based upon accepted facts to being based upon personal preferences to be affected in anyway by your cogent and capable explanation. The fact is, these ancaps have no real social movement and therefore must find alternate venues and systems through which to spread their beliefs. Rather than propaganda by the deed, their lack of real-life groups leads them to stoop to mere propaganda in order to exert influence or even seem viable. Ten days ago I felt there was room within anarchism for everybody, ancaps and primitivists included, but now I have come to disdain anarchist-capitalists and will share my experiences within the local collective and at our regional gathering. Thankyou, Shannon, Intagible, etc, you have taught me to despise your kind, though I still respect your right to free association and belief. Piece, Blockader

despise our kind?

You always did despise our kind. Socialists have always, along with fascists, monarchists, and all dictator-lover-types despised those that fought for freedom. This has been going on for centuries I would imagine. In the United States it has been going on, at least, since the birth of this country. Attempts at grabbing control of us (the people) and of our freedom have been made by the British, most of our own wealthy landowners, the British sympathizers who slithered into our governmental system, communists and socialists. The socialistic influence is most outstanding with the presidensts Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is currently in siege by the fascistic George W. Bush administration with the help and support of the socialist left. (The Rebublicans and the Democrats.) Some of us call them the Republicrats as their sameness is marked. This is fact whether some scholar finds it be so or not. Shannon^{duck talk} 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely true. It's no wonder that someone of your insight and scholarship claims to have no need for secondary references. You already know the Truth. --AaronS 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shannon, making yourself sound paranoid, jingoistic, and otherwise generally unhinged increases neither your repute on this talk page nor the validity of your edits in the anarchism article. On the anarcho-capitalist page you wrote, "As an added note. I am not an anarcho-capitalist. So don't accuse me of supporting this article based on some imagined alliance with anarcho-capitalism or anything else. Shannonduck talk 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)." On your user site you claim, "I am a true anarchist..." If you are not an anarchist-capitalist why do you continue to push an ancap agenda on a page that is meant, and does, represent the accepted tenants and manifestations of anarchism in both academia and contempory society? Are you an agent provocateur meant to divide and divert actual anarchists? Blockader

C'mon now, let's not get into accusing people of being provocateurs and crap like that. Responding to incivility with incivility yourself won't help anything. As for your comments Shannon, I was going to compliment you today on your talk page for your willingness to put aside personal issues recently, but now I will not be doing so. I was starting to respect you more as an editor, but again you have fallen into your over-the-top (and completely false IMO) rhetoric. Please try to focus on content. The Ungovernable Force 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, I was being facetious. I guess I shoulda placed a smiley face at the end to make it clear I was joking. Apologies, Blockader

a response to your nasty attacks and condescention

First, Blockader: What you said to me, making yourself sound paranoid, jingoistic, and otherwise generally unhinged..there's a term for that here. I believe it's WP:PA.

Second: How do you get that my edits are anarcho-capitalist? Show me where, please.

Third: And this is just food for thought, nothing more.. You are still asserting, UGF, that I am right-wing. How is this? Because I am trying to insert the influence of the U.S. into this article? What you said actually affirms what I said about the left and the right or the Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats always think if you are not Democrat than you must be Republican. Republicans always think if you're not Republican than you must be Democrat. It speaks of the narrow-mindedness of these two groups. I say they are opposite sides of the same rotten-to-the-core coin.

You still don't get what I am saying and you probably never will, concerning the exterme left and right and their inherent corruption. How can you accuse me of being right-wing when I repeatedly express disgust for right-wingers. (Bush and Reagan et al)?

Anarchists are neither left nor right. If I had to live in a system that claimed to be anarchistic while it still dictated how I must carry on my affairs, I would come to the conclusion that this was not an anarchism at all, but another system of governmental control, whether it had a centralized power or not. If what you mean by communist anarchy is people swapping work and goods without the use of money, I'll go for that. But if it is forced on me I will not. If a system included the choice of people selling and buying for money or swapping without the use of money I would go for that for sure. Think of this. If people sold stuff for money, other people would not have to buy it if they didn't want to. If they objected to the store, say and it's practices or to the quality of the goods it sold, they wouldn't buy the goods. It's called boycott. It works. If they would rather trade with goods or labor, they would do that instead. It's called freedom. I kinda like it. I like freedom. It's good stuff. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ʷAnarchism is a type of communism, and both are socialist. Socialism is just the idea that everybody should be treated fairly. While communists say that equalizing money will be enough to guarantee fairness, the original anarchists (who were part of the communist movement) said that money wasn't enough...you have to equalize money *and* political power.

ʷThat's why opposition to govenment is so heavily emphasized--because it was at the time, the anti-government stance was both the key difference between anarchists and other communists. So they never stopped being communists, they just added the political equality idea to the communist idea of monetary equality.

ʷBut there is another unique feature of anarchism...after the original principal of economic equality and the newer idea of political equality, they added gender equality, then racial equality, then sexual orientation equality, then environmental equality, and now we have antiglobalization, which is a type of geopolitical equality. Anarchists never stopped adding to the list, and that's what differentiates us from all other sociailists. We never got stuck in time like Marxists and Trots and Libertarians did, we are the only ones who recognized that we can never stop evolving; we can never say, "Okay, that's enough freedom."

ʷThat is why anarchism is still important today, and why it will continue to be important in the future. But just ecause we add new things to the list doesn't mean we throw the old things away...that is why we are still a type of communism (even if that term confuses people these days). --Aelffin 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say I'm a leftist when I openly express contempt for leftists (Stalin, Kerry, Gore, Lenin, Mao, etc)? The left/right distinction is very iffy, which is why I emphasized that I was refering to a distinction made by anarcho-capitalists and was operating under their assumptions. They call themselves right-wing anarchists. Despite trying to say you aren't an anarcho-capitalist you clearly believe that capitalism is completely compatible with anarchism, so you are promoting what a "right anarchist" would say. That is all I'm saying.

And btw, you are the last person who should cite the "No Personal Attacks" policy. The Ungovernable Force 04:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Murray Rothbard says his anarcho-capitalist philosophy is left wing. TheIndividualist 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wendy McElroy says it's right anarchism.[10] I'm basing this off of the page left anarchism. Also, right anarchism redirects to anarcho-capitalism. The Ungovernable Force 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LEFT OR RIGHT ANARCHY. Anarchy is freedom. There's no left or right about it. It might entail a somewhat organized system. It might not. I sorta would just love, for once, to have real freedom. Not to have some jerk with power telling me what he or his phony overpaid lawmakers tell me I should do or what I can and can't say. Telling me what I need to think, and the fact that there are laws that attempt to get into your head, pisses me off no end.

Hey. We have friendship. This is cool! In the end we all might want the same thing. Maybe a lot of it is just words and bullshit rhetoric. Maybe. We're just people and not as dumb as those that run us would have us think. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that in addition to rhetoric, there are also some major disagreements over reasons why certain self-described anarchists oppose the state. I think the biggest disagreement in anarchism is really over the idea of equality. Anti-cap anarchists are fiercely in support of equality (including economic equality), while anarcho-capitalists do not seem to have a problem with inequality, as long as it comes about without a government imposing it. That to me is the biggest issue. Semantics is a problem as well, as is general disagreement over the best way to live freely. But I see no way in which capitalism can create equality or freedom. Perhaps for a generation if everyone starts out with the same amount, but after a while some people will accumulate wealth and others will lose it. Those who lose it will have to sell their labor or bodies for survival, creating more disparity. A few generations down the line and you have people being born into poverty and others born into splendor, and at that point freedom is a myth. That is why most of us think capitalism is inherently unfree and involuntary. Although I might "choose" to have a job, it really isn't a free choice. I need the money if I want to go to college, and that's because I was born into a poor family (a single mother on welfare). If I was born into a rich family I wouldn't have any need to lift a finger in my life to go to college. I could probably get into any one I wanted to without having to work really hard to get there (at a job or at school). That's why I can't support capitalism. Informal trade tempered by compassion and a willingness to give maybe, but any system that is dominated by a market (free or otherwise) and not dominated by compassion towards others is only going to dehumanize people and their suffering. It creates us vs them mentalities and creates conflict and oppression. That is why I oppose capitalism (and state socialism). Economic's greatest failure is its inability to look beyond statistics. The Ungovernable Force 07:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You said, "..any system that is dominated by a market (free or otherwise)" Who says this system has to be dominated by a market? We do have a choice. If any individual or company started to get oppressive or opportunistic, we people, would not have to buy their products or services. In a free society with no state control, there would be a free press. Agreed? If there were a free press there would be the ability to warn others across the nation of a company that was acting in a greedy way. We would be able to easily and freely communicate the need or possiblility of a huge boycott. Boycott is a powerful tool. If an organized boycott was done on a bastard corporation, the corporation would go down. I believe that is one argument that anarcho-capitalists have. It's the state that perpetuates the success of monster corps, with a system that suppresses action against them, with a system that puts them on corporate welfare, etc. That's state capitalism. The inevitable consclusion to state capitalism is fascism where the corporations actually own the state. It sure looks to me, and many others, that we, in the U.S. are in the mid-to-late stages of a fascist state. This is incredibly not what the (Jeffersonian) classical liberals wanted with a laissez-faire system.

Now I have a question for you. In the system of anarchism that you would like to see, would you have it impossible for capitalism to exist? Would you stamp out it's existence? Shannon^{duck talk} 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You speak as if there's a set amount of wealth in the world that just gets shuffled around. It ssems you think that if one person gets more wealthy than others get less wealthy. That's not how wealth works in a free market. That is only the case if you steal. The alternative to stealing to become more wealthy is to PRODUCE wealth...to create new wealth in the world that wasn't there before (that means taking materials and creating something of higher value to people than the original raw materials before you applied your ingenuity to them). Some people are more productive than others so naturally that results in UNequal wealth. But that does NOT mean that other people have become poorer at the expense of those who become wealthier. TheIndividualist 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm... any economist, or really anybody who has taken more than a few college economic courses, will tell you that it's not that simple. --AaronS 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is that simple. New wealth is created in the world through labor and ingenuity. By taking something of lesser value and transforming it into something more valuable. Viola, the world is wealthier as a result. TheIndividualist 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, wealth is only created through labor or ingenuity. However, money is accumulated in all sorts of ways that don't require labor or ingenuity. And in our economy, money can buy wealth. Therefore, wealth can be transferred to people who haven't labored and aren't ingenious. --Aelffin 01:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wealth is created in one of two ways...either somebody makes a process more efficient (which is very very rare), or somebody gains access to some new material resource (which is very very very rare). Okay, so you can definitely increase your personal wealth by one of these methods. However, there are other ways of obtaining wealth. One of them, as you point out, is thievery. Thieves don't create wealth, they just shuffle wealth from one person to another. Additionally, thieves neither improve efficiency nor increase resources. In fact, thieves often destroy resources or make processes less efficient, thereby reducing the amount of total wealth.

But you can also gain wealth by, say, raising the price of your product without improving it. In such cases, no wealth is created, it's just being shuffled from one source (the consumer) to another (the producer). Or, you can create a fad...if your ad campaign convinces everybody that they have to have the new Company X's new green computer instead of Company Y's old gray one, then all you've done is shifted the income from one company to another. The color change did not create wealth. It mearly shifted it.

In fact, many of these "non-creative" methods of gaining wealth for an individual actually *destroy* wealth for the community. For example, if a company dumps their sewage in the river instead of paying for it to be disposed of properly, they will certainly experience an increase in their wealth because they aren't spending as much. However, they've destroyed the wealth that once came from fishing and boating and pumping drinking water.

In short, your argument is oversimplified and circular. --Aelffin 17:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was just that wealth is not limited. There is no limit to how much wealth can be created. And by that I mean NEWLY created ...wealth that did not exist in the world before. You create wealth by applying your labor and ingenuity to existing resources. You can either build an additional item of something that already exists or you can invent something new. Either way, you are making the raw materials more valuable to yourself or society than they were before you tranformed them. You create VALUE..new wealth in the world...which you can then trade to others to get items you want that you are not able or not willing to produce yourself. The more you produce the more wealthy you are going to become in proportion to the people that don't create as much new wealth as you. Freedom to own the product of one's labor naturally leads to unequal wealth. TheIndividualist 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I understand how wealth is created. But the ancap thesis falls flat when it comes to distinguishing between money and wealth. It is perfectly possible to acquire more money without creating new wealth, and when everything is commodified, then you can purchase other people's wealth, thereby transfering it to you with no need to create that wealth yourself. I totally agree that a person is entitled to the products of their own labor and ingenuity (and many other anarchists would agree). However, the commodification of labor allows buisiness owners to acquire money as a result of the labor of others. That is the failing of the ancap analysis. And that is why anarchists adhere to the labor theory of value. --Aelffin 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How wealth is created and how it is properly transferred are two different issues, as you recognize. In an ancap society wealth can only be legitimately transferred by trade or gift. In an ancap society the only way to get money (other than printing it yourself) is to labor and sell the fruits or your labor (or your service itself) to someone else or to receive money as a gift from someone. There is nothing wrong with a selling your services to someone else and getting paid for it. On the labor theory of value, why would you hold on to a theory that is so obviously incorrect? No serious economists accepts it. Water is more valuable to life than diamonds even though water takes less labor to acquire than diamonds. Obviously the amount of labor involved is not what makes one thing more valuable than another. So, the labor theory of value fails to justify the claim that profit is somehow improper. TheIndividualist 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

§ Yes, I understand economics fairly well...which is exactly why I am an anarchist. I subscribe to a modified version of the labor theory of value (and I don't care at all what economists think of it, because economics is a prescientific discipline whose theses are contingent upon the existence of the very systems they purport to describe). Specifically, I don't believe that water or land other resources that are in the common inheritance of all humankind should be commodified for the same reasons that I presume you would agree that air and human beings should not be commodified. Profit is the amount of wealth that is acquired after taking into account overhead, but overhead is the measure of the amount of actual labor/ingenuity that has been done. So, what I'm saying is that if you get paid back your overhead, then you've been fairly compensated for your work, but anything over and above that (read: profit) is exploitation.

§ Now, forget all that and assume for the sake of argument that I accept your description of an ancap society where the only way to get money is to sell the fruits of your labor (and I basically do accept that as a valid possibility)...Okay, great, we're agreed! So, when do you want to take the money away from the existing rich people so we can be sure that all future wealth disparities happen in a just fashion? --Aelffin 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Profit is not exploitation. There is profit in all trades even if there is no money involved. In barter there is profit. Profit is just the value you recieve that is greater than the value you give when you make a trade. Both sides receive this greater value or they would not make the trade. You don't trade one thing for another unless you value what you're getting more than you're giving. What is the value of anything? Value is subjective. It has nothing to do with how much labor would exerted to produce the thing. Just because you bring money into the equation it doesn't change a thing. Money just facilitates trades. You are wrong to think that rich people in general got rich through theft. Some do, of course, but most do it honesty...by creating things or services that others value. "Profit" is not exploitation. You have been deceived to think so. There is no CORRECT price of ANYTHING. TheIndividualist 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not deceived into anything. I make my judgements of my own accord. The price of a commodity is not tied to anything *in our existing economy*. I *advocate* tying prices to the values that we percieve of things, not because it is CORRECT, but simply because I value uniformity in pricing as a measure of fairness. One cannot fairly assess what a person thinks is a fair price for an object or service if one does not have access to information about the effort and sacrifice put into creating that commodity. If you tell me you spent fifty hours making a painting for me, I may pay you a great deal of money for that painting, but if you tell me you fount it in a junkyard, I wouldn't be willing to pay you much at all. But in our current economic system, the value of an object is determined solely by the price that the seller wants to put on it, with little input from the buyer other than "you want it or not?" We are not arguing about laws of physics, we are arguing about values and beliefs and perceptions, so you can stop saying things like "profit is not exploitation", because you might as well be saying that red is not my favorite color or Scarlett Johannsen is not hot as hell. --Aelffin 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So if one painting took a week to paint and another took one day to paint, the paintings have identical worth and the painters should be paid the same amount regardless of the fact that you like the painting that took a week better? If you pay a higher price for that one and a lower price for the other your are exploiting the guy? Face it, the labor theory is ludicrous. There is no intrinsically correct value of anything. TheIndividualist 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The price ought to be a balance between how much I like the painting and how much time was put into the painting, and that is not intrinsic--it is simply my opinion of fairness combined with the painter's opinion of fairness. I never said there was an intrinsic value. I said I prefer a system where time and sacrifice are valued. Just as there is no intrinsic correctness to the system we have today; economists and wealthy people simply prefer the system we have today. --Aelffin 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists I have encountered feel that systems which allow and encourage massive accumulations of wealth are unavoidably exploitative in nature. Its not an issue of how much wealth exists, but rather who's freedom is impaired in order for "more wealth" to be created. In the generation of new wealth someone inevitably gets the proverbial short end and the cycle continues indefinately. In the south I see this everyday. How can you truly have a free society when a small minority of people/interests control a disproportionately large amount of wealth (and therefore power)? Piece, Blockader

Again, the ability to create new wealth is unlimited. If a small minority has most of the wealth that in itself should not matter. That in itself is not oppressive. It may make you envious but so what? It's not hurting you. You don't need to steal their wealth. You just CREATE wealth. You invent something. If the small minority obtained their wealth through theft then that is another story. Take back what was stolen. My point is that wealth INEQUALITY is not an evil. What matters is how that wealth is obtained...through theft or labor and trade. TheIndividualist 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple things...just because it is possible to create new wealth doesn't mean that all people who have wealth created it themselves. In most cases, the wealthy have acquired their wealth by collecting profits on the labor of others. This is unjust. It is known as theft. I agree with you that those who have stolen the profit from the labor of others should have it taken away from them, and that is why I am an anarchist. Now, inequalety to a certain degree is acceptable...if and only if that inequality was created solely through your own creation of new wealth. However, this is not usually the case. The fact is, no human being is millions of times more ingenious than any other person, and no person is capable of performing millions of times more labor than anybody else. You could take Einstein's brain and put it in the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger and he would still only be able to create a few times more new wealth than, say, a blind midget with downs syndrome. Furthermore, a good deal of what is called "ingenuity" is sheer luck. Any idiot could have invented vulcanized rubber, for example, if they'd happened to spill sulphur into a pot of uncured latex. But you and I weren't in the right place at the right time. Lastly, even those who do create new wealth are only able to generate income off of it by 1) selling their invention to the established businesses, or 2) muscling their way into super-saturated markets. Almost any large business can out compete little startups by out-advertising them or reverse engineering their innovations. Thus, the establishment still ends up with the profit from any new wealth that upstarts might get lucky enough to come up with. Anarchists think that genuine ingenuity and genuine labor should be rewarded. But not luck, and not the ability to crowd your competetors out of the market, and certainly not the ability to generate income off the labor of others. --Aelffin 02:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. The labor theory of value is erroneous. What makes something valuable is that people WANT it. Just because you put a lot of work into creating a useless object it doesn't mean you should be paid more for it than someone who labored little to create something useful. There's no "theft" involved. There is no intrinsic value of anything. Economics have advanced since the labor theory of value. Unfortunately the labor theory of value has fooled a lot of people but there is no excuse to fall for it today. TheIndividualist 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But by your own rationale, the value of something is based only on how much people desire it, therefore the labor theory of value is itself important specifically because I value it, right? If you pay me a penny less for my labor than the actual amount of wealth I created for your company, then you are a thief. That is not a theory, that is not a thesis, that is a value. I would only voluntarily choose to get paid that amount. If I don't have that option, then you are exploiting me. --Aelffin 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think an hour of your work is worth two cows instead of one, that's fine. Your work is worth whatever you judge it to be worth. Value is subjective. But also recognize that everyone else places a particular value on your work that may not match up with your valuation. There is no correct value that can be calculated. Value is relative to the observer. In a free market, people only make trades if they want to...which is to say that they value what they are getting more than they are giving. TheIndividualist 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. You place a particular value on your work, and other people place a particular value on your work. I advocate a tranparent system where the amount of work that each individual puts into something is accessible to both you and your perspective customer, that way everybody involved has an opportunity to make an informed decision about what they're willing to trade and what they're willing to accept in return. If that were the case, then I would percieve a market as a potentially fair tool for sorting out peoples' values. But if by a "free market" you mean lassaiz-faire, then the system will always be manipulated to the advantage of those who already posess the greater wealth. --Aelffin 03:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

In order to solve the Jefferson/Jesus/Thoreau dilemma I have an idea. If the editors here who want to include those figures in this article can convince the editors of those figure's respective pages to include some mention of their influencing the development of anarchist thought and ideology, that would certianly satisfy me personally as to their inclusion here. i.e., If the editors of Jefferson's article will agree to include even a single sentence regarding his connection to anarchism than I think that that is reasonable evidence that he deserves mention in an article entitled "anarchism." Until such a consensus is reached, this article will remain a constant battle. Any thoughts? Blockader

I did include a sentence with a citation of Jeffeson's thoughts and influence on anarchism. I also included a statement with citaions of Thoreau's influence on anarchism and rebellion. We've been through that already. I will find references to Jesus' influence on anarchy and rebellion. This may irritate many Christians, some it will not. But, oh well. I'll look as soon as I get a few chores done around here including getting the baby fed and diapered, etc. Cousins are an annoyance, but after all, I am living in their house, and should be useful. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I will go to the articles of those individuals and get the thoughts of their editors. Blockader

Significance

A discussion on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism got me thinking about significance. Now, if there is one major difference between traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, it's that traditional anarchists are the only ones who have ever had a movement, in the sense of actually getting together and doing something. This should be mentioned, if it isn't already (and I'm just missing it). --AaronS 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a traditional anarchist? Individualist anarchists have been around longer than communist anarchists so they're traditional. But individualist anarchism has always been mostly confined to philosophy and that includes anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist individualist anarchists. TheIndividualist 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not neccessarily true. According to John Zerzan & the primitivist camp (along with alot of anthropologists) the earliest human communities were anarchist. not that i'm advocating that school of thought but... vsthesquares

Not so say that those individualist anarchists did not have many kind words for those violent and revolutionary anarcho communists. Not even Proudhon liked them. He hated the mass movements and unionism. Intangible 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your making broad assumptions. I think mass movements are a joke and don't care much for unionism but i'm sure not an anarcho-capitalist. In most of the anarchist communities i've been in across America they laugh at the idea of anarcho-capitalism and consider it a minority position held by wingnuts. Granted it seems alot of people on this thing throw out the last 70 years of anarchist history and actions. I also want to do away with this notion anarcho-capitalists (which is a stupid way to say Libertarian) and Individualist and because they are historically NOT the same thing. Johann Most was considered by Emma Goldman and many others of his day to be an Individualist. And Most was both violent and assumably anti-capitalist as he claimed dynamite was the best weapon in class war. vsthesquares 8.11.06

The only example of individualist anarchists "getting together and doing something" that I know of is Josiah Warren going out in the country to form individualist societies. After he died there were no more experiments. I read that Benjamin Tucker did not like the idea of doing that and thought sticking to philosophy was best. Individualists are not into organizing to engage in mass protests and riots like the anarcho-communists. Individualists are not into the group thing too much, as one would expect from the name. I do know of the Individualist Anarchist Society at UC Berkeley, which is mostly anarcho-capitalists. They meet on the 3rd Thursday of each month at 7 PM in Dwinelle Hall room 206. TheIndividualist 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

weasel word

Someone keeps entering the weasel word "most" into the introduction of the article. This is a quantitative statement that cannot be verified. Let's just replace it with anarcho-communists, so that the text shows there are considerable differences between certain kinds of anarchists. Intangible 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not communist but I'm opposed to capitalism. Most anarchists is shorter than '(a)-communists, (a)-collectivists, (a)-mutualists, (a)-individualists, (a)-geoists, all (a)-syndicalists and many (a)-agorists.'

Not to mention greens, eco-anarchists, and primitivists. Sarge Baldy 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And post-leftists. The Ungovernable Force 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Changing the wording as you suggest Intangible would imply that a conflict existed specifically between anarchist communists and anarchist capitalists when in actuality the conflict is between anarchist capitalists and essentially all other schools of anarchism. Furthermore, the semantic antithesis to capitalism is not communism but rather socialism so if the change were to be made it would be more correct to substitute socialist for communist. I do not agree that any change here is neccesary. That most anarchists dissaprove of capitalism is indeed a fact, whether it suits you or not. Blockader 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly most SCHOOLS of anarchism oppose capitalism, but not necessarily most anarchists. It depends on how many anarchists there are in each school. I wouldn't be surprised if most anarchists today were anarcho-capitalists. I'd like to see some studies or surveyes on that. TheIndividualist 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think most anarchists today are anarcho-capitalists you must be out of your mind. Or haven't traveled much. When you take a look at most anarchist action today and/or most anarchist literature coming out its safe to draw the conclusion that most ANARCHISTS in the world today are anti-capitalist. But whatever floats your baot.

Then say most schools. It is impossible to determine how many people are in each, but as mentioned in the section above an-caps don't seem to do much or be very visible, so chances are they are greatly outnumbered. The Ungovernable Force 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists choose the power of philosophy over protests, etc. TheIndividualist 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, actually individualists chose(past-tense 'cause they're gone) the power of action...many of them started collectives (i.e. communes). --Aelffin 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualist did not start "collectives." Josiah Warren bought some land and let individualists come in and interact out of self-interest. After, he was gone, individualist anarchism was just philosophy. And they are not gone, they still exist. Most of them are anarcho-capitalists. TheIndividualist 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning there were only the individualists and communists. That's why I chose that example, to show the contrast between them. Intangible 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the begining there were socialists, who split into marxists and non-marxist communists. The non-marxist communists split into anarchists and trotskyists...etc. Read some history please.--Aelffin 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. This about the two anarchist movements, not socialism in general. Sigh. Intangible 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't "two anarchist movements." Anarchism, including the Individualist tradition, sprang out of socialism. Although since we broke with Marx and the first International we've come far past socialism (which most of the theory is stuck in the 1800s). There are many different strains of anarchism, but its just one movement.vsthesquares

No, this is not about two schools of anarchism. This is about all anarchism and a few neolibertarians who want to piggyback off the name anarchism. Anarchism is a subset of communism, and communism is a subset of socialism, which is in turn a subset of libertarianism. Neolibertarianism is also a subset of libertarianism, but is not a subset of socialism. This is because neolibertarianism and socialism are two divergent traditions within the libertarian philosophy, and all subsequent branches of those two traditions are non-subsets of one another. Ancaps are saying the political equivalent of "catfish are a type of mammmal because they have fins like dolphins and are named after cats"... They are certainly related, but most of the similarities are superficial, they come from different linaeages, and their distinct characteristics are enough to tell them apart. The name is totally irrelevant. Likewise, anarcho-capitalism and anarchism evolved from different philosophies and retain enough differences that they can be easily recognized as different ideas. So what if they both happen to oppose one particular type of government. The similarities are superficial; the diffferences are intractable. --Aelffin 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources describing anarchism as generally anti-capitalist, or saying that most anarchists take "anarcho-capitalism" as an oxymoron. I find it interesting you dismiss these sources. If you can find even a ridiculous source claiming that most anarchists are capitalist, I'd like to see it. Sarge Baldy 20:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source one way or the other. I'm just saying I don't know what most anarchists are. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty popular so I wouldn't be surprised if they predominate. TheIndividualist 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry intangible, but to suggest that ancaps predominate anarchism is ridiculous. While I don't know of any sources (credible or otherwise) detailing the exact philosophical make-up of modern day anarchists, I think simple observation should be sufficient to dismiss such an outragoues claim (i don't mean to insert anything based on simple observation into the article). I don't know a single ancap in person and I am reasonably connected throughout the anarchist community in the southeast. Your philosophy vs. action argument sounds like a cop out to me. I guess if you have no real movement it is fitting to take such a stance. By the way, without action how to you propose to implement your philosophy? Surely not through elections? At any rate, this is a world encyclopedia and since the anarcho-capitalist manifestation is limited primarily to the U.S., there is an entire world of anti-capitalist anarchists to contradict your statement. Blockader 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the beginning there were tribal societies that had no messed up governmental system. Thomas Paine called these new governments 'unnatural'. Then there were revolutionaries like Lao Tsu and Jesus. As far as non-governmental philosophy goes, the U.S., with Jefferson particularly started the debate. He came before Marx, I'm afraid, and made a whole lot more sense, too. Shannon^{duck talk} 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Marx has very little to do with anarchism considering he was very much pro-State Form.vsthesquares

Can someone answer my question? (communist or socialist)

• Above UGF and I had a conversation that never got finished. I asked if in the anarchism that UGF envisioned, would capitalism be forcefully not allowed?

• Also, I made a point concerning having freedom of the press in an anarchism and the ease to which a boycott of a dick corporation could be communicated across a nation. This is a point about how the people would be in control of the rotten corporation situation.

I'd like to get some feedback concerning these two things, specifically from a socialist or communist-anarchist. Thanks. Shannon^{duck talk} 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Experience shows that anarcho-communists would not allow capitalism. The anarcho-communists in Civil War of the 193Os confiscated and destroyed everyone's money and decreed the death penalty for using it. Like Kropotkin said, "money, wages, and trade would be abolished." TheIndividualist 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)No, it wouldn't be forcefully not allowed, people would realize capitalism will only hurt them and would voluntarily give that crap up. You can't force communism onto people, they need to choose it. Now, if one person or group were to try and make profits off of a community through force, then yes, they would be forcefully not allowed to. That's how most people get wealth, by forcing people to work for them with either violence or the threat of violence/poverty. As for free press, who is going to keep the press from being a "dick corporation"? If everything is privately owned, how do you keep the privately owned press from protecting it's own interests and the interests of the corporations who pay them off? The Ungovernable Force 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason that government gives for us needing it is that we people are:

1. Too stupid
2. Too inwardly bad
3. Too irresponsible and
4. Too immature

to run are own lives.

The thing with the press and the rotten corps..we'll take care of it. We always could and always will be able to do that, if we'd ever get the chance.

If you use force, it is no longer anarchy. It is just another form of coercive authoritarianism. Freedom no longer exists. Anarchy does not prevail and does not exist.

It is dictatorship all over again. Shannon^{duck talk} 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that capitalism only exists as a result of the powerful *forcing* their authority on the less powerful. Capitalism is a type of force, so there is no contradiction in trying to oppose it. That being said, most but not all anarchists oppose using certain types of force (namely violence) to overturn it.--Aelffin 03:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Shannon, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thus, do not use discussion pages or articles as a means to propagate and advocate your personal political beliefs. Comment constructively on the content of articles or do not comment at all; do not incite political debate. I have thus far observed your political advocacy in the discussion pages of the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles, in particular. If this type of behaviour persists, you may be banned or blocked for disrupting the collaborative editing process. This notice should be considered a first warning. I would appreciate your cooperation. -- WGee 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And I would appreciate your minding your own business and not pretending to have the blocking or banning powers of an admin. Can you possibly be serious? Shannon^{duck talk} 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As Bishonen pointed out, the "Abuse of wikipedia pages is the business of all good-faith users." [11] I said that "you may be banned or blocked for disrupting the collaborative editing process"—that is not to say that I will ban or block you myself. In fact, you will be banned or blocked if you persist this outrageous behaviour. Finally, I am very serious in my admonishing of your actions, for they detract from Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. -- WGee 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's disrupting the editing process. It's better than people argue here than in the article. TheIndividualist 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Thus, political diatribes have no place at Wikipedia, neither in articles nor in discussion pages. -- WGee 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While I think it is useful to some degree for editors to communicate their own opinions on a topic in compromising towards a neutral point of view, even if done argumentatively, blatantly calling out people in an aggressive way and assuming bad faith of fellow contributors adds nothing, and only increases tensions in an article with a long history of them. Sarge Baldy 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the place to have political debates. If it weren't allowed then it would disrupt the articles. People would argue back and forth more with edits. But like SargeBaldy says above, it just needs to be civil. TheIndividualist 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Political diatribes and debates serve to detract from the improvement of the encyclopedia; they therefore disrupt the editing process and have no place at Wikipedia, neither in articles nor in discussion pages. Regardless of my reasoning, official policy discourages political advocacy in article namespace. -- WGee 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is a policy that says political debates can't take place in an article's discussion page? TheIndividualist 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true at all. In a topic this controversial, you need to discuss things. In a topic this controversial, everyone has their own opinions. Unless we confront those opinions, we'll never build an encyclopedia. The difference is that instead of arguing about who's "right" and who's "wrong" or what's "neutral", editors converse with the intention of reaching a middle ground or consensus, rather than trying to bring everyone "to their side" or simply harrassing them verbally. I would agree that that form of behavior is useless to everyone involved, and disruptive. Sarge Baldy 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that open discussion is beneficial as long as the main goal remains to reach a consensus regarding content in the article. Blockader 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not only my position; it is the position of Wikipedia. As Wikipedia's talk page guidelines state:

"Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. . . . Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia.

Thus, do not use discussion pages as a venue for political debate. Comment constructively on the content of the article, only. If you wish to debate politics rather than write an encyclopedia, contribute to one of the many political blogs on the Internet. -- WGee 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense on a lot of articles, but remember this: ignore all the rules. This is one case where some ammount of political discussion needs to take place. As Sarge says, this is a very controversial topic. People often do not mean the same thing when they say "anarchist" and this leads to a lot of disagreement over what belongs in the article and what doesn't. It is necessary to understand where people are coming from so that we at least know if we are talking about the same thing. I will say that is often gets out of hand here (as a lot of this did), but there is some need for it every now and again. The Ungovernable Force 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point, in case you haven't noticed, it is pretty difficult to get reliable sources on this topic (which is due to the nature of anarchism as a philosophy/movement). There is little emphasis placed on authority (including in an academic sense) and a lot of ideas within anarchism are spread via self-published books, essays and zines, word of mouth and the internet. Reliable non-biased sources are hard to come by for all but the most basic ideas, and even those are hard to find (just look at the debate concerning capitalism). The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. This is a debate about the factual accuracy of the article and the use of the word "anarchism" and as such, it falls well within the above quoted guideline as we are by-and-large keeping "discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article". Besides, the need for this debate is the only non-controversial topic brought up yet. --Aelffin 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a crucial point. Anarcho-capitalists say: suppose we lived in a world without a state, and one in which all enterprises were worker-run co-ops. What if some of those workers wanted to sever their ownership claim in that particular enterprise and sell it to strangers. Would their colleagues allow them to do so? To rescue the example from some quibbles: suppose there were one co-op in which all the worker-members together decided they would regard their ownership interests as severable, and open for sale to strangers. Would the other co-oips (their competitors, suppliers, customers) tolerate this? If so, the nature of the business would change, and withit in time the nature of the society would change, in a capitalistic direction. If not, and if they (the anti-capitalist members of the co-op based world) used force to prevent it, the nature of the relationship would change as well, in the direction of some sort of statism.

To this, anarcho-communists typically respond that in the world they imagine, no one would ever want to do such a thing. It is only because statist capitalism has twisted our heads that we even think of enterprise shares as severable from labor and available for sale. In a better world, no force would be required to keep people from imagining the unimaginable.

I find such responses wildly implausible, even wilfully. But, hey, that's why I'm an anarcho-cap. Well, one of the reasons. --Christofurio 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say ya'll can go ahead and "sell" it to an outside force (tho in a world without a market economy, that seems like it'd be a strange concept). Ya'll can just deal with us using our voluntary and free association to NOT associate with you any longer. Being cut of from the rest of the world/your bioregion/whatever you'll get to experience real "rugged individualism." Now you wouldn't have any "suppliers or customers" as you so put it (considering the other co-ops wouldn't be your competitors because your working together). Granted there are a few more flaws i'd point out. This coop that breaks off, are individuals in it going to continue to work together or begin to compete? because if they're competing against each other i doubt that whoever gets pushed to the bottom of the ladder will just accept it in the name of anarcho-capitalism. And also, who or what is this outside force be? Your arguement doesn't really make sense. All societies are at war with themselves to some degree. But capitialist societies exspecially. vsthesquares 8.11.06

This whole section was created by an account now banned for encouraging this kind of thing. EbonyTotem

I wish I could agree that this was a neutral attempt on Christ's part, but its really just the cut-and-paste "capitalism can't be stopped without force" ancap argument. Anarcho-communist responses vary, of course, but the straw-man "they insist it will just never happen" not only oversimplifies it, but also ignores a lot of other responses commonly given. For example, lets run off the assumption that while one or another capital venture might fail, and indeed many do, having some degree of ownership in a business is more likely give you a return on time and labor than not when the risk is widely spread. This principle doesn't seem too controversial, while lots of business owners go bankrupt all the time, just like land or other property might devalue to nothing, overall investors and owners find their ventures worthwhile or otherwise they would probably stop making them.

Now, the workers in a business have a choice. They can work for a business where they have no ownership stake, in which case they have no chance of loss when the company goes under and no chance of profit beyond their wage, or they can work for a business where they are part owners, in which case their risk is higher but so, of course, is their reward. Given the principle above, we could say that in general it is in the best interests of the workers to have a stake in their own business. Sure, sometimes I'll just want a job where I can get my pay and cut my ties, like sometimes I would rather rent than own so I can stay mobile. But just as I would eventually get tired of throwing my rent checks down a bottomless hole, I would probably eventually want some control and stake in the business that I've put so much time and labor in.

Given this, and given the anarchist assumption that we have created an actually free flowing market (or a free federation of collectives/unions, take your pick), with monopolistic control of the marketplace and practices such as usury and rent that are backed by coercive force (usually in the form of the state but anything is possible) playing a very minor part if any, then how likely is it to be that the vast majority of workers are going to say "hey, yeah, I would prefer to throw my labor away rather than make a return on its full value". Not likely, imho. Not to say it won't happen sometimes, but I think most workers are intelligent enough to act in their own best interests most of the time, especially when its clear to them what those interests are.

Sometimes a cap will respond with something like, "but you just said workers in a business" and "choice", certainly these words can't be used in communism. Hey, true, I like a pluralistic approach myself, but communes in the end are just cooperative ventures, and different communes in different places lead to the ready applicability of "choice" for their workers. Or, in the case of many of the primitivists and post-leftists, their "non-workers".

Now watch to see if an ancap ever repeats this argument, its fun to see the words like "sometimes", "worthwhile" and "tendency" be replaced while they are setting up the dummy punching bag with words like, "always", "altruistic", and "absolute". Always easier to argue against a position that only exists in your head for the purpose of knocking it down. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm your flaw is your saying in an anarchist society there would be a market. Anarchists generally (tho not all) have been against the market economy. See books like Parecon by Micheal Albert and Murray Bookchin's work on municipal economy. vsthesquares 8.11.06

I'd planned to leave this debate be, but I did want to point out one thing, because I hear it too often. You say that workers who have no ownership in a business have no chance of loss when the business goes under, but I think this is simply a bogus capitalist excuse to take profit out of workers' paychecks. The argument that the owners should get paid because they bear the risk begs the question: who is impacted most when a company goes under? Is it the owners, who generally declare bankrupcy, then turn around and buy another company without losing their nice cars and houses, or is it the workers who lose their jobs and can't afford their bills and end up on the streets? No, if there is profit to be made, it should go into the hands of the workers because they are the ones who take on the risk of working for a business. --Aelffin 15:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is all premised on labor theory of value as a justification that profit is exploitation. No serious economists accepts the labor theory of value. It is trivially proven to be an inadequate and false theory. If value depends on how much labor was put into something then the labor theory of value says that diamonds are more valuable than water, yet we know that water is more valuable to life than diamonds. The LTV could not solve the "diamond/water paradox." It took the theory of marginal value to solve it. Value depends on the usefulness of each additional unit of a thing to a person, not on how much labor went into creating a thing. The anti-profit individualist anarchists opposition to profit just falls flat on its face. It is an anachronism from when economics had not yet advanced and people were being fooled by the labor theory. Time to move into the 21st century, or at least the 20th. There is nothing more individualist than allowing each individual to decide for himself what any good or service is worth to him and pay for it accordingly. It is sheer foolishness to think profit would dissappear if government did not interfere with banking (as Tucker thought). Interest is not determined simply by the supply of money but by the time value of money. Not only that but they were wrong to think unregulated banking would increase the supply of money. It would not, nor should it or you would have inflation. Interest/profit would still exist in the system the early individualist anarchists wanted. The original individualists were very bad economists. TheIndividualist 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)TheIndividualist 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not rely on the labor theory of value, much as you would like to believe that it does. What it relies on is the workers maximizing the value of their labor, something anyone would want to do regardless of what theory of value happens to be popular amongst the pseudo-scientific economics professors of a given time or society. It relies on the assumption that a worker would rather make more money than less, and rather have more control over their work than less, in an economy where the choice is readily available to them. It does not posit this as an absolute, but as a general tendency, just as most people given the means demonstrate a preferance to own rather than rent. Now go crawl back into your ideological filter Mr. sock puppet. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone in a free market wants to make more money for their labor then they have to produce something more valuable than they have been producing or become more efficient. Just because you spent a lot of time/effort producing crap it doesn't mean you should be paid for your effort. You should only be paid if someone else VALUES what you produce and only as much as they value it and no more. And there is no way to know what you produce is worth without consulting subjective opinions. You cannot determine worth from calculating how much labor went into producting something. What something is worth is not objective but subjective. Two people agree a price based on their own value judgements of what they want to trade. The idea that profit is theft or exploitation of labor is nonsense. TheIndividualist 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are more than a little lost, so I'm going to move on. Whenever you get out of your box try reading what I wrote and you'll notice it has nothing to do with your response. I'm talking about worker self interest, you are talking about labor theory of value. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone that works has no right to receive anything in exchange for it other than what someone else is WILLING to pay him. That is individualism at its finest. TheIndividualist 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This would be a spot-on response if I was talking about rights. But I'm not. I'm talking about self interest. No, really, read what I have written and scan it for the words "should" or "right". You appear to be talking to someone else, since I'm not saying the things you are responding to. Perhaps you've cut-and-pasted your responses from previous conversations, or maybe that is just the rut your brain is stuck in now. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, blah, but you rather helpfully illustrate your own warnings. Although you start out saying there were problems with my efforts at neutrality, you soon try to illustrate those problems this way: "its fun to see the words like 'sometimes', 'worthwhile' and 'tendency' be replaced while they are setting up the dummy punching bag with words like, 'always', 'altruistic', and 'absolute'.

The one setting up a dummy punching bag here would be you, because I didn't use the word "always." Nor did I use the word "altruistic." Nor did I use the word "absolute." So it follows that if I didn't use them, I didn't replace anything else with them. And I used the word "typically," which is rather different from "absolute."

"Always easier to argue against a position that only exists in your head for the purpose of knocking it down."

Exactly! We agree on something. We seem to disagree on the issue of who is doing this, though. If you wish to get out of your head and discuss these issues with me, that should be easy to do. Read the actual words I wrote rather than substituting some others for them, while falsely accusing me of substituting other words. --Christofurio 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you are saying that you never wrote, "To this, anarcho-communists typically respond that in the world they imagine, no one would ever want to do such a thing." and "In a better world, no force would be required to keep people from imagining the unimaginable." Oh wait, you did. Nevermind. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Within which of those sentences do you hallucinate the presence of the word "absolute"? "altruistic"? or "always"? Really, I wouldlove to discuss these matters with you, but you'd have to try to read what I wrote, and not just what you imagine a straw man might write in my stead? I think we roughly understand each other, and there's a limit to how much we should discuss the merits of our respective positions on the talk page, even of articles such as this where that's done all the time. Drop by my users page some time and we can discuss it ad infinitum.

As to your exposition above, before you started putting words into my mouth you did acknowledge that your own views about what would happen in an anarchistic society, whether capitalism would arise and how prevalent it would become, was only a matter of opinion, not anything you had reasons for. Or I think you did. Wasn't that the meaning of the initials "IMHO" in the context in which you used them? I'm happy for you to have that opinion. Once we get to such a society, we can see whether you're right. I think the subjective opinion you stated (humbly or not) is wrong. But, again, we'll see if we're lucky enough to create that world, won't we? Christofurio 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'll readily admit that speculation concerning the form of an anarchistic society on my part is totally a matter of my own opinion, it is after all speculation. Just as I would expect such speculation to be solely a matter of opinion or repetition of the opinions of others by anyone else who goes on about this stuff in the absence of actual functioning anarchies. Of course, I wouldn't consider a capitalist system of economic distribution and domination in the absence of a political state to be anarchist at all, regardless of how it arose, but thats a totally different issue.

I would like to note that I had not intended the talk of repeating my arguments to be directed specifically at you. As I indicated above, they were directed toward a general trend of capitalists to repeat such arguments but modify the words to make them sound much more sweeping or absolute, you simply provided ready examples like your take on anarcho-communists stating that people would not ever want to sell their stake in a business, or your claim that anarcho-communists think people would consider such things unimaginable. I consider these to be specious dismissals of anarcho-communist concerns and arguments along the same lines of using the other terms I suggested, like "altruistic", "always", and "absolute" to lump them all together and summarily dismiss them, as you did, "I find such responses wildly implausible." Hey, so do I. No hallucinations involved on my part. At least, not yet. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge the speculative nature of the discussion. In a similar spirit of amiability, I'll acknowledge that the word "ever" may have been going a bit far on my part. Still, I was doing my best to be fair to the anarcho-comms, and I would expect an equal effort of fairness on the other side, whether it is always successful or not. The words you put in quotation marks (which, in English usage, generally suggests they're a direct quotation, by the way) don't represent anything I did or would say. As for mny comment about how anarcho-comms think capitalistic structures will become "unimaginable," it is a fair paraphrase of, for example, something you can scroll up a bit and read from ungovernable. "people would realize capitalism will only hurt them and would voluntarily give that crap up," he says. It's wrong to say that this implies that it'll become unimaginable? I think it fair. And as for my final comment on the fact that I find anarcho-comm speculations wildly implausible, I simply thought it would be understood that this was no longer part of an effort on my part to be neutral, but was my effort to candidly state my own biases.

Again, if you want me to discuss why I think that anarcho-cap speculation is a good deal less wild than the anarcho-comm sort, we could better do that on our own talk pages than here. This semantics of it, i.e. the fact that you don't call my views "anarcho" at all, is trivial. Sticks and stones, etc. ;-) --Christofurio 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper Citations

This article has the same problems with citations that I've noted on the individualist anarchist and anarcho-capitalism article. Namely, theindividualist has been reinserting dubious and miscited sources originally imported to the article by now banned users RJII and Hogeye. The issue of theindividualist probably being a sockpuppet of these users aside, the citations he continues to insert into several articles regardless of how often they are removed contain referances to entire books without any mention of page numbers or even chapters, referances to sources that do not back the claim being made in the wikipedia text, and improper attribution of sources to editors of collections of essays without referance to individual essays/authors being cited. As with the other articles, I'm calling for a citecheck until these sources can be independently verified or theindividualist ceases to reinsert them. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check the sources. My library has a big section on anarchism. TheIndividualist 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, though it would be nice if someone who wasn't obviously a sockpuppet of RJ/Hogeye could check. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Dictionary of Marxist Thought (1992): "Although anarchism rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist thought. But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a contemporary variant of this school." Intangible 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Monarchists

Why is the wiki article Anarcho-monarchists not listed under the Anarchism portal? The only ones listed are: "Anarcha-feminism Anarchist communism Anarcho-primitivism Anarcho-syndicalism Christian anarchism Collectivist anarchism Eco-anarchism Green anarchism Individualist anarchism Anarcho-capitalism (disputed)"

Mind you, I will admit the current article is definately in need of some clean-up, but not recognizing it is definately not going to get any attention. Zadanian

Hahahaha... Oh, I beg to differ. "It should be noted that anarcho-monarchism is met with vitriolic condemnation by all other anarchists, with the exception of anarcho-capitalists..." [Stang & Gunderson, 1994] There you have it. --Aelffin 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just because it is disputed, doesn't mean it doesn deserve to be listed. Anarcho-Monarchism is entitled at least to be recognized... I mean for the love of god, we gave recognition to Anarcha-feminism... this is my opinion... I think that along with anarcho-primitivism is total BS... but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the right for them to be recognized. Zadanian 21:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Until people linked the article today I didn't even know this was real. I always thought the term "anarcho-monarchism" was a joke. The Ungovernable Force 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When I made it up I thought I was being funny :s Are we sure this isn't a hoax ? - FrancisTyers · 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For more information on anarcho-monarchism go to http://www.anarchism.gov . Blockader 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL! Am I the only one who sees the irony in the URL "anarchism.gov"? WTF?! Oh, wait, I just went to that site, it doesn't exist. I get it, that was a joke too. Nice one. The Ungovernable Force 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it was. Blockader 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An Exercise in Empathy

Just for the sake of an exercise (and the sort that is sometimes helpful for an editor), I've tried to imagine what kind of beliefs I'd have to adopt in order for the phrase "anarcho-monarchism" to make sense to me. All I can come up with in this connection is the "blessing for the Czar" from the old Broadway musical Fiddler on the Roof.

"Rabbi, is there a proper blessing for the Czar?" "A blessing for the Czar? of course. May God bless and keep the Czar ... far away from us."

It's a joke but ... maybe that's it. A monarchy that deliberately cultivates the impression of aloofness -- of being far away -- might end by being "blessed" by people who don't want to be the victims of a Cossack-guided pogram, i.e. who don't want to be governed. That's still a delusion, as the final scenes of that play help dramatize. But I guess I can see how somebody might buy into it.

At any rate, nobody has yet AFDed the anarcho-monarchism article. I sort of hope somebody does, because I think the resulting argument might be illuminating. --Christofurio 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-individualism

Shouldn't the anarcho-capitalism section be under the individualist anarchism section? Right now it is separated as if it isn't in the individualist tradition. PlayersPlace 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because its not neccessarily in the individualist tradition. Its Libertarians who want a cooler sounding name. vsthesquares

Masonry

Can the poster of the Masonic trivia please cite sources and establish relevance? Many other editors are busy cutting extraneous material; please do not add extraneous material without first clearing it on this talk page. Jacob Haller 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-monarchism up for deletion

I've just listed Anarcho-monarchism for AFD. Go here to comment. The Ungovernable Force 08:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop

Stop with that differences of the XIX century, the anarchists are in the exploration and development of more advanced theories. That differences about the level of property are not a big limitation between anarchists.

Only "anarcho"-capitalist" believe that we continue with the differences of 150 years ago, so please stop pseudo anachists (capitalist)!.

Another thing, something tahat is "disputed" should`t be at the principal definition--201.234.213.2 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the "advanced theories" that you speak of? Have you reviewed the talk archives? --albamuth 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from main article body

From the lead:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.

Can we get a citation for this? Until we get one, this is being moved to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe Berkman's ABC of Anarchism has something to that effect. My copy is at home but i will consult it this weekend and find a citation to support at least a similar statement. Piece, Blockader 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Or Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. Septentrionalis 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in the United States

This section seems to be a bit of a mess right now: it includes a diverse group of anarchists with no clear account of their significance, or of the connection between them. It also omits events and figures that seem significant (Voltarine de Cleyre or Emma Goldman, or the anarchist involvement in working-class struggles that led to the anti-anarchist environment in which Sacco and Vanzetti were framed). Finally, by separating the section from "Anarchism and Workers' Revolution," the article structure implies that American anarchism was not interested in workers' revolution, which is obviously false (during the period of its greatest size and influence, anarchism in America was anti-capitalist in just the same way as European anarchism).

I don't think the section makes sense in relation to the article as it is currently structured, so I intend to remove it, and reposition the content it currently contains as follows:

• Thomas Jefferson - Remove. The section in the article is currently just a quote from Jefferson, with no explanation of its significance. Particularly as Jefferson was not an anarchist, I think he is adequately represented by the statement of his influence in the "Origins" section. But I wouldn't object to his inclusion in the article if someone wants to write a better section here.

• Thoreau - add to the origins section.

• Albert Jay Nock - move to the "Individualist Anarchist" section.

• Sacco and Vanzetti - probably remove; there are lots of anarchist martyrs, more's the pity, and I'm not sure why we should single S and V out. But perhaps we could add a section about the "anarchist scare" in the early half of the 20th century, which would include Sacco and Vanzetti (along with stuff like the Immigration Act that banned anarchists from the US, and repressive anti-anarchist legislation in Europe).

• Proudhon - move to origins section. The fact that he is in this section is what first alerted me to the need to fix it.

With "Anarchism in the United States" removed, it probably makes sense to remove the heading "Anarchism and Workers Revolution," too, and make its subsections top-level sections of the article. Anyone have any thoughts on these changes? VoluntarySlave 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing Sacco and Vanzetti, considering they are two of the most famous anarchists in america and are even taught in high-schools. vsthesquares 8.11.06

Sounds good for the most part. The Ungovernable Force 07:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, instead of having one "anarchist scare" perhaps a broader section on repression of anarchism in general, not just that one time period. Perhaps add Katie Sierra as a modern issue (maybe not though). Also, if I remember correctly it's illegal to have a red and black flag in W. Virginia due to some old laws passed during the mining strikes. I think the real problem will be keeping the section short enough. We might even want to start an article on that topic. Any thoughts? The Ungovernable Force 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This material is great for the Anarchism in the United States page. I've intrawiki'd it there. Incidentally Woody Guthrie wrote a song about Sacco and Vanzetti, its a good tune. At the end he exhorts listeners to "fight on the union side for the workers' rights". - FrancisTyers · 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in the United States

While I agree that Jeffeson's inclusion in this section is inappropriate, no one has given a valid reason why this entire section should be excluded. As a matter of fact, to exclude this section is to omit an important part of the development, history and ideology of anarchism, and therefore biased and pointed pov pushing. LibertyFirst 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to discussing anarchism in the United States, in all its various forms. The problem with the section as it stands (or stood - I've just removed it) is that it doesn't make sense in the context of the article. As I wrote above, it collects a disparate collection of individuals without making clear their relationships to one another and the broader anarchist movement. By including each figure in the relevant conceptual section, we can discuss the American anarchists in relation to Anarchism in general, which strikes me as more useful. It seems to me that an "Anarchism in the United States" section would only make sense if US anarchism had little or no relation with anarchism elsewhere; that's clearly not the case. VoluntarySlave 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The broader anarchist movement? Individualist anarchists are not part of some abstract movemement. They are people for Pete's sake, not members of an organic or collectivist whole! Intangible 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"movement" does not imply collectivism. - FrancisTyers · 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Therefore the organic clause... Intangible 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why individualists would have a problem with the idea of an anarchist movement, as long as the movement is seen as nothing more than an aggregation of individuals. There's no organicism of collectivism in such a conception of a movement, AFAIKS. The point I wanted to make by mentioning "the broader anarchist movement" is that it would be useful to mention not only how those anarchists mentioned influenced one another, but also how they influenced other anarchists, who we haven't mentioned. I don't think this should be problematic for an individualist (unless you're advocating some form of anarcho-solipsism). VoluntarySlave 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Innapropriately large and poorly placed section on American '"anarchists"

Jefferson, Thoreau, Nock and Sacco and Vanzetti do not merit their own sections in an article on anarchism, especially not at the beginning under the heading "origins". Even if the prescence of these sections were justifiable placing them under 'origins' does not fit in with the chronological layout of the article, as people like Nock and Sacco and Vanzetti lived long after anarchism had already been established as a social movement and political philosophy by the likes of Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner, Godwin, Kropotkin et al. Jefferson and Thoreau may be cited as influences by certain American (mainly individualist) anarchists but devoting as large a section to each of them as has been given to Proudhon is tantamount to rewriting history, which is what I see these edits as an attempt at doing. Whoever keeps making these edits is misleading readers into thinking that anarchism was historicaly a largely American individualist movement when this was obviously not the case. I think the vast majority of anarchists would consider these sections innapropriate to this page and that they would be better off in an article on anarchism in the US, or the origins of Libertarianism. 81.79.139.53 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with you about Thoreau, and think he is certainly a notable anarchist (although his section should probably downsized). However, being that Jefferson was a president and founding father of a government, it seems odd to include a section on him in anarchism. And there is simply no denying that placing anarchism in the US where it is in the article is indeed rewriting history. Proudhon certainly should go first, unless there is a section on Godwin. Besides, there shouldn't be a separate section for US anarchism, and another section for anarchism everywhere else. This is being very ethnocentric. And I'll repeat as I've said before, this article lacks an organizational structure. I'm dissapointed to see that the effort to develop a new layout has failed. I had had some high hopes for that. CJames745 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnocentric, definately. I would be very happy to collaborate with you on a new layout for the article. 81.79.139.53 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've intrawiki'd the material to Anarchism in the United States where it feels much more at home. - FrancisTyers · 11:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read your proposed layout CJames and it looks like it would be a vast improvement. The only thing I suggest would be a section on precursors to anarchism, like Lao Tzu, Zeno, the ranters and the diggers etc. (and maybe even Thomas Jefferson!) before launching straight into Godwin, Proudhon etc.81.79.139.53 11:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, although it's certainly not just my doing. I do think that it could use a little more trimming and adding of course, and if people are willing we can accomplish that and reach a consensus as to whether or not we use that layout in the main article. There is also the issue regarding that much of the information in the proposed layout is taken from the libertarian socialism article, which could be a blessing or a curse depending on what we decide to do with that article. I had always felt that the only difference between the two articles was that the anarchism article is mostly historical while the libertarian socialism one is ideological. Otherwise they really should be the same article.

Regarding the precursors to anarchism, I had wondered about that myself. My main concern is that it may be somewhat POV to include such thinkers as predecessors to anarchism rather than as thinkers that anarchists have come to admire. I think the latter would probably be the more professional way to approach the topic. CJames745 11:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think it's just a question of finding references that back up the claim that many anarchists see such people as their precursors. 81.79.139.53 11:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

removing the US anarchists

CJames, VoluntarySlave, 81.79.139.53, and Francis Tyers have made blanket statements without one reference or fact to back one of their statements up. Unless they can come up with some references to lend credence to their statements, the U.S. anarchists stay. I think we all agree that Jeffeson would better fit into the origin section. Please stop exressing opinion as if it were fact. This is an encylopedia not some rag. OceanDepths 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OceanDepths, the problem with the section isn't its factual accuracy, it's that it doesn't seem the best way to represent the information. Please respond to the specific criticisms made above. To repeat myself in brief: the section does not make clear how these disparate anarchists relate to one another, why these particular figures and not others have been chosen, nor why Anarchism in the US should be separated from the other anarchists discussed in the article. If you can produce a modified "Anarchism in the US" section that addresses these problems, I would have no problem with it being in the article. VoluntarySlave 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

VoluntarySlave, I see your point about lack of cohesiveness. I am thinking about a way to work the U.S. anarchists into the article in a way that would fit in better. Someone keeps reverting my placement of Thoreau before Proudhon. Thoreau came first. So please don't just revert, give a reason for it. KingWen_€ŸØãç 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Publication dates:

1840 Proudhon, "What Is Property?"

1849 Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"

1854 Thoreau, "Walden"

(as stated in the edit summary) EbonyTotem 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The American Josiah Warren came before Proudon. He published the first anarchist newspaper in the world called the Peaceful Revolutionist in 1833. Benjamin Tucker said Warren "was the first man to expound and formulate the doctrine now known as Anarchism." (Liberty XIV (December, 1900):1) DTC 05:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Thoreau section still seems out of place as it implies he was one of the founding fathers of anarchism like Proudhon when I don't think he's normally considered part of the 'cannon' (his wikipedia page only uses the word anarchist once, in an Emma Goldman quote! Compare that with all the other philosophers who have their own sections here). He's certainly not included in many anarchist anthologies. It seems odd to have a section on him and not Godwin and also to have his section before Stirner's. I think it should be moved to Anarchism in the US. 84.66.212.179 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article on Thoreau does also mention that Leo Tolstoy thought favorably of him, and he was an anarchist as well. I don't think it's really a good idea to use a wiki article as a basis for whether or not he is useable in this article either. Civil Disobedience makes his views against both statism and capitalism quite clear in my opinion. This nonsense about Thoreau coming before Proudhon is ridiculous, however, and I wholeheartedly agree that if Thoreau gets a section, Godwin should definitely get one. Still, I don't think it's necessary to remove Thoreau from the discussion, as he was indeed one of the first american anarchsits. Where he belongs in the article, I think, and how much attention he should recieve, are the more poigniant questions. Why people keep bringing the section on US anarchism back is beyond me. Anarchism is a worldwide phenomenon, and it's not divided into US anarchism and all other anarchism. If some of the information belongs in this article, it should be here, but not presented in such an ethnocentric (dare I say nationalist) manner. CJames745 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also odd that the section on individualist anarchists is a section entirely about american anarchists, when Proudhon was a mutualist. CJames745 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My argument is not that Thoreau wasn't anticapitalist or statist, or that he wasn't important, it's that giving him his own section here makes it appear that he is indisputably part of the 'cannon' of classical anarchist theorists when he generally isn't considered to be so. I know using wikipedia is a bad way to assess if a person is an anarchist or not, that's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that while the articles for Proudhon, Kropotkin et al usually mention anarchism within the first few lines, Thoreau's only references it once in a quote from someone else, which I think illustrates the difference between him and the other thinkers in this article. Ghandi, a figure many anarchists admire, was also anticapitalist, an anti-statist, called himself an anarchist several times and is including in some anarchist anthologies but I think devoting a section to him here would be innapropriate because his status as an anarchist is questionable. I know deciding who is and isn't an anarchist is entirely subjective, but I think it would be best to limit the number of individuals with their own sections to those generally acknowledged as part of the (sorry to use the word again) cannon.81.79.133.144 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quick look around and pages 10 to 15 of Ruth Kinna's 'Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide' (don't worry, I'm familiar with the original texts too but this was easy reference!) deal with how different scholars, anthologists and encyclopedists have defined this cannon. Overwhelmingly, there seems to be a consensus that the key thinkers include Proudhon, Bakunin, Stirner, Godwin, Kropotkin and Tolstoy, with people like Goldman, Malatesta, Reclus, Tucker making a lot of people's lists too. None of them list Thoreau so I think untill someone comes up with some evidence that he is generally considered of equal importance to the history of anarchism to those mentioned above, his section should be removed.81.79.133.144 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm deleting the two paragraphs in the origins section which don't seem to have anything to do with the origins of anarchism, or be particularly relevant to the article as a whole.81.79.133.144 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of Individualists

I'm wondering about where the Individualist anarchists belong in this article. The current layout has them listed after the Spanish Civil war, which is odd considering that Josiah Warren experimented with mutualism even before Proudhon. Being that Proudhon is an individualist as well, this complicates matters futher. I'm also dissatisfied with the fact that the entire section regarding individualist anarchists is about the US, as Proudhon does belong in that section to an extent. But I'm not quite sure how to reconcile this. Clearly the anarcho capitalism section does belong after the Spanish Civil war. Any ideas? CJames745 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created an anarchist schools of thought heading (inspired by your layout plans) and think individualism should go in this section. I agree the individualist section is too long and concentrates too much on american thinkers.84.66.70.49 09:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm writing small sections on mutualism, collectivism and syndicalism to go in the schhols of thought section. Any editing or additions would be appreciated.84.66.70.49 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new sections/layout thus far. Blockader 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I don't think Proudhon is considered an individualist anarchist. The Anarchist FAQ on Infoshop, though it's not the most reliable of sources, says he's a social anarchist. It says Proudhon's version of mutualism is social anarchist and the Americans' version is individualist. They think the individualist version will lead to capitalism, and that's why the social anarchist writers of the FAQ oppose it. So it may be original research if you include him with the individualists. Also keep in mind that not all individualist anarchists are mutualists. About anarcho-capitalist, it belongs in the individualist section. Obviously not everyone thinks it's "true anarchism", whatever that is, but those sources who do think it's individualist anarchism. DTC 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Proudhon fits well where he he under 'origins'. 84.68.81.56 08:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the direction the layout is taking. This is exciting.

As for Proudhon and individualism, my main complaint actually was that, since mutualism was at that time under the individualist anarchist section, Proudhon belonged there. Now that mutualism has it's own section I don't have any complaints regarding that. However, since mutualism and individualist anarchism do intersect, I think much of the material currently under the individualist section, such as the information about Josiah Warren, and even an entire paragraph about mutualism, should be moved to that section. Regarding anarcho-capitalism, I think that if we were to include a section called "anarchism since 1945" it would belong there, and I do think that such a section is warrented. I'll see what I can do when it's not so late. CJames745 10:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the "recent developments within anarchism" section, and I think anarcho-capitalism might do well there, depending on what "recent" means. CJames745 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section on anarcho-capitalism to the 'Issues in Anarchism' section, under the sub-heading 'capitalism'.84.68.81.56 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tags

What exactly is in dispute with the POV, OR, and citecheck tags? Who added those disputes? We should attempt to resolve them and restore some credibility to this article. Blockader 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They were added by banned users, I believe, so I'll remove them. If I'm wrong, anybody can feel free to put them back up and explain why. My memory is a bit fuzzy, since this article changes so much (and has changed a lot since I last took a look at it). --AaronS 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I think I'm wrong on this, actually, so I'll wait for somebody to speak up. I think that Blah might have added the {{citecheck}} tag. --AaronS 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this whole section has no citations. "Opposition to the state and authority had a long history prior to the formation of the anarchist movement in Nineteenth Century Europe. Many claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works going as far back as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu and Zeno of Citium, the founder of stoic philosophy. The teachings of Jesus too have sometimes been interpreted as anarchist in nature and they were to have a great influence on many 'proto-anarchist' groups in the centuries preceeding the French Revolution, such as the Brethren of the Free Spirit in the middle ages and the Ranters during the English Civil War." I have certianly seen references to Lao Tzu but I don't think the Ranters or the Brethren are considered proto-anarchistic. Even if they were I am dubious as to their actual impact on the development of anarchism. Neither of their wiki articles mention anarchism. Just because a group is dissenting doesn't make it anarchistic. If the article is going to make suppositions about pre-19th century anarchist societies/groups, there are a lot better examples out there than those two. Just my thoughts. Also, the c in Communism in the last Proudhon quote should be lower cased I believe. Blockader 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Marshall in 'Demanding the Impossible' believes the brethren and the ranters were anarchistic, and I've seen others say similar things. If you can think of better examples, what are they? And do we really need to discuss grammar on here?84.64.57.56 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced 'ranters' with 'diggers', who were less ambiguously anarchistic in their aims.84.64.57.56 10:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the difference between "big C" Communism and "little c" communism is fairly important and has little to do with grammar but rather implications. The disparity is equatable to the difference between Republicans and republicans. Regardless, I think grammar does matter in an encyclopedia article if anyone is expected to take it seriously. I don't think that it is an accepted notion among academia that Jesus, the diggers, or the brethren were anarchistic, and since there are no citations, I removed those statements. If you want to include pre-19th century examples of "proto-anarchic" groups than more than half the indigenous societies of the Americas, Australia, Polynesia, Africa, etc would be more suitable. While they certianly had little discernable impact upon post-industrial anarchist thought (which I argue is true for the brethren, ranters, and diggers, as well), many at least actually perpetuated "anarchistic" social systems while the groups in question were dissenters but did not truly embrace the (then undefined) fundamentals of anarchism. We have already had the Jesus debate here and I believe the consensus was to exclude mention of him in the introduction/origin sections. There is an article on Christian anarchism that covers the few adherents to Jesus as an anarchist. Blockader 15:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As regards to big vs. little 'c' communism, I didn't say it wasn't important, just that it wasn't really worth bringing up on a discussion page. You see a grammatical error, correct it. 84.65.9.185 09:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in this instance I think a capital C would be more appropriate as it is part of a heading. But I digress.84.65.9.185 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

From the 'Anarchist Communism' page:

"Anarchist communist currents manifested themselves during the English Revolution and the French Revolution. Gerrard Winstanley, who was part of the radical Diggers movement in England, wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, "The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."[1] During the French Revolution, Sylvain Marechal, in his "Manifesto of the Equals" (1796), demanded "the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth" and looked forward to the disappearance of "the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed."84.65.9.185 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Alert

Vsthesquares, who commented in a few places above, is likely a sock puppet, although the identity of the underlying arm eludes me for now. All of Vs activity took place between 14:04 and 15:24 on August 11, and all of it involved either this talk page (not the article) or Vs own user/talk page. --Christofurio 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

source does not say 'unique'

User:AaronS keeps adding 'unique' to text, something which the source does not state. This is WP:OR and WP:POV. Also, User:AaronS, please do not make personal attacks in the edit summary, such as "pettiness". This is simply uncalled for. Intangible 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll back you on that. It is unethical to alter a sourced edit to say something other than the source says. If he wants to say something different then he needs to find a source that says what he wants to say. He is also deleting my cited edits without any explanation. DTC 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is neither WP:OR nor WP:POV. I suggest that you read those policies more closely (and the correct policy is WP:NPOV, not WP:POV). To continually remove a single word from an article, especially one as uncontroversial in this case as 'unique', is indeed petty, and calling it as much is not a personal attack. A source can substantiate all or part of a paragraph or sentence. It would only be unethical if my edit were to contradict the source or imply that the source is saying something false. I did neither. It is not necessary to provide a source for my edit; to call the individualist anarchist notion of private property "unique" is hardly contentious. It is a notion of private property that is very different from our contemporary notion, and is rather unique to individualist anarchists. --AaronS 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is not WP:OR, then present a WP:RS that supports your claim. It would help the article. Intangible 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an adjective. Unless you think that the individualist anarchist notion of private property is the same as our contemporary notion of private property, then I'm not sure why you're being so recalcitrant. --AaronS 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say it's a "unique" notion, that's different from merely saying that their conception diverges from the present conception. "Unique" implies that it is somehow particular to individualist anarchists. In any case, the source doesn't back that part of it, which does change the meaning, so it's dishonest to make it look like the source says it.

And as for the above issue of OR vs. POV, keep in mind that when it comes to people who want to push a certain view, those often go hand in hand. What typically happens is someone will present something that is their own interpretation and therefore OR, and favors a particular controversial viewpoint, which makes it also POV. That is what is happening here -- you're promoting a novel view which a lot of writers on this topic hotly contest. MrVoluntarist 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You think that a lot of writers on this topic hotly contest the claim that the individualist anarchist notion of private property differs from the present conception? I would hardly think so. If people disagree about my choice of words, that's perfectly fine and reasonable. I would also be in favor of moving the cite to an earlier part of the sentence in order to make it clear that it does not explicitly note this. Or, perhaps even better, we could simply have another sentence that notes the divergence. Either way, I would be quite surprised if the point of this argument is to somehow claim that there is not a divergence. --AaronS 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I should clarify. The individualists may have differed on what can be private property, but as to what private property entailed, theirs was the same as the present. (A lot of people in the past on these talk pages seem to hold the view that the individualists' notion of private property was "if you don't use it, you lose it", but that's clearly not what they thought. A market is, almost by definition, people trying to sell things they won't personally use but will keep others from accessing.) Further, Lysander Spooner's was actually the same as that of modern ancaps in that he accepted the legitimacy of e.g., renting out property. The point is, your addition of the "unique" presents an unacceptable POV. If you want to include a section detailing the specific differences in exactly what kind of property rights the different camps accepted, that's fine, but that article already exists and can be linked. I'm not sure it's appopriate for the level of generality of that passage though. MrVoluntarist 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is important to distinguish between the rights that come along with private property and what can be considered private property. Hopefully my most recent edit cleared this up. --AaronS 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist speaks the truth. Individualist anarchists do not have a different definition of private property. For all individualist anarchists of the American type, that which you produce from the raw materials of the earth is your private property; you really own it, meaning you can do what you want with it and sell it for whatever price you want. Benjamin Tucker simply thought that there in the absence of government intervention that it would make profit impossible. He didn't think you had no right to make a profit. Differences are over whether land can be private property, and this difference varies according to the individualist anarchist. Tucker was against land being private property, because it was in limited supply. Lysander Spooner supported land as private property, there was no need to continually "occupy and use" to continue owning it. Murray Rothbard supported land as private property, there was no need to continually "use and occupy." DTC 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We should apply constant criteria throughout the article. When I tried to clarify that the use of words "socialism" and "capitalism" in times of Proudhon and Tucker was different than today, my edits were reverted. -- Vision Thing -- 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, let us not forget that by some sources anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, and anarcho-capitalists don't reject profit and private property. -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not exactly clear that that is true. There is disagreement. I don't think that there is any disagreement about my claim, but, if you think there is, then let me know. And I wouldn't touch your latter point with a 10-foot pole. --AaronS 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism under Anarchist Schools of Thought

The claims and sources are there, so I would support putting this under the correct section. Intangible 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, please stop making edits to this part of the article until the discussion is finished. --AaronS 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Oppose, per pages upon pages upon pages of past discussion. --AaronS 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that claim is supported by more sources. -- Vision Thing -- 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, whether anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism is a contentious issue obviously surrounded by much debate and therefore it belongs in the "issues in anarchism" sections. Blockader 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment, all schools of anarchism (almost) have been called "not real anarchism" by notable source. Could someone explain what's different about A/C? MrVoluntarist 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What's different about it is there's a lot of anti-capitalists here that want to disregard the overwhelming number of scholarly sources that say it's anarchism and push their fringe POV. We all know and expect that anti-capitalists anarchists think it's "not real anarchism" but they are obviously POV motivated and not published scholars and therefore not fit to put their POV into the article. Whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism must be left to the scholars and the overwhelming majority of them say that it is anarchism. Specifically, a capitalist form of individualist anarchism. DTC 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some examples of individualists claiming that individualist anarchism is more anarchist than, say, anarcho-communism, but I don't know of any cases in which reputable or notable sources claim that any of the major types listed in the template are flat-out not anarchism.

There are a number of issues at stake. It goes a little like this: is it a form of anarchism? If so, is it an important part of anarchism? How does it measure up in significance compared to other kinds of anarchism? Is it an important philosophy? What differentiates it from the rest of anarchism? Should it be considered a "school of thought" (a silly term, IMO), or should it be considered an "issue in anarchism"?

Or it could just be that DTC is correct and that anybody who disagrees with the anarcho-capitalists is a member of an evil clandestine cabal of communist POV pushers. Take your pick, as it apparently doesn't really matter. --AaronS 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a strawman. Your mockery of others is not an argument. Please offer something substantive next time you post or consider simply avoiding this article in the future. Thank you for your cooperation in helping to make Wikipedia a better place. MrVoluntarist 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a knack for ignoring almost everything that somebody writes and focusing in on a tiny little tidbit. Forgive me for my sense of humor, but sometimes I simply cannot take things as seriously as others. For instance, I cannot take seriously the claim that there are "a lot of anti-capitalists here that want to disregard the overwhelming number of scholarly sources that say it's anarchism and push their fringe POV." I apologize for my tongue-in-cheek response, although I thought that it was harmless. If I have sufficiently assuaged your delicate sensibilities, I would appreciate it if you responsed to some of the other -- as you say, "substantive" -- questions and ponderings in my previous post.

By the way, if you can't play nicely with others, i.e. engage in civil discourse without inflammatory rhetoric and clever insults, I suggest that you might also consider avoiding this article. We've managed to get along quite well with even the most partisan anarcho-capitalists without you and DTC lighting a match in this tinderbox. --AaronS 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks, AaronS, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I apologize profusely for not seeing the statements above that you made, which were more relevant. That was an honest mistake. For you to state or insuate anything else would be a direct violation of WP:Assume good faith and I trust you will not flout the rules like that in the future because I understand your desire to make Wikipedia a better place and a more welcoming place. Thank you for that.

It is false that there are no "cases in which reputable or notable sources claim that any of the major types listed in the template are flat-out not anarchism." Tucker is a notable anarchist, and said exactly this about anarcho-communism. If you mean neutral, academic, non-anarchist sources, where is yours that says A/C is flat out not anarchism? I welcome and await your response and expect that you will cease your practice of engaging in personal attacks, and that you will avoid assuming bad faith by assuming that any of my above errors were in any way intentional. Thank you. MrVoluntarist 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

These silly little games and pretentious tit-for-tats might impress you, my good man, but I grow bored of them very quickly. Please, let us agree to a cessation of douchebaggery before continuing this discussion. I'm quite patient when it comes to Wikipedia, which is not the be-all, end-all of scholarly discourse -- or anywhere on the map, for that matter -- so, take as much time as you would like. Then we can stop throwing around Wikipedia policies, which we both know and fully understand, like two little children, and we can stop trying to snipe at each other from behind well-built walls of haughty self-righteousness. At that point, it may very well be possible to engage in some form of communiciation, as opposed to a clever illusion, mired in myth, that merely resembles it, but actually negates it. In the meantime, you might do well to move your eyes a bit upward, to the part of your screen directly below the area where I wrote about sources contradicting the pedigree of various anarchist philosophies. It seems that, having at first been fixated by my horrendeous and boorish ad hominem against the poor DTC, who was innocently accusing me of conspiracy and sophistry, you then, in your excitement at my pointing out that you had ignored most of my text, overshot yourself, now only reading the first part, missing the more substantial middle part. And, to the best of my knowledge, Tucker simply said that individualist anarchism was more anarchistic than anarcho-communism, not that anarcho-communism was not anarchistic. I may be wrong, but, then again, I don't exactly suffer from a pathological fear of innaccuracy. Nobody's keeping score. --AaronS 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS, I do not appreciate your further personal attacks in which you call me pretentious and something else I won't repeat. I'm not playing any games. I erred. I apologized. End of story. Let's move on. WP:Assume good faith, s'il vous plaît. I appreciate your cooperation in editing Wikipedia in spirit of friendliness. And I thank you for it.

Tucker did say anarcho-communism is not anarchism. I'm sure you remember the source? If someone else doesn't (DTC probably has it read), I'll dig it up for you, but I believe it was previously presented where you would see it. And thanks again for laying off the personal attacks this time. MrVoluntarist 18:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS, yes you are wrong. "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." -Benjamin Tucker. Addional examples from other individualists: "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." -Henry Appleton. "There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism." -Victor Yarros 18:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your coyness and amusing display of false indignation are duly noted. We both know that you've had a tendency, in the past, to stalk me from page to page and accuse me of being a liar. So, enough of the games. If it would satisfy you to dig up the source and then accuse me of being lazy or dishonest, per usual, then go ahead. It's only a small point in the larger discussion, which you have yet to address. Same old, same old, it seems. --AaronS 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I will have to humbly request that you engage in wp:no personal attacks and wp:assume good faith. I am not trying to be coy, and I am not showing false indignation. I have never stalked you; I believe you must have by pure accident mistaken me for someone else (I do not believe you would intentionally falsely allege I stalked you, as that would be assuming bad faith, which is streng verboten.) I am not accusing you of being dishonest for claiming not to have seen the citation that everyone is familiar with and which is a well-known quotation of Tucker's. I merely brought up its placement to indicate it should be easily accessible. I appreciate your effort to remove personal attacks, and I look forward to more pleasant discussion of substantive matters with you. When I have time to google, I'll get the source. MrVoluntarist 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

*yawn* I get it. This is the part where you are still upset at me for asking you to assume good faith in the past when you've accused me of being dishonest, duplicitous, or generally evil. Instead of moving on, you continually bring your qualms with me into every conversation, refusing to let them go, despite my own apologies. So, here, in your typical pattern of behavior, where you try to "prove" your "opponent" "wrong" by appling his "inconsistent standards" against him, you play the good-faith apologetic asking for civility. "Now look at him! He's being inconsistent!" I won't even bother attempting to explain to someone as stubborn as yourself the logical inconsistenty of your own strategy. This is getting old, MrVoluntarist. Take your vendettas elsewhere. --AaronS 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe my name is MrVoluntarist. Any attempt to reveal to others what you believe to be my real name, true or false, without my permission is quite a direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and could result in an unfortunate banning. As for the rest, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Let's move on, please. I have things to do and places to go. Life's too short for this kind of warfare. I'm just trying to follow the rules, as you are about to when you remove from your posting history your attempts to reveal what you believe to be my identity in an effort to conform to the rules of this website. I appreciate your civility. MrVoluntarist 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Anarcho-capitalism should give the due of a fringe movement (the sanctioned example is the Flat Earth Society: Earth#Descriptions_of_Earth) with a passing mention. --Marinus 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for anarcho-capitalism being a form of individualist anarchism

• "At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right." -Outhwaite, Blackwell. Dictionary of Modern Social Thought

• "But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a contemporary variant of this school. " -Bottomor, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21 (1992)

• "Today individualist anarchists in the US call themselves anarcho-capitalists or libertarians." -Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994. p. 3

• "Followers of Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." -Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America Abridged Paperback Edition, Princeton University Press (1996) ISBN: 0691044945, p. 296

• "...defended in Murray Rothbard's writings, is that recognition that each and every man possesses the same right to maximum freedom at once disqualifies any institution resembling the state from moral legitimacy and entails individualist anarchism." -Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000) ISBN: 0415181879, p. 243

• "Individualist, as distinct from socialist, anarchism has been particularly strong in the USA from the time of Josiah Warren (1798-1874) onwards and is expressed today by Murray Rothbard and the school of 'anarcho-capitalists'." -Ostergaard, Geofrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications [12]

• "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one...The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency (the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services effectively according to price) and morality (the state claims by its authority to do things that are not premitted to ordinary individuals). -Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70

• "They also generated individualist varities of anarchism most notable for strong hostility to the state, such as anarcho-capitalism and egoism." -Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN: 0748770968 , p. 91

• "Modern individualist anarchism, now most forcefully represented by anarcho-capitalism, has its own problems." -Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN: 0719060206, p. 135"

• In fact, what Faucher and the others had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." -Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004

• "To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." -Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004

Anti-capitalism is hardly a fringe group among anarchists. I have not heard of a single "real-life" (i.e. not internet based) ancap organization while there are dozens of sizeable and important anarchists groups of other mostly anti-cap persuasions in the US alone. Ancaps have not had any presence whatsoever in any direct action, organization, etc i or anyone I know has been involved in. Where are ya'll? The size of the ancap section in and of itself is unfounded and presents undue weight. it belongs in the issues section because most scholars and anarchists, contemporary and historical, have been skeptical of its adherence to anarchist philosophy. Ancap scholars that consider it a form of anarchism are hardly less biased that the "fringe" element you speak of. it is the ancaps here who are primarily responcible for any POV. Blockader 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. It is definitely not a fringe view among anarchists that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, because it is the only kind of anarchism that is not anti-capitalism. That is to be expected. But it *is* a fringe view among scholars which is what counts. And you're wrong about the sources being anarcho-capitalists. None of the above sources are anarcho-capitalists. Several of them are anti-capitalists. One of them even says "as much as I oppose anarcho-capitalism..." but goes on to admit that it's a form of individualist anarchism. Scholars can be objective. But the editors here who are so wrapped up in their hatred for capitalism obviously cannot and insist on ignoring the sources to push their own anti-capitalist POV. DTC 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true. One time, my hatred for capitalism was so blinding that I fell down the stairs. --AaronS 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, it's clear that some sources consider anarcho-capitalism a type of individualist anarchism, but according to a whole bunch of sources I quoted on Template talk:Anarchism, anarchism is a socialist philosophy. Moreover, individualist anarchists considered anarchism to be a type of socialism, as is clear from the quotes I provided in Archive 2 of the template talk page. It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy other than to note that the sources disagree. Aelffin 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, *some* kinds of individualist anarchism are "socialist" and other kinds of individualist anarchism are capitalist. "Socialist" individualist anarchists don't consider anarcho-communism to be anarchism. For example "There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism." -Victor Yarros, "socialist" individualist anarchist. "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." -Benjamin Tucker, "socialist" individualist anarchist. "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." -Henry Appleton, "socialist" individualist anarchist. DTC 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The individualists didn't argue that *some* anarchists were socialists, but that anarchism was a kind of socialism. Socialism is the larger category here, not the smaller. Within socialism, you have divisions between state communists, anarchists, and many other types of socialism. But no socialist is pro-capitalist in the sense we use the term today. The use of the words change with time, so you have to understand the context of the quotes you give. Aelffin 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be opposed to capitalism to be an anarchist. Just because the capitalist form of individualist anarchism is not opposed to capitalism, it doesn't mean it's not anarchism. Basically your argument is that all forms of anarchism are opposed to capitalism except for anarcho-capitalism, therefore anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. It's not a logically invalid argument. Before anarcho-communism was invented, all anarchism was opposed to communism. Does that mean anarcho-communism is therefore not anarchism? The individualists certainly think so. DTC 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry DTC, looking back at my comment i realize i did not communicate my point very clearly. i was on the phone simultaneously. i am not saying that those sources you quoted are pro-capitalism, i am saying that the point is in contention among both scholars and anarchists. because some scholars seem to say one thing and others another thing, anarcho-capitalism belongs in the issues section. if you need sources for those who hold the contrarian view, see aelfin's sources as he invites above. i thought most editors here seemed content with the new layout and organization that began to take shape at the end of last week which placed anarcho-cap in the issues section but maybe i was just being too optimistic about moving on from the ancap question. Blockader 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to pit the anarchists against the scholars, then we would have to put anarcho-communism in the issues section, because individualist anarchists have historically denied that it is a true form of anarchism. They think that the community is a form of authority over the individual. DTC 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read their writings, you will see that community and fair-dealings are quite important to the anarcho-capitalists. Even the Manchesterist *capitalism* article talks about how it's important for free-market principles to be subordinate to morality. That speaks volumes for how distanced anarcho-capitalism has become from it's demi-namesake. In fact, to my knowledge, there is no political philosophy that says community is a bad thing...except for anarcho-capitalists, that is. And maybe nihilists. Aelffin 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists do not say that the "community is a bad thing." They say that the community should have no authority over the individual, because it is not an organism itself so it can have no rights. "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land anarchists deny. I . . . maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves" -Benjamin Tucker. DTC 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so? Most anarchists don't argue for community ownership of land, they argue for no ownership of land. If you're using it, fine. If you're not, then let somebody else. I don't think a capitalist would see it that way. Now, since I didn't address your point above, where you say "Basically your argument is that all forms of anarchism are opposed to capitalism..." Actually, I'll remind you this is not my argument. This is the argument I cited from about thirty reliable sources. It happens to be a good argument, because it's true--after all, since socialism is part of the definition of anarchism, well then ancaps would be socialist capitalists, which is a contradiction in terms--but I'm not citing it as my own argument here. Aelffin 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists are for community ownership of land. "Bakunin in defining his anti-statist position, had declared himself to be a collectivist, that is he believed in the collective ownership of land and social wealth..." [http:// nefac.net/node/291] Whether you want to call individualist anarchists "most anarchists" is up to you. About your sourcing, you didn't provide what you say you provided. Few of those definitions say anything about "socialism." Secondly, they are definitions from the anarchists themselves. Those definitions from the anarchists themselves have to be dismissed. Obviously they tailor their definitions to fit their preferred form of anarchism. Only scholarly sources matter. DTC 20:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, you quote tucker above to make a point but then admonish aelfin for citing anarchists? Blockader 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly. My point was to show that anarchists can't be relied on to tell us which form of anarchism is true anarchism and which isn't. An example I gave was Benjamin Tucker who says anarcho-communism is not real anarchism. DTC 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're privileging secondary sources over primary? For what possible reason? The equivalent to what you are saying here is that only men could be feminists. And to cherry-pick only those not actively involved in politics is itself POV. --Marinus 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, that's actually a very good point. And no doubt there are some people who called themselves anarcho-communist who wouldn't be anarchists by anybody reasonable person's measure. My point is that the majority of anarchists are the authority on what counts as anarchism, not an outside scholar, nor a minority within anarchism. Aelffin 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you accept Murray Rothbard as a source in order for someone to claim in the article that anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism? Of course not. Similarly, would you accept a source from an anti-capitalist communist anarchist that anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism? Not me. Obviously he is going to say it's not. The exception is if they're published scholars that just *happen* to be anarchists and are speaking in a scholarly context. That's why Benjamin Tucker is not a reliable secondary source for claiming that anarcho-communism is not real anarchism. And Murray Rothbard is not a reliable source to claim in the article that anarcho-capitalism is real anarchism. You can say that *Tucker says* anarcho-communism is false anarchism in order to illustrate the views of Tucker, but you can't use Tucker as a source for *you* saying in the article that anarcho-communism is false anarchism. In other words, Tucker's writings can be used as a primary source for his *own* views but not as a secondary source on anarchism in general. DTC 11:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. These are published anarchist scholars speaking for themselves. The majority define anarchism in as absence of both political and economic heirarchy. A few have other definitions. Some outside observers have agreed with the majority, others have agreed with the minority. This is not evidence of a debate within anarchism, this is, in and of itself, a debate. I have not said that ancap should be removed from this article, simply that its place within or outside anarchism should be accurately represented as a disputed issue. Aelffin 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add that no acceptance of any one source should be absolute - we must properly weigh sources (and the opinions they espouse) against each other. Even if you found a source of perfect credibility that lists AnCap as honest-to-God anarchism, it would still be overwhelmed by the weight of tradition, theoretical and practical, which disagrees. I agree with Aelffin that we can ceep AnCap but must explicitely state its contentious position, and that the majority of anarchists disagree that it's anarchism, yet AnCap still self-identifies as such. --Marinus 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem saying ancap is disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists. Who would have guessed? But the majority of scholars, anarchist and non-anarchist, do not dispute it. Most scholarly sources say it's a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be exact. So it belongs in the individualist anarchist section. If you want to put it in some kind of seperate disputed section because anti-capitalist anarchists says it's not real anarchism then you would also have to put anarcho-communism in a disputed section because anti-communist anarchists oppose it with many of them saying it's not real anarchism. Is that what you want to do? DTC 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, are you saying that anarchist scholars aren't real scholars? On what grounds would you make that argument? Or are you saying that most scholars, including anarchists don't define anarchism as a type of socialism? On what grounds would you make that argument? I provided a few secondary sources that say anarchism is a type of socialism, and I provided a sh*tload of primary sources that both back up the secondary sources as being accurate and contradict the secondary sources that say otherwise. How does this not represent the majority of scholarly sources? Now, as far as anarcho-communism goes, well almost all anarchists agree that anarcho-communism is a type of anarchism, and it has had a huge effect on the evolution of anarchism so it deserves a huge amount of discussion even if a few (disputed) anarchists don't recognize it. On the other hand anarcho-capitalism overwhelmingly rejected as a hostile outside group that has had no noticalbe influence at all on the evolution of anarchism. In the field of anarchism, ancap is non-notable while anarcho-communism is a heavyweight. Aelffin 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

the handful of existing anarcho-capitalists have a problem with anarcho-communism while tens of thousands of anarchists have a problem with anarcho-capitalism. did you look at aelfin's sources. you are the one here who is POV pushing here. also, you have too many edits today i believe. 69.55.170.11 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the format for the references: now it shows as a single footnote, instead of a dozen. I also shortened the article a little by removing repetitions (twice saying that AnCaps don't follow the LBV and what it entails) and trying in as neutral language as possible state that AnCap is a fringe view amongst anarchists without dismissing it. The references were like this (note nowiki tags):

<ref name=Tormey>Tormey, Simon. ''Anti-Capitalism'', One World, 2004.</ref><ref name=Perlin>Perlin, Terry M. ''Contemporary Anarchism'', Transaction Books, NJ 1979.</ref><ref name=Raico>Raico, Ralph. ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century'', Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.</ref><ref name=Heider>Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green'', City Lights, 1994. p. 3.</ref><ref name=Outhwaite>Outhwaite, William. ''The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, p. 21, 2002.</ref><ref name=Bottomore>Bottomore, Tom. '' Dictionary of Marxist Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, 1991.</ref><ref name=Ostergaard>Ostergaard, Geofrey. ''Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought''. Peace Pledge Union Publications [http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/dd-trad6.html]</ref><ref name=Barry>Barry, Norman. ''Modern Political Theory'', 2000, Palgrave, p. 70</ref><ref>Grant, Moyra. ''Key Ideas in Politics'', Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN: 0748770968 , p. 91</ref><ref>Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70</ref>

and now are like this:

<ref>Such accounts include: *Tormey, Simon. ''Anti-Capitalism'', One World, 2004. *Perlin, Terry M. ''Contemporary Anarchism'', Transaction Books, NJ 1979. *Raico, Ralph. ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century'', Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004. *Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green'', City Lights, 1994. p. 3. *Outhwaite, William. ''The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, p. 21, 2002. *Bottomore, Tom. '' Dictionary of Marxist Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, 1991. *Ostergaard, Geofrey. ''Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought''. Peace Pledge Union Publications [http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/dd-trad6.html] *Barry, Norman. ''Modern Political Theory'', 2000, Palgrave, p. 70 *Grant, Moyra. ''Key Ideas in Politics'', Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN: 0748770968 , p. 91 *Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70</ref>

--Marinus 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The section starts building on itself when someone makes a claim then someone has to rebut it. For example there was the claim that anarcho-capitalism had no anarchist pedigree so I provided a source from a scholar of political philosophy saying that it does: "it is not in fact the case (as is sometimes thought) that anarcho-capitalism came out of the blue, without past or pedigree. It has a good deal in common with the earlier American tradition of individualist anarchism." (Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. 2002. page 132) You deleted both the claim and the rebuttal which is fine. Someone needs to come along now and then and delete all the argumentation or it gets out of hand. That'sHot 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys are aware that one of the sources quoted above contests the thesis that ancap is individualist-anarchistic? "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one...The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency (the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services effectively according to price) and morality (the state claims by its authority to do things that are not premitted to ordinary individuals)." -Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70

I'm also less than enfused by the attempts to hide the socialistic nature of mutualism and individual-anarchism (market socialism is still socialistic. Terrible POV going on. --Marinus 04:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Effects of individualist anarchism in society?

My and DTC's small rewordings of the an-cap section has lead to this question: if one of the defining characteristics of an-cap which disqualifies it from being "truly" anarchist is it gnot forming part of the greater anarchist tradition, how about the individualists? They are not a group I know a lot about, but they didn't exactly stage strikes, occupations, protests or led revolutionary movements. They certainly struck a chord in their time, but the same is true of the an-caps. I'm not saying that the individualists were not anarchists, but this is something worth considering. --Marinus 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the difference between philosophical anarchism and social anarchism. Anarchism is comprised of social movements and philosophical movements. Individualist anarchism, actually, was also historically called by the name "philosophical anarchism." Their goal is to effect gradual change through education. They aren't revolutionaries. Ancap is in the same tradition, as a form of individualist anarchism. DTC 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Every type of anarchism attempts to change the world through education - see the programme (and effects) of the CNT/FAI in Anarchist Spain. And individualism is no more "philosophic" than Bakunin, or Kropotkin, etc. Even mainly literal movements (like Goldman and Berkman's Mother Earth newspaper) can have a social effect. A split between "philosophic" and social simply isn't cogent, and to posit a set of politics that isn't a social movement is farcical. Politics is by definition social. --Marinus 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with DTC that any political tendency can claim not to be (or want to be) a social movement, it's a question of how effective a movement is. --Marinus 13:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you judge whether social movement anarchism or philosophical anarchism is more effective? Just because you're organizing out in the streets and making a lot of noise protesting does it really mean that you're changing anything long term? Individualist (philosophical)anarchism may very well have had more influence on the way the world has been, and is being, shaped than social movements like communist anarchism. It is *psychology* the individualists are interested in changing, expecting the rest to follow from that naturally. Given the trend toward global capitalism in the real world, it makes you wonder who has been more effective. DTC 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is no different from any other form of anarchism. And I'm not comparing the effectiveness of the two strains (though individualism certainly has had less effect - even in the US the largest anarchist events have been social anarchist ones, Haymarket, Emma Goldman, etc - but this might simply be because it's a smaller strain) merely asking about what effect the one strain has had. And we can do without the snide comments, especially if you have to edit them in afterwards. --Marinus 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any "snide comments." Individualist anarchists don't have "events." They are content to use their philosophy as a mean of non-revolutionary change. Like I said, the term for individualist anarchism actually used to be "philosophical anarchism." Individualist anarchist Victor Yarros says it nicely: "The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the notions which breathe life and vigour into that clumsy monster: in other words, it is only when the people learn to value liberty, and to understand the truths of the anarchistic philosophy, that the question of practically abolishing the State looms up and acquires significance." DTC 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"protesting on the street and making a lot noise"? "Given the trend toward global capitalism in the real world, it makes you wonder who has been more effective"? Is that necessary? No. Also, learn the difference between a phenomenon and a movement. And again the argument you raise (Yarros quote) is in no way particular to individualism as a form of anarchy. --Marinus 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was necessary what I said. That is what I wanted to communicate. I wasn't trying to be insulting. If you don't like what I said, that's too bad. And yes being confined to philosophy is particular to individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is not a social movement. It exists solely in texts. Individualist anarchists are not revolutionaries. That's particular to individualist anarchists. DTC 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's plainly false. There are many social anarchistic trends that are not revolutionary, mutualism being one and Tolstoy's another. Proudhon, however, had a noticable social effect - his part in 1848, the Communes, et al --Marinus 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. DTC 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)