Talk:Anarchism/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Anarchism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Unprotecting

This article has been protected for over a month, which is silly. Unprotecting. Sort it out by editing and discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

Thanks! Hogeye 6 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Hogeye, don't overwrite the whole article with your personal version again. Nobody approves of that version except perhaps RJII and Dtobias. --albamuth 6 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Hey asshole, don't revert to the POV socialist article. Only socialists approve of that version. Hogeye 6 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought all this discussion was about disambiguation headers and putting 'anarcho'-capitalism in the list of anarchist schools. I don't seem to recall anyone saying that they want your version to replace the current article, either all at once or in chunks. Can you honestly pretend that the last month's worth of discussion didn't happen? Or do you simply not care what anyone else thinks? --albamuth 6 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

A month of discussion and you don't even know that we've been discussing the definitional issue?? Bizarre. Hogeye 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I am going to file a WP:ArbReq, in that case, since you persist in being condescending, belligerant, editing in bad faith, and intellectually dishonest. --albamuth 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

An "anarchist" appeal to authority after he doesn't get his way. Caste your eyes upon this specimen.

A month of discussion and Hogeye immediately spams this article with a series of the same edits that have already been rejected numerous times on this talk page and in the article itself. The point of protecting an article is to give editors time to understand their various positions, but Hogeye has used this time merely to expand on his previous edits by way of a POV fork. Kev 6 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Wake up, Kev. There was zero consensus after all that protection. You and I and everyone here expected the inevitable edit war after the socialist faction wouldn't budge in their POV definition of anarchism. Hogeye 6 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

You expected an edit war? I guess you would, since you clearly are waging a one man war to ensure it. Do you really think people are stupid enough not to realise that you are merely cutting and pasting from an alternate version to avoid the 3 revert rule? Kev 6 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

I too agree that Hogeye's behaviour is childish. As someone proposed, major changes should at the very least be commented on talk page. Just for the record, the previous version was insofar ok for me. It was a bit POV, but ok. My only request was that some mention of ac should be made - even if only a short one under some heading like "controversial schools of anarchism". BTW I saw a book about History on Anarchism in a bookshop. Didn't have enough money to buy it unfortunately. However, I checked and it did inclue a small chapter on AC (a very small chapter). So that's the kind of solution I would propose for this article. Luis rib 6 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

I think a small section giving a brief intro to anarcho-capitalism and a link to the article, is fine. Almost all editors seem to think this is acceptable. However, since the purpose of the disambiguation warning is to allow anarcho-capitalists to explicate their view of anarchism elsewhere, while allowing this page to stick with traditional anarchism, I don't think the two should be present together. To state at the top of this page that it concerns the usage of anarchism which is anti-capitalist, and then to introduce anarcho-capitalism as a form of this anarchism, is contradictory. In fact, I don't care if it is the disambiguation or a brief intro to capitalism, so long as it isn't both. Kev 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

I agree with you. Since this is the main article, there should not be a disambig. It should keep the general definition, and that's it. The brief section on AC could then explain how it diverges from the main definition and refer to the AC article. I'm glad we agree on this. Luis rib 6 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is frankly all I ever saw as necessary for the article, as someone sympathetic to AC thought. It is frustrating to be in the middle of this dispute, as Hogeye goes far above and beyond what is reasonable. All I think that is appropriate is a nod to AC's existence in the Anarchism article proper, to show that not all who consider themselves to be "anarchists" are anti-capitalist. The ancap movement is certainly large enough to merit that kind of mention. But for him to try to take over the entire article and rework it into another Anarcho-capitalism is unreasonable and ridiculous. --Academician 6 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Academician, you haven't been paying attention. The dispute is about the definition of anarchism, not side-articles. Have you even read the NPOV article? Hogeye 6 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

I have been paying attention. The dispute is not about the definition of anarchism, per se - it is about anarcho-capitalism's inclusion in the "Anarchism" entry proper. Anarcho-capitalism has its own page in which it is presented as a type of anarchism (much, I am sure, to the left-anarchist editors' chagrin), and this page is even linked to from the disambiguation page at the top. I think this is appropriate separation. What I do think necessary is that anarcho-capitalism be mentioned in the Anarchism article proper, which is something that the left-anarchist editors have rejected in the past but now seem amenable to. It certainly should be pointed out that anarchism is not inherently anti-capitalist from all POVs. But to change the thrust of the primary article on that account is to go too far. Not to mention that most of your proposed changes will never get acceptance from most of the other editors, and therefore it is a waste of your time, my time, and their time to keep reverting it. Just like with anarchism in the Real World(tm), change will never come if you are not practical about the realization of your goals. And come on...show some WikiLove, even if it is not returned. --Academician 6 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

Academic> "The dispute is not about the definition of anarchism, per se - it is about anarcho-capitalism's inclusion in the "Anarchism" entry proper."

?? Which means it is about the definition per se. The dispute is this: Does anarchism mean anything compatable with anti-statism, or does it mean anything compatable with (anti-statism and anti-capitalism). I prefer to strive for Wiki-truth rather than Wiki-love. I love the truth, but don't even know, let alone love, most of the editors here. I have no reason whatsoever to surrender the definition of "anarchism." Don't worry, several of the NPOV people will be back once they realize that the page is unprotected. And I look forward to a VV, who I see from the history pages championed a NPOV article for a long time.

We've been discussing it for a month. No one is close to changing their mind. We all knew this would happen once the page was unprotected. Enjoy the edit-war, and welcome to Wiki! Hogeye 6 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've filed a request for arbitration: WP:ArbReq. Right now it's listed as involving myself and Hogeye, but if any other editors would like to join in, please go to the arbitration request and add your names/entries appropriately. --albamuth 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Fun Again

Finally the page protection is off, so we can get back to business again. I was of course hoping that we could avert another edit war with a compromise - the Neutral Disambiguation Page - but most people apparently prefer the fun and games of edit-warring. Cool. I can dig it. Hogeye 6 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

No, you just enjoy winding genuine editors up by full-scale POV edits -max rspct 6 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

You make your POV edit; I make mine - tit for tat. A definitional issue is necessarily POV for all sides. Get a clue. Hogeye 6 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Fuck off. Can someone permablock him? --Tothebarricades July 6, 2005 23:00 (UTC)

It's not good Wiki to try to muzzle your competitors, TTB. I though you were one of the folks who wanted to unprotect and continue the permanent edit revolution. You getting cold feet already? Better: Are you now willing to compromise by having a Neutral Disambiguation Page? I figure that sooner or later people will get tired of the edit war and compromise. Or not. Hogeye 6 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

It's also not good Wiki to hold your competitors hostage through threatening a nonstop edit war. Actually, that's the definition of POV war, isn't it? Of course that's exactly what I'd expect from a capitalist who can't tell the difference between Trotskyism and anarchism. --Bk0 6 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

I don't see you as a "competitor." I see you as a petty vandal and a troll who should be removed for being a disruptive user who adds nothing to the project. I've done everything I can to "compromise" with you. And for the record, I didn't want to unprotect because I knew you'd stoop to precisely this level. Finally, before the typically petty "LOL UR SOME ANARCHIST LOL" comeback, I feel like we should treat you like a repeat sex offender would be treated on a libertarian commune. It is in the interests of everyone that you stop your nonsense and be reasonable. --Tothebarricades July 6, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

And yet, I've discussed and discussed for two archives, perhaps more than you. My contributions to the article can be seen from the record. I will again be reasonable, and revert to the Neutral Disambiguation Page. Your turn to be reasonable and not revert back. Hogeye 6 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

I wouldn't call what you've been doing "discussion." That you've been talking more than me makes sense considering the argument has been you vs. the world. --Tothebarricades July 6, 2005 23:42 (UTC)

You want him "removed" by whom? An authoritative figure, I presume. Quite anarchistic of you, I must say.

Bargaining Position

Since the socialist partisans refuse to accept an NPOV article, I might as well do likewise. My favored article now classifies non-propertarian schools as archist (per Benjamin Tucker), hence unworthy of serious consideration in the article. But I'll be pseudo-NPOV like the socialists. I'll mention the poseurs and even give them a link in the italicized heading. It seems to me that good Wiki gamesmanship requires that I take the same bargaining position as my competitors. Then perhaps we can both compromise (if edit-wars get old) to a middle NPOV position like Katz and I supported. Hogeye 7 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the disputed issues in this article

I haven't been following the recent developments too closely, and so I have no opinion, for instance, on Hogeye's current tactics. I wanted to say a couple things about the article. I don't really care very much anymore how it winds up, but, generally, I would prefer a disambiguation along the lines of Hogeye's "neutral disambiguator page". However, I consider a disambiguation scheme mirroring the one at libertarianism—which is basically what prevailed for a few months—to be an acceptable compromise.

One caveat, though: above, Kev writes: "To state at the top of this page that it concerns the usage of anarchism which is anti-capitalist, and then to introduce anarcho-capitalism as a form of this anarchism, is contradictory." That is quite true; however, at an earlier time, Kev was deleting a mention of anarcho-capitalism from the article which did not present it as a form of anarchism. Because this is a very long article, I think it's quite reasonable to have a brief redundant mention of anarcho-capitalism. The basic form of this mention should be along the lines of (in more encyclopediac language): "Hey, I guess there's a chance that you, the reader, might be looking for information about this anarcho-capitalism business. Well, remember that header at the beginning of the article? The upshot of that was that we're using a definition of anarchism which excludes anarcho-capitalism. So, if you want to know anything about it, you'll have to read a different article." Remember that a lot of the people reading this article are going to be people who don't come in knowing very much or anything about the subject.

If we can agree on the above, then the only sticking point left is the wording of the disambiguation, and I'm confident that can be worked out without too much discord. I've gone on record supporting something that would specify "anarchism" as a particular intellectual trend, tied to flesh-and-blood people like Bakunin, Goldman, etc. However, there are several reasonable configurations.

A side issue is how to harmonize this article with ones like anti-statism and libertarian socialism. The former would make a good repository for any anarchism (anti-state)–type material that gets kicked off this page. In fact, I wonder if we could get rid of anarchism (disambiguation) and just have anti-statism? As for libertarian socialism, it has always had a lot of overlap with anarchism; if by some weird turn of events, the socialist-specific material gets kicked off of anarchism, that would be a good place for it. Even if it doesn't, these two pages could use some work on un-redundantizing. - Nat Kraus e 7 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

It is true that more than a year and a half ago I deleted mention of anarcho-capitalism before it was disambiguated, there were a lot of reasons for that given state of the edit war then which no longer apply. But if you are claiming that this is recent, that there was no disambiguation, and I still removed all mention of anarcho-capitalism, then it must have been a mistake on my part. I would also like evidence, as I don't recall doing anything like that. Still, I readily apologise if its true. To my knowledge I have only removed anarcho-capitalist sections when a disambiguation was already in place. In fact, there have been times in the history of this article, before it was disambiguated, when I replaced the anarcho-capitalist section after someone else removed it. Anyway, regardless of this, mentioning anarcho-capitalism in an article already disambiguated from the anarcho-capitalist usage of anarchism is not merely redundant (and unnecessary, regardless of its size), it is contradictory. When you tell the reader, at the very begining of the article, that this article is 'not' about a given subject, it makes no sense to then go into that subject in the article. It either does include information on anarcho-capitalism or it doesn't, you can't claim the latter when you are doing the former.

I want to reemphasize that my point was to bring attention to the italicized part of this statement ""To state at the top of this page that it concerns the usage of anarchism which is anti-capitalist, and then to introduce anarcho-capitalism as a form of this anarchism, is contradictory." I was referring to edits by Kev like this, in which he removed a refrence to anarcho-capitalism which specifically stated that it is not a form of anarchism as described in the article. I'm arguing that this sort of mention is redundant, yes, but it is not contradictory or unnecessary. - Nat Kraus e 8 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

As I think is pretty apparent, the disambiguation was present at the time. If you are saying that I shouldn't have removed it merely because the article indicated that it was not commonly considered a part of anarchism, then I disagree. Again, I see a disambiguation statement coinciding with an anarcho-capitalism section as contraditory, the purpose of one is undone by the other. So I guess we disagree. Kev 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Moving on... I agree that moving the disambiguation page information to anti-statism would be a good idea, assuming that the disambiguation warning is removed from this article in favor of a section of capitalism. As for libertarian socialism, that is a different can of worms. Kev 7 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping the disambig header and moving the anarcho-capitalist info to anti-statism. As for mentioning anarcho-capitalism in the article, I would have to say that it's an issue related to the debate over (decentralized) command vs. free market economies within anarchism. Pushing past the rhetoric, I sense that A/C's are trying equate capitalism with "free market" approaches to economics. Therefore A/C could get a mention in the appropriate "Conflicts withing Anarchism" section, but not as a 'School'. We've been over why A/C is not part of anarchism as a social movement/political philosophy, which is how the disambig header defines the article (currently). --albamuth 7 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

You're surprised that capitalist anarchists are "trying to equate capitalism with free market approaches to economics"? Ever looked up the term "capitalism"? (see q:Capitalism). Capitalism is by definition a free market system. A free market system is one where government is not coercively intervening in market transactions. Anarcho-capitalists do not have a non-standard definition of capitalism. RJII 7 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Capitalism is necessarily a free market system. Free market systems are not necessarily capitalist. They are not the same thing. --albamuth 7 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Right, all "free market" systems aren't necessarily capitalist. Take the mutualist model preferred by the traditional individualist anarchists. It's a free market system, but they choose not to profit in their business endeavors (profit being considered an essential characteristic of capitalism). So, that's a free market system that is not capitalist. Capitalism is a free market system that includes profit. RJII 7 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

It is funny though, that RJ would use as evidence for his claim a definition page of wikipedia that he recently edited to a large degree. Kev 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

In defence of RJ I must say that the Capitalism page is not at all his own creation, but the result of a vast cooperation. He did indeed contribute a lot - and most of his edits were quite good actually - but so did other users like Ultramarine or, to a lesser degree, myself. Finding an acceptable definition of capitalism was the issue that too the most time to resolve by far, but in the end a consensus emerged, and the definition has stayed constant for a few months now. I hope we might reach a consensus on the definition of anarchism as well. (for my part the current on is fine, btw). Luis rib 7 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

You are refering to the wikipedia article on capitalism, RJ referanced the wiki quote article, whose numerous recent additions by RJ are certainly not the result of any consensus. Kev 7 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Ah, true. Actually I never look at wikiquote, so I misunderstood. Actually it looks like the former article on definitions of capitalism, to which at some point we were referring to when there was no consensus on the definition. Apparently it got moved to wikiquote, since already then it only consisted of quotes. Luis rib 7 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

I notice that you are using a broad definition of anarchism now, so I added anarcho-capitalism to the list of schools. --208.180.155.240 7 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Edits since 22:59 7 July 2005

I'd like to thank CesarB, 24.113..., RJII, Kevehs, 64.238..., 24.14..., and 208.180... for their constructive edits which have developed the article. Looking through the edit's political content, and some of the editors previous political stances, I disagree with them. However, all the edits made are supportable in an academic disciplinary sense and display NPOV language, emphasis and content. The edits produce a better article, so that if Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe comes to Anarchism they will have a good primer of where to go next to learn more, and perhaps understand some of the division between social anarchy, individualism, and that somewhat peculiar half-breed of individualism and neo-liberalism. Well done. Keep up the good work. Fifelfoo 7 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would like to point that my single edit consisted solely of fixing an interwiki link, and had zero effect on the overall article contents. I just forgot to check the &;quot;minor" checkbox. --cesarb 7 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

I agree, great edits. Finally I can start paying attention to the rest of Wikipedia. --albamuth 8 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

I recant my positive outlook. I turn my back for a few days to work on historiographical issues and the Polish nationalist conspiracy and people turn back to the shit fighting. Fifelfoo 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Critiques Section Needs Work

Right now the critiques section reads to me like this: "here are some critiques of anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism has the answers!" All of the anarchist schools have answers to those critiques, so they are better addressed on the sub-pages, rather than trying to list them all here. --albamuth 8 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Yet again this article has been infused with information on anarcho-capitalism throughout, implying that this is some kind of major movement within anarchism. There seemed to be some agreement above that a small section on anarcho-capitalism is sufficient. While I know that not every editor agrees with that, I think it is a better compromise than either removing it entirely or putting this controversial sub-movement all over the article. My edits will reflect that. Kev 8 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Against my better judgement I've left in referance to both Bastiat and Molinari in the history, despite the fact that neither of these individuals are actually precursors to anarchism. I would like to note the following that are now present in the article in accordance with the wishes of anarcho-capitalist editors, despite its unfortunate effect on the truth:

The definition of the article has been changed to be compatible with anarcho-capitalism. This is perhaps the worst part, as it is historically inaccurate and reflects the wrong impression to newcomers, but if this compromise is necessary I'm willing to go with it.

The anarcho-capitalism section has be re-added. This was necessary anyway once the disambiguation warning was removed.

Molinari and Bastiat are present in the history. There is no point to this, as one supported the state and the other was an anti-state liberal, but again if it will appease the edit warriors.

Much of the article which emphasizes the differences of individualists from collectivists and their antagonism between one another has been left in tact. This is a long known favored tactic of anarcho-capitalist, to over-emphasize the few instances of antagonism between collectivists and individualists and pretend that the many areas of agreement and mutual support have been non-existant. In fact, the article as it now stands only has a single sentence to reflect the fact that in modern times there is little or no hostility between these two groups. Again, I've left this to appease edit warriors.

And then there are those points I removed, which I felt went above and beyond any compromise. In fact, I think the article is already skewed too much toward this sub-movement's POV, and as such I'm happy to go back on some of the above compromises if editors prove petulant about this, and I understand that some editors might feel like all the above is too much to allow. So here are the things I've removed and will stand by:

Mentioning anarcho-capitalism throughout the article to compare it with traditional anarchism at every single turn. This is a controversial and minor sub-movement which already has its own article, there is no need to turn this article into "anarcho-capitalism vs everyone they don't like".

Including the anarcho-capitalism section under "schools of anarchism", which presumes an issue which is controversial. The voice of wikipedia should not be used to introduce anarcho-capitalism as a school of anarchism, though including it as a related concept or in its own section is acceptable imho. Kev 8 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Excellent article at the moment, especially as compared to the version I came across a while ago, which basically said "anarchists believe this... except anarcho-capitalists, who believe this" in every section. I made a (very) minor edit (assumed "ballots not bullets" was meant in the description of voluntaryism. I've never heard of anarchists oppsing the ballet...) and I kind of wanted to take out or refute the critique involving violence in hunter-gatherer societies, since such violence is nowhere near the scale of that initiated by states, but left it in because as an anarchist I'm admittedly quite POV on this issue and it is the "critiques" section, after all. Hope I did this right... this is my first attempt at contributing to wikipedia.. XbenX 8 July 19:14 (UTC)

XbenX> "I've never heard of anarchists opposing the ballet..."

Everyone from Proudhon to Malatesta to Goldman was against electoral politics. You'd like this: Voluntaryism in the European Anarchist Tradition by Carl Watner. Also [1]

Emma Goldman wrote in "Anarchists and Elections", an article appearing in the June-July 1936 Vanguard:

"

1. [The] question as to whether the abstention from participation in elections is for Anarchists a matter of principle? I certainly think it is, and should be for all anarchists.

2. ... [It] is but logical for Anarchists not to consider political participation as a "simple question of tactics." Such tactics are not only incompatible with Anarchist thought and principles, but they also injure the stand of Anarchism as the one and only true revolutionary philosophy.

3. Can Anarchists, without scruple, and in the face of certain circumstances exercise power during a transition period? ... I cannot understand how they can possibly aspire to power.

"

Hogeye 05:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye ... I think he was joking. He said "ballet" not "ballot". There's probably an anarchist or two out there who opposes both, I'd wager. - Nat Kraus e 06:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome! I agree that it should be taken out, but only because it is already present in the anarcho-primitivism page and it does not apply to anarchism as a whole thus does not belong here. I'm also a bit skeptical of the criticism (I believe it actually originated from Bookchin?), and I believe there have been responses to it, so if you happen to know of any it would be great if you could referance them on the anarcho-primitivism page. Kev 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Welcome. The argument has been challenged, so we could put your point in the article. For future reference, be careful not to just "refute" something in an article, which would be considered "original research". --Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Schools

I think anarcho-capitalism should remain here if it's going to be anywhere. I don't like the ideas, but then again I don't like primitivist ideas either - shouldn't matter. Furthermore, it's an easy point to compromise on. --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 02:30 (UTC)

The Capitalist in Anarchist's clothing finally shows in Tothebarricades.

lol, no, I don't think he is an anarcho-capitalist. However, this is not a matter of what faction we "like" or "don't like" personally. I tend to think that anarcho-syndicalists skate too close to beauracracy and procedure, and if we lived in my perfect world only anti-propertarians would be considered anarchists at all. But all of this would follow from my personal interpretation of the definition of anarchism, and that of the individuals like myself, not from its actual modern and historical usage by anarchists at large. So no, I don't think it is an easy point to compromise on, because it is a serious distortion of the use of the term and a controversial one at that. Furthermore, there has already been enough compromise in this article, as I have discussed above. Put anarcho-capitalism under schools of anarchism and we are abusing the supposely NPOV voice of wikipedia, and only one step away from entirely handing this article over to the POV of capitalists just because they complained the loudest of all claimants. Kev 9 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

I usually don't take the no personal attacks thing seriously, but I draw the line at calling me a capitalist. Watch it. --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 10:13 (UTC)

Compromise

Seems impossible at this point, this has gone on forever, and obviously the current editors are ignoring the talk page now entirely. I have to ask you people, Dtobias, RJ, and ChuckO, how exactly do you expect your version to ever be stable if you are not willing to compromise at all? Each of you simply reverts back to the version you prefer and refuses to accept a single point of compromise. I understand why RJ does it, he actually wants an eternal edit war on this article and has said so specifically, but Dtobias and ChuckO, you both should be willing or able to discuss this and help us reach a stable version rather than simply revert non-stop. I understand that you all feel that the article is biased, but there are methods of addressing this other than reverting. One is to come up with creative edits that address concerns on both sides, the another is to discuss this until you come to an understanding. With the exception of RJ, reverting won't help any of you in the long run. Kev 9 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Ah, and lest I forget, Hogeye. Or rather, two new editors and a couple of anons who act a whole lot like Hogeye. Welcome Mykenism and Marxist leon, we really need more sock puppets around here. Kev 9 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

RJ has been behaving better than I expected him to, actually. Especially considering Hogeye's episode of psychosis the other day. I won't take my eye off him, though ;) --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 10:15 (UTC)

One of the socialists has just promised to entice his/her buddies from some "anarchist librarian" list to come here and join the edit war, so I don't know if the capitalists can be categorized as the only ones unwilling to compromise. Maybe I should start recruiting new edit warriors from libertarian lists and websites? *Dan* July 9, 2005 14:21 (UTC)

That's gotta be infoshop.org forum. Hogeye 00:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That individual is ChuckO, who you will notice I am addressing above along with the others. Kev 21:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. My three 'demands' have been met. (Maybe #2 needs some work.)

Anarchism should not, anywhere in the article, be described as anti-capitalist. Specific schools, of course, may be so described.
Attributions to what anarchists say, or think, or believe, should be accurate. E.g. If anarcho-capitalists or individualist anarchists don't subscribe to a belief, a more specific term such as "anarcho-socialists" should be used.
If there is a "Schools of Anarchism" section, the Individualist Anarchist and Anarcho-capitalist schools should be included.

Good going, folks! Hogeye 9 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Note - any attempt to create an artificial binary between anarcho-capitalism and "anarcho-socialism" will be reverted, as in the books section. --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Okay. I added the books without categorizing them. Hogeye 9 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Any attempt to treat anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism without explanation will also be reverted, I'm afraid. --Tothebarricades 22:40, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism must be described as anti-capitalist AND anti-state for the sake of accuracy. It also needs to be described as anti-religious (more specifically, against hierarchically-organized religion). My compromise is that anarcho-capitalists, though they are apparently not anarchists or capitalists, get included because they describe themselves as belonging to the anarchist tradition. Let me ask this:: 'when was ANY agreement made? Maybe I missed it in the 150Kb file this talk page has become. --albamuth 9 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

You are being too dogmatic if you argue that AC can only be included because it "describes itself as belonging to the anarchist tradition". After, normal anarchists and ACs do share quite a few fundamental beliefs, the most important being the rejection of hierarchies and oppression. AC takes different conclusions, true, but that doesn't mean that the founding hypotheses are necessarily different. Luis rib 20:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

But, they don't reject hierarchy. They actively embrace it and deny that anarchism requires its rejection. That is why they are using a different understanding of the word, one entirely separate from its tradition. Kev 21:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Traditional individualist anarchists in the American tradition do not oppose boss/employer relationships. That's what you mean by hierarchy right? So, according to you that means they're not anarchists. Is this correct? RJII 00:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If they have equal pay for equal hours worked, and the individualist employee can leave the business and start their own with loans made at cost, then its not much of a hierarchy, no. Kev 04:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You are a right -- the most compelling argument for A/C inclusion is not that they want to belong, but that they are against hierarchies of any sort. The binding definition of anarchism in the intro needs to stress that. --albamuth 21:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC) Also, I have not been convinced A/C's and anarchists share quite a few fundamental beliefs, as Luis rib wrote. Being against collective property is not inherently anarchist. Being against the state for reasons other than it being a social power hierarchy (you know what I mean) is not inherently anarchist. --albamuth 22:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The most compelling argument for including anarcho-capitalism is that it is anti-statist. IOW it satisfies the definition of anarchism. Hogeye 16:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is anti-statist, of that there is no doubt. But anarchism is, and has always been, more than merely anti-statist. Kev 18:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Some people, organizations, and movements attach other baggage to "anarchism", certainly, but that doesn't mean that it's part of the definition. Some people regard "America" as meaning just the United States, and may further associate it with such things as "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet", but that doesn't mean that South America isn't "America" too, or that somebody who prefers football, hamburgers, cherry pie and Ford is any less American. *Dan* 18:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Baggage? Who are you to determine what is baggage in the anarchist tradition and what is not? Why should a group of people hostile to the tradition of anarchism be able to define for wikipedia readers what constitutes baggage based on their own political views? If you guys insist on having a disambiguation warning then I will support it, but that means that this page would no longer be about the anarcho-capitalist unique views on what anarchism is and is not. Kev 03:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone claim that anarcho-capitalism is traditional. But it's a fallacy of reasoning to think that a philosophy is not anarchism just because it's newer and different than older philosophies. Besides, maybe it is traditional by now ...anarcho-capitalism was developed a few lifetimes ago. RJII 03:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone claim that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism merely because it is newer and different than older philosophies. And really, if anarcho-capitalism began with Molinari, then the cave-men were primitivists and AC is still in its infancy. Otherwise, lets stick to reality rather than AC dreamland. Kev 04:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Then I don't know where you've been. The argument of the opposition to including anarcho-capitalism as being anarchism has been that anarchism has traditionally been anti-capitalist. RJII 13:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that is one of the arguments, out of at least 5 distinct ones. In itself, the tradition argument means very little. Taken together with the entailments of the etymology being contrary to institutions supported by capitalism, the hostility of ACs to anarchism (which goes along with their attempts to completely redefine it and over-emphasize their own importance), the foundations of its philosophy being contrary to capitalist aims, and its modern usage amongst anarchists and most authors, the tradition argument adds one piece of evidence. Personally, for me, the fact that every single anarchist before the creation of "anarcho"-capitalism specifically rejected capitalism as incompatible with their philosophical views, pretty much speaks for itself, even if all those people are long since dead and capitalists have no problem distorting the few snippets of text they have co-opted from them. Kev 15:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Two versions of Critique section?

There are currently two almost identical versions of the Critique section in the article. I refrained from editing it because of the ongoing edit war. --Juanco 9 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

Examples of modern day anarchism

The article, being pretty huge already, could probably benefit from moving the list of world-wide current anarchist projects to another page, with a brief description pointing to it? In fact, shouldn't it all just be moved to the already existing, past and present anarchist communities? Kev 22:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I deleted it, with a note to look at the list of orgs at the end of the article.

I don't think outright deletion was proper, it probably had information that should be merged with the past and current article, but I'm left with very little time to fix it given your recent behavior. Kev 20:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Someone dumped the info into Anarchy. Hogeye 21:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good...

... when Kev's not around. Hogeye 00:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You sure went from serious editor to blatant troll pretty fast. Kev 04:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Rothbard's chapter online now, thanks to Lew! Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681–1690 Hogeye 04:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye's Template

Do not put that horrendous template ANYWHERE. It should be deleted promptly and with extreme prejudice. --Tothebarricades 00:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise on books

I will allow one book, preferably by Rothbard, to be listed in this section. Obviously, this is still a severe overrepresentation considering the small number of books on the list. --Tothebarricades 01:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I've tried to compromise with the biggest POV warriors on several accounts, see above. Not a single one of them responded, but all of them went on to push further and further to make this an "anarcho-capitalism" vs "anarcho-socialism" article, in the image of their own POV. No more compromises for me until one of them steps up to the plate. At this point I would take Nat Krause's compromise if the others fell in line, but it wouldn't be good enough for them. Kev 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Any time I find the anarcho-capitalist books censored out, I will replace them. Any time I find anarchist classics like Oppenheimer's "The State" and Spencer's "Social Statics" censored out, I will replace them. Hogeye 16:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist books are specifically for a sub-movement, they do not apply to general anarchism. Perhaps more importantly, that sub-movement is controversial and a minority, so wikipedia NPOV policy does not require that we redundantly list them twice, both in this and the AC article. Kev 18:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking it'd be a bit like listing an equal amount of Latvian Orthodox and non-Latvian Orthodox books in the Christianity article. It's hardly censorship, so stop whining. --Tothebarricades 19:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich addition to Books

Reich is an interesting case because of his idiosyncratic nature. He refused to adopt any ideological label, preferring instead to coin redundant terms like "work-democracy".

His work in The Mass Psychology of Fascism is important because it lays out the preconditions for reactionary thought and ideology, explaining (in unfortunately laborious Freudian prose) not only its formation but also how it is nurtured and harnessed by authoritarian regimes (taking Nazi Germany as the primary case study). He goes on to present his "work-democracy" theory as essentially orthodox early 20th-century Kropotkin anarchism. It's obvious that he didn't really get (or care) what the anarchists of the time were saying, preferring to write his own version instead.

Mass Psychology is a classic antiauthoritarian work, despite not being nominally anarchist. Therefore I don't think it qualifies as original research to include it here. --Bk0 02:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think I'd prefer only to have works that are canonical and explicitly anarchist in the books section; I'd like to see what others think. I'm making an exception to this rule for the Rothbard book, but this seems to be a necessary compromise. --Tothebarricades 03:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree.. although Reich is undoubtedly a major scientific figure connected with the Beat generation, sexual revolution and was originally a Marxist - he doesn't belong in the Anarchism article -max rspct 16:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There is an essay on him in the excellent "Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas" by Robert Graham but interestingly nothing by him. The essay on him was written by an anarchist. --Tothebarricades 23:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reich wrote about how great Russia was in Sex Pol. He ain't no anarchist. His individualism stems from his egomania more than any ideology about freedom. Though Dusan Makavejev's film about Reich is a little more anarchist because it critiques the state. An An 23:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Reich was a former commie, and I'm not going to defend that, but he did eventually give it up, calling the Soviet system "Red Fascism". He was an egomaniac too, obviously. But Mass Psychology is still important for radicals to read—or Maurice Brinton's book The Irrational In Politics, which is sort of an anarchist summary of Reich's themes (available from See Sharp Press). --Bk0 21:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Newbie pops up to stir the pot again...

What a mess; I'm not even going to begin trying to edit this article. But I have been watching this dispute and a few things need to be said (or re-said), especially this:

The Wikipedia article needs to be primarily history-based; categorization should be secondary.

The "traditional anarchists" -- folks like "albamuth" -- have argued against the over-bearing presence of AC history in the Wikipedia article -- as promoted by folks like "Hogeye" -- primarily due to the idea that anarcho-capitalism has a relatively minor place in history as opposed to what is traditionally considered "Anarchism." Tradition isn't everything, but a historical account of the development of Anarchism tends to most effectively put sub-groupings in their proper places.

Anarchism appears to have kicked into effect with the writings and ideas of Proudhon -- all instances before Proudhon should probably be termed "proto-Anarchist." Anarchism then divided into two emphases:

a. collectivism: "for the good of the many" (primarily in Europe?)

b. individualism: "individual needs, first" (primarily in the United States?)

From here, the historical discussion took the form of "How do we best promote and sustain our specific emphasis?" Obviously, "the State" isn't a good answer; thus, Stateless socio-economic forms of organization had to be discussed. Economics appeared as the preferred choice of discussion, with two well-known views at opposite ends of a spectrum of views: socialism and capitalism. And this appears to be the discussion that is still being had today.

The whole Wiki-debate is centered on "What is anarcho-capitalism's place in the history of Anarchism?" Now, if you read into his actions properly, Hogeye clearly understands the importance of "historical significance." This is most clearly seen in his table "Timeline of Modern Anarchism" where he labels Gustave de Molinari as the "[F]irst anarcho-capitalist." If Molinari were not cast in this role, folks like Hogeye would have only Murray Rothbard, et al. to fall back on, people who came much later than Molinari. Simply put, Molinari is Hogeye's "foot" in the door of history.

This is a multifaceted problem. I'm simply not familar enough with Molinari's works to argue whether or not he was an anarcho-capitalist, let alone whether he would have claimed such a title. But I will ask this: does it matter if Molinari was the first AC? What seems to be more important in a discussion of historical significance is "lasting-effect": a sub-group's importance can be based on its literary/philosophical wealth, span of significant existence, number of adherents, etc. Albamuth has made a similar argument, and I believe it is the correct one.

Let me explain: Molinari as "first anarcho-capitalist" does not appear to have any philosophical heirs until the 1940's and 1950's, nearly a century from his first publications. Interestingly enough, in the current AC-friendly version of the Anarchism article the writers acknowledge Molinari as one of many "influences" on AC, but not an anarcho-capitalist himself. The people he was listed with were individualists, not capitalists, and I believe that this distinction is what should be noted: no matter what Molinari's views were, anarcho-capitalism did not come into maturity until long after the primary individualists.

In short, Molinari was one individualist-anarchist out of many, not an anarcho-capitalist. Ergo, anarcho-capitalism should be kept in its proper place -- a sub-group of "individualist" -- and not be given so much attention in the Anarchism article. Unlike albamuth and others, I will acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism is a "school of thought" (whatever that means in the first place); however, it is also a third-tier, economics-specific derivation of the Anarchism put forward by Proudhon, et al., and is also a point-of-view that has come to maturity very late in the game relative to other schools. My recommendations:

a. AC should be treated as a new-comer philosophy.

b. AC should be given a minimum of mention under the category of "individualist anarchism."

c. AC should be mentioned in the conflicts between economic emphases (i.e. "capitalist vs. communist").

d. If the ACs would like a link from "Anarchism" to "Anarcho-Capitalism," editors should oblige.

That said, my arguments do not address what is or is not a legitimate "school" of Anarchist thought. Let me say simply this: categorization within schools should be based on the willingness of a school to accept a list of institutions. In other words, "profit sucks, but private property is a must" would be one school and "free markets are great, but property should be collectively owned" would be another. If you wish me to ellucidate, I will; currently, I'm tired and I want to go get something to eat.--TelemachusSneezed 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right that the American tradition is all about individualism, while the European tradition is about collectivism. This is foundational to understanding philosophical anarchism. Unfortunately, this article for quite awhile has been under the control of people who apparently were not aware of the American tradition and believed that all anarchism was a Euro-brand of collectivism, and anti-private property, and all about rioting in the streets and breaking shop windows. And you're right that anarcho-capitalism is individualist, though not traditional individualist. RJII 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Acutally, RJII, was not arguing "America = rugged individual" (note ?'s); I was merely noting that historically individualist-anarchism was slightly more successful in America. As albamuth lays out below this comment, the America/Europe distinction is tenuous. While it seems as though the "American tradition" as you call it appears to have a more individualist bent, it doesn't appear that it is much of a bent. This is such a moot point anyways; the America/Europe thing I wrote was just to get people's feelings on the matter.

More importantly: stop incessantly trying to turn this into a "mindless socialist robot" vs. "heroic self-made capitalist man" conflict. The rhetoric used by you, Hogeye, and others on this site has been combative, simple-minded, and overly dichotomous. You all sound like politicians trying to "fire up the troops" against the Red Hordes: "You're not a capitalist!? Put up your fists, pussy, and fight like a man! You'll pry this Wikipedia article from my cold dead hands!" Give it a rest, stop treating us all like co-conspiritors, and talk to us like people. --TelemachusSneezed 01:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points, though I must point out that I have argued against using tradition as the criteria for definition. I'm not opposed to RJII's recent, many edits, either -- I read them and believe them to be honest, fact-based edits. However, I would not characterize US anarchism as primarily "individualist". Probably the most notable of US anarchist activities was the founding of the IWW, which involved Lucy Parsons and Eugene Debs (who was part of the Socialist Party, I believe). Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltairine de Cleyre, and their contemporaries at the turn of the century were of the communist/syndicalist persuasion (though Voltairine was the first to declare herself an "anarchist without adjectives"). As far as willingness to accept a list of institutions, that would be a messy distinction. Again, I would advocate a evolutionary epistemological approach to illustrate the orgins and inculcation of various memes into the anarchist movement. I still don't think listing "schools" is an accurate way of presenting the various anarchist ideas/terms, however people seem to have a Linnaean bias towards epistemological taxonomy, so I guess that's the way it's gotta be. Personally, I would prefer a nonlinear analysis of anarchist history, but since there is no source material, it would constitute orginal research. --albamuth 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On the America --> individualist :: Europe --> collectivist notion, I was just trying to get a feel for what the thoughts of people were on such a pseudo-categorization (hence the ?-marks). I too feel it's a false dichotomy, but from the way RJII, Hogeye, et al. talk, I got the impression that such a dichotomy inhabits their minds; e.g. the romanticization of Tucker and Warren as direct precursors to anarcho-capitalism so as to strengthen the perceptual links between A-"individualism" and A-"capitalism."

On the subject of taxonomy, I too would prefer a more "non-linear" way of categorization. The "evolutionary epistemology" approach sounds great, but it also sounds similar to what I was talking about above:

(a) Evolution is by its very nature history-based

(b) When talking about the products of evolution -- species, genus, etc. -- one must lay out the similarities and differences among organisms.

I've already attempted to layout (in a simplified fashion) the historical contexts within which Anarchism has existed. By looking at things from an "institution-based" focus, I was merely attempting to fulfill requirement (b), using obvious distinctions between ideas and groupings of ideas to layout the structure of what we lovingly call Anarchism. I disagree that such an organizational method would be too difficult, one must merely use discretion when labeling a major versus a minor difference (which I suppose is what this entire debate is about in the first place ;-D).

Taking what I've added, I'll just summarize my original thoughts with a little more fleshing out: the primary structure of the article should be historical divisions; within each division, lay out the prominent ideas and groups of ideas; give some minor discussion of historical conflicts -- i.e. individual vs. individual -- and save the end of the article for the over-arching conflicts -- i.e. idea vs. idea.--TelemachusSneezed 00:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention Max Stirner was a European, and this simplistic American/European divide sorta leaves out the rest of the word and ignores all the evidence that contradicts it. Kev 03:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Max Stirner did not believe in private property. Hence the dilineation of the American individualist tradition (liberal anarchism). RJII 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tucker didn't believe in any kind of private property beyond what Proudhon believed in. So how are you artificially going to divide these two in order to fit your scheme. After all, Proudhon was (gasp) a European. Kev 03:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One person does not make a tradition. RJII 04:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

True, but it breaks a false generalization. Of course, you continue to ignore the evidence above concerning the fact that anarcho-communism had an american tradition as well. Doesn't fit your scheme, does it? Well hey, include the fact that Goldman was not born in the states (merely lived most of her life there), and you only have half a dozen counter examples to deal with. Remeber, ignore the evidence that goes against your worldview, otherwise it might change. Kev 04:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that all American anarchists have been individualists --of course there have been collectivist anarchists in America (duh!). The point is that America is the locale of the liberal individualist anarchist tradition. RJII 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I will gladly accept this as the backpedaling it is on your part, "that the American tradition is all about individualism, while the European tradition is about collectivism". Kev 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

My point there is not that there are no collectivists in America. My point is that the distinguishing characteristic of Americanism is individualism, as opposed to any kind of tribalism or collectivism. Those who founded America were individualists, as were the traditional individualist anarchists in America. And, that fiber of individualism is what exemplifies and even sometimes isolates America from much of the rest of the world. Those who came to America rejected all forms of collectivism, including democracy.

That is funny, I can think of dozens of prominent collectivists of every sort who both immigrated to America and were born there. You have a soft spot for overly broad generalization. 02:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

America, at its root is extremely individualist and pro-private property as a result. The American individualist anarchists were adamant about being free to "disconnect" (Warren) oneself from others. Collectivism, though it exists, is not traditional in America --individualism is. RJII 15:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you can speculate all you want about the subjective determination of what constitutes "tradition" in America and what does not. Further, you can continue to ignore all the evidence that goes against your speculation. All that I ask is that you leave it out of the wiki articles, except for when it is quoted from prominent individuals relevant to the section. Kev 02:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we we should refer to Molinari as an individualist anarchist when he had no attachment whatsoever to the individualist anarchists around that time, when he never associated himself with anarchism in any way, and when he advocated capitalism which all anarchists of every kind rejected. Molinari is only an individualist if we revisit the question -after- the creation of anarcho-capitalism, from their own perspective. In other words, if we revise history with a particularly biased understanding that support their own worldview. No, Molinari was not an individualist, and neither are the anarcho-capitalists who claim him as a forebearer. Individualist anarchism rejected capitalism, not merely on technical grounds (opps, we got LTV wrong, I guess it turns out that those people we spewed so much bile at were actually our buddies), but due to fundamental differences in perspective of what constitutes social justice and rejection of human domination. Kev 03:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev: "I don't think we we should refer to Molinari as an individualist anarchist when he had no attachment whatsoever to the individualist anarchists around that time, when he never associated himself with anarchism in any way, and when he advocated capitalism which all anarchists of every kind rejected."

I guess you're not aware that Molinari's book "The Society of Tomorrow" was reviewed in Tucker's magazine "Liberty" in 1904. The reviewer called Molinari an anarchist and warned him not to come to the US or he'd be arrested under the anti-anarchist laws of the time. "For, whether he knows it or not, he is an Anarchist. He disbelieves in organized government, even in a government of and by Roosevelt. According to him, in the society of tomorrow there will be no government in the present sense of the term." [2] --70.178.26.242 15:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are not individualists? So they're collectivists? RJII 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

They are not -anarchist- individualists. And unlike you, I live in a world where not everyone falls cleanly into one of these two categories. Ever heard of the anarchists without adjectives? Or how about the emphasis that modern anarcho-communists place on individual autonomy? Kev 03:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Then say what you mean next time. Clearly, anarcho-capitalists are individualists. As far as anarcho-communists, communism is collectivism by definition. Collectivists cannot be individualists. Ever seen a communist advocate "sovereignty of the individual"? RJII 04:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You really don't know anything about the history of anarchism, do you? Did you even know that collectivist and communist anarchists were once at odds? Stop bothering me until you learn something, I have no time for your narrow categories designed for minds in need of simplicity. You only parrot what McElroy and Rothbard have told you to believe. Kev 04:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't know anything about communism do you? Communism IS collectivism. The terms are interchangeable. Communism is the purest form of collectivism. [3] RJII 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You go ahead and ignore history, sticking instead to the definitions you've been spoon fed by the one or two articles you've read. Do you think I'm making this up just to get a rise out of you? Honestly now, go find out for yourself. Prove me a liar. Kev 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this behavior from you before. You're very predictable and transparent. RJII 15:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am both a collectivist and an individualist. So are others. There is no contradiction. --Tothebarricades 18:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists disagree, hence the moniker and explicit denunciation of collectivist concepts. For example, Benjamin Tucker says "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 prerogatives beyond those of the individuals themselves." RJII 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Some early individualists disagreed, for certain, and perhaps some still would. But then again, back then collectivist anarchists had not embrace many of the individualist tenets and incorporated them into their own theories. Today the issue is more complicated and the distinction less clear. Kev 21:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, settle down, you guys. Points I agree with:

American anarchism is unique in that Individualism arose in the States and not elsewhere.
Individualists DID denounce collective property, back in the day and it was a heated debate.
Contemporary anarchists (not 100 yrs ago -- today!) are much more wary of labels and dogma, and are much more sophisticated in their organizational systems, hence the collective property / private property debate is no longer relevant, to contemporary, mainstream anarchists. (By that I am not including AC's, of course).

I think the issue was resolved when the meme of maximize individual autonomy entered the movement, somewhere in the mid-twentieth century. By that anarchists realized that in some cases collective property is inefficient, and compromises must be made in those cases. This does not give up on the case against property in general. The idea was that objects and land are "managed" by individuals, as part of their personal possessions, and personal responsibility for things tends to take care of those things a lot better (in response to the diffusion of responsibility effect that would take place on collectively-run farms in Soviet Russia). The objection to ownership is metaphysical -- for example, Donald Trump may think he owns a lot of buildings, but in reality, he doesn't own a thing, not even the clothes on his back. So even collective ownership is nullified. The anarchist practical approach (among practicing anarchists, not Internet prosyletizers) is to think of it as possessorship and not ownership. "I may possess this useful tool now, but someday someone might need it and I'll lend it to them and they might forget to give it back. In that case, I'll tell them how inconvenienced I am by not possessing that tool and if they're a good friend, they'll probably give it back." The attitude of "this is MINE! That is MINE!" is heavily frowned upon. What is also frowned upon is abusing someone else's personal possession.

The point is, from all of the ideas at the turn of the century, anarchist practice has evolved into a culture that has no strict definitions, but like all cultures, as its own form of ettique (sp?) for dealing with such things. --albamuth 18:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a problem if people are running around calling themselves anarchists without knowing what their position is. RJII 14:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Kev 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive 21 Created

Whew, that's a lot of talk. I took the liberty of leaving the "Summary of Arguments" thing in, because it might be useful to keep adding to it or modify it. --albamuth 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Free Market vs. Laissez Faire in description of anarcho-capitalism

We need to figure this out. What would tell the whole story in the fewest words possible? --albamuth 22:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A free market is one where people are trading without coercion, either by an intervening 3rd party (government) or amongst themselves. Laissez-faire only means the government isn't a coercively intervening. Capitalists indeed favor a market economy, and favor a market economy where people aren't employing what anarcho-capitalists (as well as traditional individualists) perceive to be coercion (physical force, the threat of it, or fraud) (in other words a "free market"). Traditional individualist anarchists favor a free market economy as well. For anarcho-capitalists, private ownership of the means of production (including raw land) operated for profit and a free market, tells "the whole story." For traditional individualist anarchists, it's private ownership of everything except raw land and a free market. RJII 22:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case the distinction of being for or against free markets is unneccessary. The key distinction between the individualists and capitalists is labor theory of value and subjective theory of value. --albamuth 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean it's unnecessary? The "free" part or the "market" part? I think "free market" is essential. That's what makes them ANARCHO-capitalists --the fact that they oppose coercion, both all interpersonal coercion and all and 3rd party interventionist coercion. Otherwise, they're ordinary capitalists that accept a modicum of economic statism (as in a relatively free market). The "market" part is necessary because that's what distinguishes them from anarchists who oppose a market economy in favor of a gift economy or other such configuration. RJII 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of anarchists, besides individualists, favor a free market approach to economic distribution/production. The pricing system is what differentiates anarcho-capitalists -- even anarcho-communists are not necessarily against a market economy, so long as it's based on the labor theory of value. Gift economies can also be a free market, rather than a command economy. It may be a minor nuance, one that is better explored in Anarchism and capitalism or anarchist economics, but to sum up the differences in one or two sentences for the purpose of the main article, so I think it would be better to use the terms precisely. IMHO a lot of people have misconceptions of what a "free market" really means and implies, so we should not reinforce the misconception. --albamuth 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A market is a place where people buy and sell. Certainly, not all anarchists favor an economy based in trade. And anarcho-communists oppose wages even if they do adhere to the labor theory of value. It's the individualists that don't oppose wages. Also, if there is no private property there can be no market. One must have private property to be able to make the decision to hold on to a thing or trade it for something else. Believing in a market economy is not hardly universal among anarchists. Look in this article even.."Anarcho-communism shares many things in common with anarcho-syndicalism, but generally strives for a society without markets..." If you oppose markets then you certainly oppose free markets. Need I say more? RJII 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah, you can stop rambling anytime. But the quote you provided actually provides evidence against your claim that anarcho-communists cannot support markets. And btw, anarcho-capitalists oppose free markets as well, they just call restricted markets "free" as PR. Kev 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The labor theory of value is economically preposterous... so, if I spent many hours digging ditches and then filling them back in, that would make the land I'm doing this on very valuable? If more hours of labor went into creating the movie From Justin to Kelly than Shakespeare's play Hamlet, then the former is of greater value? This "theory" is more wishful thinking on the part of those who think that labor is everything (the more unskilled, the better) than a serious, rational economic theory. The reality is that things are worth what people are willing to pay for them; a copy of Action Comics #1 sold for ten cents in 1938, and over $100,000 now, despite there not being any more labor added to it between then and now, other than that needed to preserve the copy in good condition. If you put the same amount of effort into preserving a copy of Brother Power the Geek #1, the reward would be much less; it's all in what people subjectively value the thing. (Not to mention that, under this theory, if the ACs put more hours into their Wikipedia participation, then they deserve to win the edit war, because their stuff will hence be proven to be more valuable!) *Dan* 23:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gee Dtobias, this tangent really helps the article. BTW, have you ever read any of the modern individualist essays, and indeed anarcho-communist essays, that detail various modifications to the labor theory of value? Even Proudhon and Tucker went beyond simple pay=hours worked to include such things as greater productivity, danger, etc. And today most incorporate aspects of utility as well. But hey, if you want to go on with your personal arguments directed at phantoms from 150 years ago, arguments that are straw-men even for them, go right ahead. Oh, and while you are at it, pretend that the subjective theory of value is some flawless, ironclad call to an objective reality, rather than a nice scheme thought up by owners to legitimate their domination of other people. Kev 02:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The economic principle that valuation is based on subjective preferences rather than objectively measurable variables of production drills down to "a nice scheme thought up by owners to legitimate their domination of other people"? Do you honestly believe that? While some of the originators of that theory like Carl Menger and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk were certainly in positions of some wealth, that hardly counts for the vast majority of economists who have followed it since. This seems like a rather disingenuous smear on your part. And personally, as someone with relatively little wealth or power, I believe Marginalism follows simply from common sense and observation. I've no domination over other people to protect. Of course, this is all tangential, but I felt it worth-while to comment on since you took the time to post your own thoughts. --Academician 23:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Its not a smear, and yes I do honestly believe it. My argument does not require that the proponents of said tactics be in a position to dominate others themselves. Rather, it requires that they percieve it to be in their best interests for a system of domination to continue in some form. Just as many supporters of slavery did not personally own slaves, just as many supporters of criminal enforcement have never been the victims of crime, yet they still believed that slavery somehow benefitted them in some form, and they still believe that law and criminal punishment is an overall good to them. I won't pretend to know people's motivations. However, one possibility is simply fear. These individuals are basically insecure, they fear their mortality on some level (as we all do), and channel these fears into the hope that they can better control their surroundings and environment. One of the greatest potential threats we face as individuals is the presence of other individuals, especially the claims they make against our own personal desires and needs. So rather than accept relations with these people on equal footing, in the hopes that the other party has basically good intentions, they want to ensure a positive outcome by putting their hopes in property law and enforcement, in the safety and securing of knowing that if people disagree with their choices they will be able to force compliance, so long as the propertarians themselves have already subsumed said property values.

Or maybe they just like shiny things, I dunno. Lots of possiblities when we are merely speculating on motivation, and I'm sure there are different levels of motivation for different people. What I do know is that these people are in fact supporting a system of domination. Whether they recognise this themselves, or whether they would even care if they did, is of secondary importance. Kev 01:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-communists oppose private ownership of product of one's labor

Kev, you deleted my edit indicating that anarch-communists oppose private ownership of the product of one's labor. How could you be so unaware of something so basic to communism? This is from the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation which lays down the essential principles of anarcho-communism..."The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme..." (Read more about it on the anarcho-communism page) No wonder you've been so confused about the contrast between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism. RJII 15:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Get real RJ. You are just grabbing at straws now. Read any current anarcho-communist zine or book and find a single quote that supports taking personal possessions created by the laborer away from them. You are also rephrasing what I deleted. It did not say that they simply "oppose private ownership" but that they "strives for a society without markets, an elimination of all private property (the product of one's labor, as well as the means of production)". Which, with the exception of the means of production part, is only true if you are willing to say the same thing about individualists, who also strive to eliminate the kind of private property that goes beyond personal possession. There are no modern anarcho-communists that I know of who believe in dispossessing people of personal possession unless you count the anti-propertarians, and they believe in eliminating all forms of property, not merely private property. Kev 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? Collective ownership of the produce of labor does not mean that people are deprived of personal possessions. It means that what they produce is shared equally among all people. If you work, what you produce is not yours (private property) but everyone's ..the collective's. You still get to use the stuff! RJII 19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gee, ya know, I was already aware of that RJ, but thank you so much for enlightening me with you so obviously in-depth education into anarcho-communism. The point is that personal possession is considered a form of private property by the individualists. You have used this fact yourself to emphasize that the individualists support private property all over wikipedia. But then when that same kind of private property is supported by the anarcho-communists, but they refer to it as Proudhon originally did, you say it isn't private property at all. The anarcho-communists would agree with you for the most part, they think private property is distinct from posession, but the individualists would not, and now you have used two different perspectives on an issue they both actually agree on to create an artificial divide. Worker control of the product of their own labor is now considered an essential part of anarchism by every anarcho-communist and syndicalist I have met, and is often advocated in their literature, along with the principle of voluntary association. Your wording makes it sound like this is not the case. In fact, it makes it sound like the opposite is the case. Kev 19:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you saying??? Personal possession *IS* private property. Anarcho-capitalists do not support personal possession of the produce of one's labor but COLLECTIVE possession. "Worker control of the produce of their labor" is only true if you mean "worker" to be a collective of workers. INDIVIDUAL control of the produce of labor is NOT consistent with anarcho-communism. RJII 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You need to calm down and take a look at what you are writing. No, anarcho-capitalists do not support collective possession, I think you meant anarcho-communists. Yes, personal possession is a form of private property, but most anarcho-communists do not see it that way, and yes they do in general support personal possession of ones labor. It is the means of production that they believe must be under collective possession. Worker control of the product of their labor is true, in anarcho-communism, on the individual level, as all the personal possession they produce would be under their own control. Again, only the means of production (i.e. basic resources and machines produced by collectives that produce further goods) would be collectivised. And yes, individual control of the product of ones labor is consistent with anarcho-communism. In fact, in modern times it is considered essential.

Maybe this is the source of all your hostility to anarchists? That you have never bothered to even find out what it is they advocate? I hate to refer someone to the anarchist faq, since it is such a basic outline and written from a communist/syndicalist pov, but maybe you'd best take a look. Kev 19:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no hostility toward collectivist anarchists. This POV you suppose I have is all in your head, and you're paranoid. Anyway, you are really out of touch if you're not aware that communist anarchists oppose private ownership of the produce of labor. The Italian Federation which lays down the essential principles of anarcho-communism..."The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme..." And, that has not changed. Communist anarchists do not believe that people should retain as their own private property what they produce. It should be considered collective property and shared among all. What business do you have editing this article if you dispute something as basic as that??? You call yourself an individualist anarchist and don't even know what it is that individualists are so adamant about --receiving the "full produce" of one's labor PERSONALLY, not collectively. RJII 20:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In other words, possession replaces private property in a free society. This applies to those who decide to join a free communist society and those who desire to remain outside. This is clear from Kropotkin's argument that an communist-anarchist revolution would leave self-employed artisans and peasants alone if they did not desire to join the free commune (see Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5 and The Conquest of Bread, p. 61 and pp. 95-6). Thus the leading theorist of free communism did not think the occupying of land for personal use (or a house or the means of production) entailed the "right of private property." Obviously John Henry MacKay had not read his Proudhon!

You will notice that this is virtually identical to "private property" as advocated by Tucker with the sole exception of the means of production. Further, it is virtually identical to "private property as possession" as advocated by Proudhon. The anarcho-communists simply refer to it as possession, just as Proudhon did but Tucker did not, and don't believe that it constitutes property, unlike both Proudhon and Tucker. However, the relations it describes, and their limits, are the same.

Now RJ, it really is fun to talk about this basic stuff with someone who is as plainly dishonest as you are. But don't you think you could bother yourself to read up on this before we discuss it further? And as to your dishonesty, "no hostility toward collectivists..." really:

Paleo-anarchism as in "traditional" or socialist anarchism ...a dinosaur. RJII 02:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) [4]

Sure, go on believing there is a capitalist conspiracy going on to manipulate the meaning of "voluntary." It would all fit in with leftism wouldn't it? [5]

If anyone wants to talk about a so-called "social movement" of collectivist anarchists... (by social movement I take it that they mean people demonstrating in the streets and/or throwing bombs) which necessarily consists only of collectivists anarchists, and necessarily excludes individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. [6]

Do you really think it is honesty for you to say that you have no hostility toward collectivists? I mean, if so, I'm sorry that you have built up such a defensive wall that you can't even know what honesty is anymore.

Well hey, okay, lets restart this whole thing. I mean, I'm all for honesty, and you've claimed that your edits are all about honesty! I've been honest on wikipedia as to exactly who I am, my real name and where I live, and exactly what my political beliefs are. My political beliefs are relevant, because no matter how hard we try to be NPOV, sometimes we make mistakes, and I want others to be able to catch me when I do. Now, I don't expect for you to tell me who you are, for all I know that much honesty could be dangerous on your part, and it probably isn't relevant anyway. But rather than continue to be coy concerning your own political beliefs, as you have been on multiple occasions now, even going so far as to ridicule several different people for "getting it wrong", why don't we be completely honest? Tell me RJ, what are your political beliefs as relevant to the anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, and capitalist articles that you spend the vast majority of your time editing? Kev 20:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a free thinker. I have no POV that remains for more than an hour. I'm merely a conduit for knowledge. I read, learn, and post. RJII 21:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You are merely a conduit for knowledge? Ye gods RJ, you are a comedian. Kev 00:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-Fascism

Are anarcho-fascists anarcho-syndicalists? Both are syndicalist, and seem to have grown up during the same period (1918-1930s), with some of the same leaders.

MSTCrow 19:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as anarcho-fascism. --Tothebarricades 20:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not since the VfD, no. - Nat Kraus e 01:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, come on, it was a beautiful article and you know it! I worked so hard on that, and everyone assumed it was a parody. In all seriousness though, the national anarchism article is worthy of VfD if anything is. There are all of 3 actual people involved in that "movement", so I don't see how it constitutes significance. Kev 04:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Where did this term come from? If there is one thing that could successfully be labeled an oxymoron, it's "anarcho-fascism."--TelemachusSneezed 01:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So is "anarcho-capitalism", and look where that's gotten us. --Bk0 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find "libertarian socialism" to be the biggest oxymoron. *Dan* 02:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

As both components of the term have been hijacked by authoritarians, I'm not surprised at the confusion. --Bk0 03:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Explaination for why RJ's edits are not so good

RJ says in the edit summary that I'm not explaining why I reverted his obviously POV edits, so here goes. For the most part all of his edits are redundant, the information is already in all the respective articles, it is simply that he is trying to over-emphasize certain points that meet with his POV:

I already explained above the problem with his edit on anarcho-communists rejecting worker control of the product of their labor.

He changed the individualist section to begin with, and emphasize, there opposition to collectivism. Of course they oppose collectivism, and this was already indicated in the section, but begining with this is a matter of misplaced emphasize with fairly obvious motivation on his part.

I should hope the motivation is obvious. The motivation is to differentiate it from collectivist anarchism. RJII 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

He then changed that they advocated private property to "strongly advocates private property", which I see no need for. Also adding that mutualism (includes a private monetary system), something already indicated on that page.

I thought it good to mention that they don't oppose money, to differentiate them from communists that do oppose money. RJII 23:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I saw no need to move the sentence on their roots, but I would happily accept that particular edit in the absence of all the other ones. Kev 20:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That definitely needed to be done. The section gave the impression that all individualist anarchists, as a rule, favor private property. Max Stirner doesn't. RJII 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This guy thinks that communist anarchists believe in private ownership of the produce of labor. LOL! I've seen it all now. RJII 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, in fact I do. And according to Proudhon or Tucker, they do. Now admittedly, according to the anarcho-communists themselves they do not, rather they believe in private possession of the produce of an individual's labor, which they think is relevantly distinct from property. However, according to the definitions of property that you have expounded here and elsewere, what they believe in does in fact constitute a form of private property.

Is this tearing apart your small world or something? Is it not a 1 or 0, and thus not computable to you? Kev 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you're confounding the traditional individualist anarchist philosophy on land with that on the produce of labor. Private property, you see, entails rights, which include the liberty to buy and sell a particular object. Raw land, according to individualist cannot legitimately be owned, but it can be used with the fruits of that produce belonging to that individual (private property) which he can then sell in a free market. Communists oppose the produce of labor as being considered private property, instead advocating that it should be collective property. The produce of your labor in a collectivist society is not private property ...meaning there is no share of yours that you can sell --you can only share in use of that collective property. Just as it's not permitted to own raw land in communist anarchism, it's not permitted in traditional individualist anarchism. But in communist anarchism, when you use land to produce, the fruits of that produce are not yours but everyone's in collective. Sinking in yet? RJII 21:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the evidence I have provided, and instead just spinning your wheels. I'm sorry if all this stuff doesn't meet your accepted definitions. I apologise if there are anarchists who view themselves as both individualists and communists. I regret to have to inform you that communists support a form of personal possession that is closely akin to the individualist concept of private property, itself closely scribbed from Proudhon's concept of possession. I wish all of this didn't exist, so that all your divides and over-generalizations would work better. But I can't change reality for you RJ, and it tends to be a complicated mess. Kev 00:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wake up. Anyone who supports private property is not a communist. RJII 00:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They, for the most part, support personal possession, that much is a fact. If you say that possession is not private property, like the anarcho-communists, then fine. That means that neither Tucker nor Proudhon supported private property either, so perhaps Tucker was right to consider himself a socialist. If, on the other hand, you agree with Tucker and Proudhon that it is property, then you would be better spending your time telling anarcho-communists that it turns out they were wrong all these years, and in fact they are not communists at all. I tend to think that all involves a whole lot of presumption on your part, but whatever floats your boat. Kev 03:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're conflating the ideas on land with the ideas on the fruits of labor. Liberal anarchists do not. RJII 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not conflating anything. Tucker and Proudhon upheld possession in all areas, it was not merely land that they felt could should not be entitled (and thus rented), but any capital, thus their mutual rejection of interest beyond cost. Proudhon was explicit about this and refered to it as possession, though he understood it to be a form of property. Tucker made it clear that his views followed in the same line, but he refered to it as private property. The anarcho-communists refer to it as possession, and believe that it is not private property at all. Kev 04:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal vs. Private property

Do anarcho-communists respect personal, as opposed to private property? I was under the impression that all anarchists did. In this case, the "product of one's own labor" statement is false, because this could reasonably include building a little table for your family to eat dinner from. Note: I'm not interested in a Manichean, uninformed rant on collectivism vs. individualism from a certain user. --Tothebarricades 21:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Personal property *IS* private property. Communists believe in the elimination of private property. Sure you can build a table, and you can use it, but it's not your property. And, that makes sense given their opposition to markets. If there is no private property then there can be no markets. You would have to own something in order to sell it. Instead, in communism, you have a gift economy where everyone shares, rather, what belongs to everyone in collective. You don't sell your table, you share it if someone needs one. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." RJII 22:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the last sentence? :P --Tothebarricades 23:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I figured you were talking about me, but apparently nobody else here has a clue of what anarcho-communism is about. Apparently, nobody had a clue what individualist anarchism was until I showed up and put the section in the article. I guess that makes sense --you can't understand collectivism without understanding its opposite. RJII 23:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which is more humorous. That you claim that no one here has a clue about anarcho-communism, or your implicit claim that do have some clue as to what you are talking about. Kev 04:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev is arguing that, from a historical context, anarcho-communists do approve possession of one's labors. Correct me if I'm wrong on this Kev, but do you also feel that Anarchism in general favors "personal possession of ones labors"? Establishing such a thing may go a long way towards ending this argument, namely because RJII keeps referring to the "Florence Conference of the Italian Federation" when he is attempting to refute Kev, et al. on the meaning of "anarcho-communist." If the well-accepted meaning of "anarcho-communist" is not consistent with the beliefs of this "Conference," perhaps the Conference is not actually anarcho-communist. What you keep referring to RJII implies to me that this is just another state-communist group; what's in a name? --TelemachusSneezed 23:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Anarchist FAQ are written by social (as opposed to individualist) anarchists. They clearly seem to take the stance that no anarchist is against personal possession. [7] millerc 03:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

From the Anarchist FAQ just cited:

Thus communist-anarchists agree with Individualist Anarchist John Beverley Robinson when he wrote:

"There are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or property, by which the owner is absolute lord of the land to use it or hold it out of use, as it may please him; and possession, by which he is secure in the tenure of land which he uses and occupies, but has no claim on it at all if he ceases to use it. For the secure possession of his crops or buildings or other products, he needs nothing but the possession of the land he uses." (Patterns of Anarchy, p. 273)

This system, we must note, was used in the rural collectives during the Spanish Revolution, with people free to remain outside the collective working only as much land and equipment as they could "occupy and use" by their own labour.

millerc 03:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That is about land, rather than about the fruits of labor. Liberals (as in "American individualist anarchists") think that mixing labor with natural resources should be regarded as private property. Land may not be owned but may be used (or "possessed" if you like), but the fruits of that labor become the private property of he who works the land. Communist anarchists think that the produce of labor should be regarded a collective property. RJII 03:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the article I linked to?

Therefore, in a free communist society individuals can use land and such tools and equipment as they personally "use and occupancy" as they wish -- they do not have to join the free communist society. If they do not, however, they cannot place claims on the benefits others receive from co-operation and their communal life.

and howbout this?

Thus the case of the non-member of free communism is clear -- they would also consume what they have produced or exchanged with others in their own home.

I can find several others, as you should have done, if you had bothered looking! millerc 03:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And? What's your point? I never claimed that communist anarchists would forcefully prevent others from having private property (as the products of one's labor). I would think, as anarchists, that they would not. It's just that they oppose it and would like to see its elimination. How they would go about that without coercion is a practical matter. RJII 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

In order to work the land, the farmer needs a tractor, which s/he is in possession of. The house then, is also possessed by the farmer & associated family. What if the farmer had to build the house? What if the farmer leaves the house and the land and is no longer in possession of it? The idea of not having "private" property is so that you don't simply rent out the land to someone else to use, or the house. This collectivism you speak of is not what anarcho-communists have in mind. In fact, it works a lot like farmer's co-ops today -- certain, expensive pieces of heavy equipment are owned by the cooperative, collectively and all the farmers in the co-op take turns using that collective equipment, and lending each other a hand. The farmers all still have their own plots of land, their own houses, their own cars, their own furniture, and so forth. None of them individually can afford the big stuff, but together they can actually compete against corporate factory-farms, quite efficiently, I might add. This is not supposition, this was all explained to me by a farmer named Bruce Whale in the Ontario Province of Canada, if you want a source. It's not the State-mandated cooperative farms of Soviet Russia (which were more like labor camps, anyhow, and was what Tucker was so riled up about), this is what real people do, voluntarily, even if they aren't anarchists and even if the government doesn't tell them to do so. --albamuth 03:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, a lot of this is good material and discussion points for Anarchism and society, if anyone ever feels like paying attention to that sub-article. --albamuth 03:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

How about another source?

As Murray Bookchin points out "an individual appropriation of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources . . . is fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies. . . By the same token, co-operative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that could be called communistic is also fairly common. . . But primary to both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of usufruct." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 50]

Such stateless societies are based upon "the principle of usufruct, the freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely by the virtue of the fact they are using them. . . Such resources belong to the user as long as they are being used. Function, in effect, replaces our hallowed concept of possession." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 50] The future stateless society anarchists hope for would also be based upon such a principle. In effect, critics of social anarchism confuse property with possession and think that abolishing property automatically abolishes possession and use rights. [8]

Again this is from the Anarchist faq. Murray Bookchin isn't really a communist anarchist but his words seem to be about social anarchism in general. I don't have a copy of the book cited, but if someone could check that, it seems to be pretty clear. millerc 04:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to Telemachus

Today, all of the social anarchists that I know believe in personal possession with the possible exception of anti-propertarians and a sub-set of anarcho-communists. Historically, they were not at all homogenous on this issue, nor is it one that from what I've read defined a group as anarcho-communist one way or the other, since different groups took different positions. The group that RJ is citing, for example, was not informed of the "platform" supported by folks like Mahkno, and probably would not have agreed on all its principles. So they came up with different responses to different questions. All agreed in the right for the individual to the product of their labor. Many interpreted that in different ways. For example, you will note that in the quote above from the anarchist faq,

This is clear from Kropotkin's argument that an communist-anarchist revolution would leave self-employed artisans and peasants alone if they did not desire to join the free commune... [9]

Kropotkin, who denied that anything at all should be private property, even the coats on our backs, nonetheless did not believe that such basic possessions should necessarily be in the control of collectives,

We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin 1906

And his intent was not to conscript people unwillingly into collective property, but to free them from the necessity of working at the behest of others by allowing them the option,

If every peasant-farmer had a piece of land, free from rent and taxes, if he had in addition the tools and the stock necessary for farm labour, who would plough the lands of the baron? Everyone would look after his own... (ibid)

In this sense, communes where similar to contractual relations of individualist businesses. People could opt in or out at their own discretion, in some cases they would become part owners of the entire business, in other cases only the means of production were considered a matter to be addressed and the rest was left to individual discretion. For example, from the platform mentioned above only deals with the means of production:

Libertarian communism wants to end all exploitation and violence whether it be against individuals or the masses of the people. To this end, it will establish an economic and social base which will unite all sections of the community, assuring each individual an equal place among the rest, and allowing each the maximum well-being. The base is the common ownership of all the means and instruments of production (industry, transport, land, raw materials, etc.) and the building of economic organisations on the principles of equality and self-management of the working classes. [10]

But the most important thing, and the reason I object so strongly to RJ's edit, is that it creates the impression that anarcho-communists were against the idea that workers should control their own product, when in fact nothing could be farther form the truth:

Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists believe in individual ownership, as against the Communist Anarchists who see in the institution of private property one of the main sources of injustice and inequality, of poverty and misery. The Individualists and Mutualists maintain that liberty means "the right of every one. to the product of his toil"; which is true, of course. Liberty does mean that. But the question is not whether one has a right to his product, but whether there is such a thing as an individual product. I have pointed out in preceding chapters that there is no such thing in modern industry: all labor and the products of labor are social. Alexander Berkman, The ABCs of Anarchism 1929

Here Berkman does not deny the legitimacy of individual possession, he merely denies that individual product exists in modern societies, but he agrees completely with the principle that individuals have a right to what they create, and he makes no "collective right" distinction (nor do any of them) as RJ suggests. Further, they stressed the absolute need for flexibility and freedom of choice amongst the individuals in the system themselves, rather than the theorists or organizations:

Where do you get off on sayins he makes no collectivist distinction? Berkman says right there that "all labor and products of labor are social." What do you think that means? It sure doesn't mean that the products of labor are individual (private property). It means that they are owned collectively ("sociallly"). RJII 04:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I "get off" saying that because he is not saying that all labor and all products have to be social, he is saying that they are social, by contingent circumstance. In fact, if anything his statements require the implicit assumption that any product made individually should be under the full individual control of the person who made it, he is just pointing out (what he believes to be) the fact that nothing is made individually in an industrialized society. Thus Berkman is supporting the same theory as the individualists, there is no inherent collective right to the product of labor, but when the creation of a product entails the labor of a group of people then the rights of the individuals comprising that group entail that each of those individuals must have representation in its distribution and use. He is, therefore, denying that any individual can legitimately claim the right to use of something they had no part in making, and doing so explicitly. Kev 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Therefore we remain communist in our sentiment and aspiration, but we want to leave freedom of action to the experimentation of all ways of life that can be imagined and desired. For us, it is necessary and sufficient that everyone have complete freedom, and nobody can monopolize the means of production and live on someone else's work. Pensiero e Volontà, Errico Malatesta 1924

It will be the revolutionary peasants who themselves will establish the definitive term of exploitation and utilisation of the land. No outside pressure is possible in this question.The Platform

In modern times all of this is most generally (but not always) interpreted in the following way. If something was produced using the means of production supplied by the commune, then the distribution of that product is to be determined by all the members of that commune. If something was produced by an individual on their own using their own possessions, without any of the tools or joint labor of a commune, then it is for the individual to determine its use. Personal possessions are, for the most part, left open either way. Berkman and Kropotkin interpreted the amount of collective control very broadly, other anarcho-communists (and other collectivist anarchists of various stripes) interpret it more narrowly. Regardless, as I mentioned above, in its modern formulation it bears a relevant similarity to the contractual relations upheld by individualists, except that when an individual joins a "business" in this case they become part owners of it automatically, but they can freely change communes, or refuse to join them, or join ones with more narrow agreements on the scope of collective possession. Of course I'm not saying they are the same, I'm just saying that its sorta hard, once you understand all the factors, to argue against one while calling the other legitimate.

I think RJs main source of confusion is his inability to see the difference between possession and private property as anarcho-communists see it. Though it probably hasn't helped our conversation that I myself disagree with anarcho-communists, as I see the "personal possession" that they advocate as a form of private property in the same way that Tucker and Proudhon did, whereas they (and apparently RJ), do not. This is an important issue for them, because Proudhon warned that if people began to refer to it as private property rather than possession it would be misinterpreted, and whadda ya know Tucker always refered to it as private property and today anarcho-capitalists often think he is talking about the same thing they are. Kev 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

When American individualist anarchists say "private property" in regards to the produce of one's labor, they MEAN private property. That which an individual can righfully possess, without sharing with others if he so desires. RJII 04:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you then, not notice the statement by Kropotkin concerning coats? Or the statement by the platform that the peasants themselves will decide what constitutes exploitation and utilization of land without outside pressure? Or Berkman when he noted that everyone has a right to the product of their labor? Did you read any of that? Kev 04:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

When Berkman says everyone should have a right to their product, he means "everyone" ..not individuals. As, he goes on to clarify that there is no such thing as an individual product..that all products of labor are social. How much more collectivist can you get? Are you trying to convince me that anarcho-communists support PRIVATE property? That's nuts. They advocate COLLECTIVE property. RJII 04:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course they do. And if we just go by the standards of the anarcho-communists themselves then no, of course they do not advocate any kind of private property. However, many of them do advocate private possession. Anyway, you seem confused. Berkman is making a statement on fact that you are conflating with theory. He agreed with the principle that individuals should control the product of their labor, when he says "everyone" he is refering to people individually, because you will notice that he is representing the individualist position. The only alternative to this conclusion is to assume that he is purposefully misrepresenting the individualists and claiming that they believe in rights that "everyone" as a group has, rather than "everyone" as individuals. Is that your claim? Gee, I hope not. Anyway, simply put, he agrees with the individualists that individuals have a right to the product of their labor. Is this clear to you now? Kev 05:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only is Berkman being inadequate by choosing to use the term "everyone," but he doesn't say that individualist want ownership of the "full" product of their toil. He doesn't give the whole story. Either he's being purposely manipulative or he doesn't understand the individualist position (which would be hard to believe, but possible). Ownership of the "full" produce to an "individual" necessary leads to private property. Berkman is only in favor of "everyone" receiving the "social product" of labor. It appears he's trying to show that anarchist communism is philosophically compatible with individualist anarchism at a foundational level for some odd reason. And, he's unsuccessful in doing so. RJII 05:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you will bend over every which way to get out of admitting you were wrong. Okies RJ, I'll leave it at this, I think there is plenty of evidence already on the table to demonstrate what I'm saying. Kev 06:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah crap, I can't help myself. RJ! I just realised that Tucker didn't believe in worker control of the product of their labor. Look here, "that labor should be put in possession of its own" [11]. He doesn't mention 'individuals' at all, only "labor", he is a damned collectivist! And he didn't say "ownership" or mention the "full" produce either! Obviously, this man did not agree with the individualist position that workers should control the product of their labor. It appears though, that he is trying to show that his philosophy is compatible with individualism at a foundational level for some reason, but he is clearly unsuccessful in doing so. Good thing I can see things from your perspective, now I can see that fraud for what he really was. Kev 06:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

He's a individualist. Therefore he's talking about individuals. That's implicit in the statement given the context of his philosophy. See, you're doing kind of the same thing as Berkman ..overlooking the "individualist" part of "individualist anarchism." RJII 13:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"The failure of the experiments on the community system in New Harmony during the two years trial from 1825 to 1827, sufficiently proved this to my mind, & led to the conviction that the process of combination is not capable of working out the great objects of society ; but, the opposite principle, that of Individuality and the process of DISCONNECTION" -Josiah Warren RJII 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"this principle may be called that of Individuality. It leaves every one in undisturbed possession of his or her natural and proper sovereignty over its own person, time, property and responsibilities ; & no one is acquired or expected to surrender any "portion" of his natural liberty by joining any society whatever" -Warren. RJII 14:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

....Is it sinking in yet what the difference between individualism and collectivism is yet? RJII 14:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the differences between the individualists and the social anarchists, unfortunately moreso than you. Still, that isn't the subject of this conversation. Of course, since you've so clearly demonstrated yourself to be at a dead in concerning this conversation, and your inane assertion that Berkman was not asserting the same fundamental tenet as individualists because he forgot to put the word "fullest" in his description of their philosophy, I can understand why you would want to suddenly change tracks.

Still, I'm always willing to entertain you RJ, so chew on this for a bit:

It will probably be remarked that mutual aid, even though it may represent one of the factors of evolution, covers nevertheless one aspect only of human relations; that by the side of this current, powerful though it may be, there is, and always has been, the other current -- the self-assertion of the individual, not only in its efforts to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallized, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual. In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element. This from the anarcho-communist of anarcho-communists... Mutual Aid, Peter Kropotkin 1902

He's right. There is such a thing as individualism. What's your point? RJII 14:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, as you can plainly tell, there is absolutely no recognition here of the worth and essential importance of the individual, damned collectivists. Anywho RJ, you are just being silly now. If you come up with something new rather than your constant repetition of the three things you've learned about anarchism, I'll bother myself with responding to you. Till then you really aren't worth my time. Go be a conduit of knowledge somewhere else. Kev 14:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's get back to what this was about intially. You deleted from the Anarcho-communism section the fact that anarcho-communism is for the elimination of private property in the produce of production. You are wrong to do that and show a flagrant lack of knowledge of the most essential aspects of the philosophy. RJII 14:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This coming from someone who cannot understand that anarchism is individualistic? --Tothebarricades 16:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Private property is individual property. Collective property is group property. A communist society has eliminated private property. RJII 16:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You see, your whole problem is that you're only thinking in terms of property, and even then you fail to make the distinction between personal and private property, one that admittedly is hard to make considering the linguistics of it. --Tothebarricades 16:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm only thinking in terms of property. That's what this conflict is about --whether anarchist-communists favor private property (of course they don't). I fail to make a distinction between personal and private property? Do you realize that private property MEANS personal property? If you think there's a distinction, I'd love to hear what you think it is. RJII 16:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Big bird the individualist anarcho-communist

Try to understand this example: Big Bird is part of the Seasame Street Collective, and so is Bert and Elmo. BB, Bert and Ernie go to a workshop once every four days and produce Seasam Street Lunchboxes together. These lunchboxes are owned by the collective and are considered collective property. BB, on his days off, likes to make jewelry and smoking "pipes" out of glass. Some of them are kind of ugly, so he unloads a few dozen at the Free Store Bert runs, which is part of a gift economy -- whoever needs an ugly glass pipe or jewelry, takes it. Elmo lives in the same building as Bert, but neither they or anyone else owns the building as private property. Each of them has their own apartment, with their own keys, but they don't pay rent to anyone. Meanwhile BB, in loft apartment that he possesses, makes lots of beautiful glass bowls on his own time and being works of art, takes them to a free market type area where other unique goods are traded and sold. BB ends up trading a bowl of his own making for a pound of weed. And now it's time to play our game -- Who is the individualist-anarchist? Who is the anarcho-communist? What is private property? Does it even matter? --albamuth 17:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It's insulting to the intelligence to being presented this in a Sesame Street format, but that's ok. Anyway, It does matter who the individualst anarchists or the communist anarchist is. Here's how. The character who sells his wares is the one who believes in private property --he feels no ethical compunction about keeping the wares to himself if he wishes. He doesn't pay homage to a supposed ethical obligation to share his products or his labor with others. So, he sells them instead..if nobody is willing to pay his asking price, he keeps them and does not feel guilty about it. He's not a communist because he supports markets (which necessarily require private property). The communist character has a conceptually different idea of things. He looks at the products of his labor as belonging to the collective, therefore he feels that it's ethically incumbent on him to share with others. If someone needs a pipe to smoke some weed, he'll give him one or share one with him ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") There is no private property, in his mind. There are things which we merely USE ..we have no moral right to keep things away from others that we produced if they need them. A communist doesn't "own" his house ..therefore he, ethically, cannot sell it. Instead, he shares it, or gives it away to one who needs it if he has an extra. What makes something that some produces private property is that an individual has an ethical right to do whatever he wishes with it ..keep his wares, destroy them, sell them, or give them away. The communist opposes that concept ..opposes private property. Ethics requires him to share his production with society (note that I'm not saying he will force people to share --it's an ETHICAL obligation that musn't necessarily be physically coerced). I apologize for not keeping with the Sesame Street scenario, but does that make sense? RJII 18:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The individualist anarchists thinks people have an ethical right to private property, while the communist anarchist think people have the ethical obligation to not regard things as private property but as collective property. But, again, this is not the same thing as saying communists anarchists will force their ethics on others who don't wish to partake in their system. But, that is what the individualist anarchists are vigilant against. They don't want those ethics to spill over into the enforcement of those ethics, in the form of state communism or state socialism. Hence, their being so adamant about a right to private property (consisting of the produce of labor). RJII 18:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

We're saying the same things in different words (and I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, just lighten the mood). Anyhow, here are the points upon which we agree:

The individualists, such as Tucker, adamantly defended the right to control the product of one's labor, which he called private property.
This is opposed to collectivisation of all property and products of labor as promoted by communism.

Now, the points that I wish to make clear:

Anarcho-communists (note the "anarcho" part) such as Bakunin believed in collectivisation only where it helped people, and only when voluntary, per Kev's citations above.
Berkman pointed out that there was no conflict with the individualists' beliefs, because what the Indiv-A's stipulated as private property, the Anarcho-communists/syndicalists stipulated as personal property.
My example was to show that anarchists today have moved on from that debate - their criteria is autonomy -- when the private/personal property of someone interferes with another's autonomy, then it is "bad". If not, then people can do what they wish individually and collectively, without worrying about labels.

So I merely wish to point out that the conflict you are describing existed within academic debate in the early 20th century but was quickly cleared up. --albamuth 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that individualist anarchists and communists anarchists are talking about the same thing when the former says "private property" and some of the latter may say "personal property." For the individualist anarchists, it's still one's property if he's not using it or if he has more than he can use (if we're talking about the produce of one's labor). Whereas for a communist anarchist, it's only personal property if it's what he needs and is using --anything beyond that is the property of the collective. But, of course, if one is a "pure" communist anarchist in the philosophical sense, then even there is no such thing as personal "property." There is only USE of what belongs to the collective. RJII 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Are talking or were talking? Because at the turn of the century, yes, there was quibbling over the extent of what collective property meant -- Tucker revised and clarified that understanding, and Berkman progressed the meaning even further, probably influenced by all the hell he saw when visiting Bolshevik Russia. But today, there is no confusion about the terms. Anarchists today understand the need and time for personal property or collective property -- even those who call themselves "individualists" or "mutualists" understand that. Tucker's ideas were incorporated into anarchist thought, by creating the distinction of personal possession. It was a big deal at the turn of the century, but by the time the Spanish Civil War rolled around, the issue was settled. I don't see any papers published after that which attests to a conflict. But it would be good to mention that issue in historical context, because it marks the point where anarchist thought evolved to make the distinction between personal and collective possession, towards the more metaphysical objection to private property. This is why Ayn Rand was the negative of Emma Goldman -- both Russian immigrants about the same age; the former writing for private property and the latter against, in the same time period. --albamuth 06:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't seen any contemporary individualist writings indicating a conflict then you could start by looking here [12] or here [13]. RJII 15:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you point out examples of conflict, please? (not that I deny there are any, but to which specific writings do you refer) --albamuth 16:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I can when I get a chance. But, you seem to be unaware that traditional individualist anarchists exist today, not just yeterday. They have the same positions against collectivist anarchism. And anarchists today have equal opposition to individualist anarchism ..for example [14]. This is not a chasm from yesteryear. Individualism vs. collectivism is a debate that exists to this day among anarchists, and always will. There will be no resolution, and no consensus --ever. RJII 17:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The reference you cited speaks within a historical context, and in fact it concludes with:

However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now. John Quail, in his history of British Anarchism, puts his finger on the contextual implications and limitations of Tucker's ideas when he writes: Tucker was a Proudhonist and thus fundamentally committed to a society based on small proprietorship. In the American context, however, where the small landowner was often locked in battle with large capitalist interests, this did not represent the reactionary position it often did later. . . Tucker had a keen sense of the right of the oppressed to struggle against oppression. [The Slow Burning Fuse, p. 19]

So I must maintain my position that the individualist/communist debate within anarchism is historically significant, but not ongoing in any significant sense, unless you can find counter-examples. The only person I've met who called himself a "individualist anarchist" and later a "mutualist" at one point, can be found somewhere in the woods in a "re-wilding" quest, an activity promoted by anarcho-primitivists. Again, anarchist labels defy the reality of practice. --albamuth 06:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The debate is not whether individualist anarchism is a form of anarchism. The debate is whether collectivist or individualist anarchism is the right way to go. As you can see from the articles written by the contemporary individualist anarchists (in the anti-capitalist tradition) and on the Mutualist.org site, they oppose the collectivist way. RJII 17:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

From Mutualist.org's "mutualist FAQ":

A.1.3. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUTUALISM AND THE COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT?

There isn't much of a difference. Co-ops are a specific form of mutualism. Look at it this way, mutualism is a set of general principles and the co-ops are one of the practical forms that these principles have taken. Historically, the practical forms were developed by the working class before the general principles were propounded by political philosophers. The problem today is the loss of consciousness of cooperatives as the embodiment of a form of mutualist practice.

if that co-operative doesn't fit your idea of collectivism, then:

WHAT OTHER MOVEMENTS DOES MUTUALISM HAVE AN AFFINITY FOR?

Many other groups share some ideas, values or practices with mutualists. [populists, Georgists, distributists, guild socialists, agrarians, Catholic Workers, etc. Participatory democracy, parecon,

Parecon is the closest to a "command economy" as anarchists dare to get. There is no evidence on this website of a conflict. So if each "side" declares that there is no conflict, where is the conflict? --albamuth 10:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No matter which way you cut it, individualist anarchism is not collectivist anarchism. The only way there can be no conflict is if they're the same thing. RJII 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing about anarchists is, not a single one of them agrees 100% on tactics and ideological nuances. However, anarchists (unlike socialists) do not spend their time on ideological hairsplitting and the endless refinement of dogma -- anarchists seem to have an uncanny tendency to work together depsite a broad range of tactical/strategic ideas -- but for some reason none of them will work with "anarcho-capitalists" -- perhaps there is a line, after all? --albamuth 08:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. Contemporary individualist anarchists of the anti-capitalism tradition will indeed work together with anarcho-capitalists on private property issues and many consider them a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 02:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? --albamuth 03:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"There are all sorts of people who label themselves individualist anarchists and we often disagree among ourselves both about what to do now, and what the future might look like. For instance, the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists. However, there are other individualists, like myself and the individualists of the past, such as Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, and John Henry Mackay, who reject capitalism as much as they reject communism. An anarchist society, based on voluntary agreement between autonomous individuals, would probably be a mix of communities and individuals who follow different economic systems, some communist, some capitalist, some individualist or mutualist. These societies could exist side by side in peace as long as none of the various societies or individuals interfered with those who chose to live differently from themselves. (p.m., in the book, bolo'bolo, presents one model of how a world of such diverse communities and individuals might function.) I, for instance, would prefer to live in an individualist society, but respect the freedom of others to participate in capitalist or communist economic arrangements, providing, of course, that participation in all of these societies is strictly voluntary." [15] There you go. Individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists don't tend to have a very antagonistic relationship. They get along with anybody as long as nobody forces anyone else into a system or a society. They're not going to stop two people from contracting as employer/employee for profit if both want to ..they just think it's foolish for someone to hire themselves out for less than their "full produce." (And, don't try to pursuade them to give up private property). RJII 04:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So is this an example of individualists and capitalists working together or is it the individualists declaring that they would respect the autonomy of A/C's? Sounds like panarchism to me. How does this contradict my Sesame Street example above? (notice that even in that example, Big Bird has the choice of participating in a Subjective Value based currency system). As I have been saying before, and as your quotation illustrates precisely, anarchists resolved economic and ideological nuances in the second half of the 20th century with the concept of maximum autonomy for all, as long as it doesn't interfere with the autonomy of another. Anarchists regard excessive ownership of things as detrimental to the autonomy of others. Individualists are for small propietorships -- running a business or mode of production that does not interfere with anyone else's autonomy. I never claimed that they were antagonistic, though I must admit that I was rather adamant about how incompatible mutualism and capitalism is (perhaps exaggeratingly so). This discussion should really be taking place in anarchist economics. --albamuth 06:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Max_rspct deleting statement

Max_respct, you deleted the following statement, saying it was "contradictory." "The American tradition of individualist anarchism is firmly in support of individual sovereignty, private property, and a free market economy; it is opposed to buying and selling of raw land, as well as profit (i.e., capitalism itself)." You're statement that it's contradictory is vague. Can you elaborate? Maybe you're not familiar with individualist anarchism? RJII 16:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RJ can't read

The individualist section of the article already says, "Individualism contrasts with collectivist forms of anarchism (anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism)", but RJ continues to insert the edit "(therefore opposing communism)", on the grounds that "if it says they oppose capitalism, it should say they oppose communism". Of course, it already does, so his edit is unnecessary even by his strange standards. Kev 16:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh you're right. I overlooked that. But I'll keep putting it in anyway because it explains exactly how it is that they oppose it. Anyway, the same rule would apply to any header someone puts up on the article. If it says that anarchists oppose capitalism it would also have to say anarchists oppose communism. RJII 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course you will keep putting it in anyway. You decided what you were going to do and no evidence or reason will persuade you otherwise. Kev 03:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

anti-capitalism header is POV

Putting a header on an article saying that it's going to be POV (exclude capitalist anarchism) doesn't make it therefore ok to violate the NPOV policy. An article called "Anarchism" must not judge which "anarcho-" philosophy is anarchism if it's going to be NPOV. RJII 18:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Kevehs is the POV warrior that took out anarcho-capitalism and put the anti-capitalism header there. RJII 20:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The header does not say it is going to be POV, it says that it has been disambiguated from another meaning of the word. That is both neutral and in keeping with wiki policy. And yes, I did put the header there and removed anarcho-capitalism, AFTER several other editors had compromised with your blatant POV pushing to the point of accepting every damned demand made by POV warriors like Hogeye, and you continued to insert more and more POV edits to the point of making me realize that you would never stop. So, its back to the disambiguation solution. Kev 01:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You feel that others are being POV, so you choose to be POV in retaliation.

No, I choose to disambiguate so that you can have an excuse to stop being POV. Kev 01:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Grow up, kid.

Personal attack noted. Kev 01:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as the header you wanted, it's POV. People can claim that anarcho-communism is not anarchism just as they can claim anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.

Yes, they can, and that is what the disambiguation header is for, so that people with different understandings of the meaning of the word can be directed to the appropriate articles. Kev 01:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not when you put in the header that the article is only going to deal with anti-capitalist anarchism and you delete anarcho-capitalism from the article. What if someone put up a header that the article is only going to deal with anti-communist anarchism? RJII 03:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what the word disambiguate means RJ? Kev 03:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not in accordance with Wikipedia policy to do a so-called "disambiguation" for the purpose to subverting the NPOV rule. Just because you put up a notice saying that the article is going to be represent the anti-capitalist POV of such a broad concept as "anarchism," it doesn't mean the article no longer has to be NPOV. An NPOV article doesn't pick and choose which anarcho philosophies are or are not anarchism. RJII 03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

We are not subverting NPOV. NPOV policy is very clear that less significant movements do not need to be given the same amount of representation as more significant ones. Further, it is quite clear that minority views, though they must be represented in some form, should not dictate the form of the presentation. As such, it is you who is violating NPOV policy, over and over again. The disambiguation allows the anarcho-capitalist POV to be represented in wikipedia without allowing their minority view to frame the entire subject. Kev 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You didn't just give anarcho-capitalism minority status (which I think is wrong since it's a pretty big philosophical movement). You deleted all mention of it. That's POV. RJII 03:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The point of a diambiguation is to allow both sides of the view to be represented in their respective articles. The disambiguation page it links to now needs to be unprotected and the anarcho-capitalist view of anarchism detailed there, with links to its own articles. This is not deleting mention of anarcho-capitalism, it is ensuring that a minority viewpoint does not control the general article but can still be represented in its own context.

Of course, I was more than willing to have anarcho-capitalism detailed in this article. As a new and controversial movement it would be a brief description. I even compromised in allowing it to be represented as a school, in allowing them to claim precursors in the general history, and so forth. But none of that was enough for you, you just kept pushing and pushing, first with the individualist section and then even trying to define anarcho-communism according to your biased perspective. So no, I am no longer willing to try and compromise with you RJ, because you do not compromise on anything. For you, this is war, and consensus is a joke, so don't whine to me when I begin to ignore your edits, it is you who is unwilling to make or find a middle ground. Kev 04:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you were NPOV-inclined you would not make such a judgement but leave that to the reader. But, you're so entrenched in the mindset that there's a war going on here between different political factions that you can't think straight. Wake up, man. The war is in your own head.

You are the one calling this a perpetual edit war, and then you turn around and say that it is not. Kev 01:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a perpetual edit war. I'm just being honest about it. Mark my words. There will never be consensus. I'm not naive enough to think there ever will be. I recognize that this is all just an exercise. RJII 03:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sad that you admit that you consider this to be a perpetual edit war, then blame me, saying, "the war is in your own head". Do you even know what you are writing anymore? RJ, you are clearly projecting your own feelings on to me. I don't think this is a perpetual edit war, so perhaps you should consider your own comments as they apply to you. Kev 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference is you look at it as a political war and you're on a mission to save the world from anarcho-capitalism. The rest of us are just warring to get the facts out. RJII 03:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The "rest of us"? RJ, I assure you that you are in a small minority in believing that wikipedia is meant to be an eternal edit war. In fact, wiki policy itself is against that viewpoint. As for me, I do not think this is a "war" of any kind, political or otherwise. I think a few misinformed editors simply make edits without knowing the subject matter, and you in particular make numerous repeated edits from that position. Simple as that. But really RJ, at least I'm honest. I admit to having a point of view, and am open about what it is, you seem to think you are some sort of deity who is absolutely objective without err, and can't even admit to yourself that you have political bias. Kev 03:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You found me out. I am a deity. RJII 03:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dismiss it all you want, but your own refusal to be honest is staring you in the face. Kev 04:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The rest of us are just trying to get the facts out. You may think of yourself, sitting alone in the bedroom of your parents house, as a soldier protecting the world from anarcho-capitalism. But, you're not. All you're doing is disrupting the process here by preventing the facts from coming out, all to save the world from anarcho-capitalism. It's really pathetic. RJII 01:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack noted. Kev 01:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kev, RJII. At first, I accepted your edits to the A/C and Individualist sections. Then I noticed you kept making more and more edits that were questionable, and I tried to engage in reasonable debate. However, while I didn't directly edit the article over these disagreements, you kept on editing though there was not agreement. All the time, I've been thinking that perhaps we can figure out some facts together before drastic changes to the article take place. Instead, you make about 10 edits in a day, without stopping to explain or work out differences. Your edits show a clear bias/focus. Why not admit your biases like the rest of us? Then at least our debates can be constructive. I thought we were getting somewhere--I've been reading the references you made, but you don't seem to read the reference material that others cite, either dismissing them offhand or responding in a hostile, defensive manner about your position. It doesn't need to be like that. --albamuth 06:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev removed every mention of anarcho-capitalism from the article. Kev has been making edits not without explanation, not me. You're wrong. Kev is on a POV mission, not me. I'm just trying to keep this article from being biased. You're totally misrepresenting me, and I resent it. RJII 13:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

All of my edits have been explained. If you find an edit I haven't explained, just tell me, and I would be happy to oblige with an explaination. I removed mention of anarcho-capitalism A) to facilitate the disambiguation, which would require it when it is present, and B) only after making many compromises and still being pushed and pushed by a million POV edits on your part. I am happy to go back to compromising once you learn that this is not a war, but a joint endeavor, and are willing to compromise as well. I have a POV, it is true and I will admit that, but I'm not on any mission to enforce my POV. You, on the other hand, won't even admit to what your POV is, and instead insist that you are nothing more than (your words) "a conduit of knowledge". Kev 15:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

IMHO A/C doesn't belong on the main anarchism page, or in the 'schools' section. Perhaps in the 'conflicts' section in the bottom. Anyhow, it's back in now. I will not delete it, but I will try to keep it in the proper section. --albamuth 16:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Charts on Anarchism?

Where did these charts come from? If someone will not justify them I will remove them...they in my opinion not only overly simplify anarchist schools of thought but are in some cases factually wrong.

There are some free-marketeers taking over this page trying to legitimize their point of view within anarchism and falsely place it within anarchist tradition. Its not worth it to argue about it, obiviously, but thses charts are out of hand.--Fluxaviator 07:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User Hogeye got around his ban and reverted back to his POV fork version, which had numerous errors, POV problems, and the charts you mention. Its been restored now. Kev 07:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

cool

It's not cool to make such a claim about a person when you have no evidence for it. You do not know if it is Hogeye. RJII 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence that 70.178.26.242 was Hogeye. Its what was used to ban that IP for the same time period. Kev 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The timeline chart looks pretty good to me. Maybe Warren should come before Proudhon, since he'd already set up two anarchist communes before Proudhon wrote "What is Property." What other "factually wrong" items need changing?

I think you're right. It appears Warren was before Proudhon. He was actually doing mutualism before Proudhon started proposing it, but didn't call it mutualism. RJII 16:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Applicability of these sections

In further efforts to reduce the overall size of the article, I was wondering about the appropriateness of these sections in the early history:

In Athens, the year 404 BC was commonly referred to as "the year of anarchy". According to the historian Xenophon, this happened even though Athens was at the time under the rule of the oligarchy of "The Thirty," installed by the Spartans following their victory in the second Peloponnesian war, and despite the presence of an Archon, nominated by the oligarchs, in the person of Pythodorus. However, Athenians refused to apply here their custom of calling the year by that archon's name, since he was elected during the oligarchy, and "preferred to speak of it as the 'year of anarchy'".

The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle used the term anarchy negatively, in association with democracy which they mistrusted as inherently vulnerable and prone to deteriorate into tyranny. Plato believed that the corruption created by democracy loosens the "natural" hierarchy between social classes, genders and age groups, to the extent that "anarchy finds a way into the private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them" ('Republic', book 8). Aristotle spoke of it in book 6 of the 'Politics' when discussing revolutions, saying that the upper classes may be motivated to stage a coup by their contempt for the prevailing "disorder and anarchy (ataxias kai anarkhias)" in the affairs of the state. He also claimed it would give, "license among slaves (anarkhia te doulôn)" as well as among women and children. "A constitution of this sort", he concludes, "will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living (zên ataktôs) is pleasanter to the masses than sober living".

The first in particular seems like it is neither refering to the philosophy of anarchism nor particularly related to it. Perhaps it would best be moved to the anarchy article? The second is not refering to the philosophy of anarchism but might be related in that it describes non-anarchist views of distributed power. But I dunno, maybe both would be best left to the anarchy article to shorten this monster a bit. Kev 08:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I would definitely support the first paragraph being moved to Anarchy and possibly the the second. mennonot 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, move both to anarchy. The etymology of "anarchy" does not fit in with social movements and political philosophies. --albamuth 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Opps, someone already put those sections, or ones just like them, in the anarchy article. Or maybe they started there an got moved here by mistake. Either way, its not here anymore. Kev 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Header being removed by RJ

RJ, you keep removing the disambiguation header, or altering it so that it no longer states that this article is about anarchism in the sense of anti-state and anti-capitalism. Do you understand that the purpose of a disambiguation header is to establish the different meanings of the word being used? If you lead this page with the anarcho-capitalist meaning, it destroys the purpose of the disambiguation. At this point you ought to head over to the disambiguation page, kindly ask ceasarb to unprotect it, and edit that page so that it properly and within NPOV details the anarcho-capitalist use of the term. You seem to be very confused when it comes to disambiguation, the whole purpose is to give all the various meanings of the word, so calling it POV just because it gives the one that is most common amongst anarchists, rather than specific to anarcho-capitalists, is just silly.

I mean, really RJ, Dtobias already altered the header so that it was more than clear that this is not the only meaning, that there are other philosophies which call themselves anarchists and do not accept this meaning. What more do you want? Are you accusing Dtobias of editing with an anarcho-communist POV? Kev 13:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't tell me about disambiguation. The purpose of disambiguation should not be to change the meaning of a word so that it only suits your POV. If you prohibit any "anarcho-" philosophy from being included as a form of anarchism, you're violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. RJII 13:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No one is changing the meaning of the word. They are describing how the word is used as it is used by the majority of anarchists, both in modern times and historically. I am following NPOV policy in order to avoid your constant violations of it. Finally, the whole purpose of disambiguating is to ensure that no group of people calling themselves "anarcho" are prohibited. Kev 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If the majority of people are Republicans does that mean that an article called "Political parties" should exclude Democrats? You're POV mission is obvious. You are indeed trying to change the meaning of the word. You won't succeed. RJII 15:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah, but if a majority of people believe that the moon landings actually happened, then it makes sense to put the hoax views on another page, rather than interupting every sentence with the POV of a few fringe cranks. Kev 15:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? That there are not many anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-capitalism is a fairly big philosophical anarchist movement ..certainly bigger than traditional individualist anarchism. RJII 15:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying there are fewer anarcho-capitalists than all those following in the traditions which the anarcho-capitalists ignore and/or reject in their use of the term. Not only are their fewer, but they have had a shorter history, and a much smaller impact on society (they were never involved in any wars, they did have any organizations number in the hundreds of thousands, they were not suppressed by any authoritarian regimes, etc). And finally, they are a controversial movement whose place in anarchism is not accepted by most traditional anarchists. All of this does not mean that they should not be represented. All of this does mean that their own philosophy and take on anarchism should not be used to frame the general article, anymore than that of the primitivists or the post-leftists should. Kev 15:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism, like all individualist anarchism, is philosophical anarchism. It's not a "social movement" where people are out rioting in the streets. That doesn't make it not anarchism. Now you say that it doesn't mean that they should not be represented, yet you are the one who deleted the anarcho-capitalist section in entirety from the article and put a header on to try to limit the article to anti-capitalist anarchism. RJII 15:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You clearly haven't been listening to anything I've been saying. Or you are just playing games. Or you can't read. So until I see a light go off somewhere in there, I'm not going to waste anymore time talking. Kev 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance. RJII 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

The current form of the article is based on a revert by a banned user named Hogeye [16]. In addition to being very biased, and the result of a POV fork he made that was reverted by more than half a dozen users, it was an illegitimate revert that according to wiki policy should have been restored immediately. Unfortunately the version was instead built upon by RJ and Dtobias, and now others. I would have immediately reverted back to the copy previous to the banned user's revert, but I have already reverted the article 3 times today and don't think it is appropriate to continue even if it is part of enforcing wiki policy. As such, I would advise that all editors either cease to add to the article until it is restored, or restore it themselves, preferably saving those edits that have been made after (at least those worth saving). Kev 04:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

All set now, thanks Alba. Kev 07:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that Hogeye strikes again with a new IP and another revert [17]. I'm still unable to restore it myself due to wasting my reverts on RJ's nonsense Kev 15:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Calling anarchism "anti-capitalist" is definitely POV. Not including anarcho-capitalism in the lists of schools is POV. Who is this anti-capitalist POV warrior Kev, who singlehandedly insists on reverting/deleting anarcho-capitalist info? Cut that out, please.

Hehe, you are asking who I am, yet you don't sign your edits and remain anonymous. Odd, isn't it, that you showed up and reverted straight to Hogeye's version. I mean, you are new here right, don't know who I am or exactly what is going on? Your only edits up to now where a bunch of vandalisms of various articles in June. Then suddenly you appear in the anarchism pages and know exactly where to find Hogeye's POV fork and you reverted straight to it. Kev 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If "anarcho-capitalism" appears it should appear as a side-note on this page, which explains it and its very contested and controversial place within anarchist tradition. Whatever you might think of it, there simply is not a long tradition within anarchism and besides it's missing many of the most sacred values near and dear to traditional anarchism. It is not anti-hierarchical, does not value solidarity, does not seek to end wage slavery etc etc. The vast vast vast vast majority of anarchists thoughout history have been "anti-capitalist". This has been talked about at length above I’m sure so I won't go on. --Fluxaviator 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has been around since the 1950's at least. I'd call that traditional. If something has to be older than that to be traditional that's your subjective call too. Yes, you're right that the majority of anarchists have been anti-capitalist, but so what? The majority of anarchists have opposed private property as well. But individualist anarchists support it. Tradition doesn't matter unless the article is called "Anarchism (traditional)." RJII 16:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is why it should appear as a brief description of a very contested school of thought. It is a fringe idea only found in the US and parts of the UK that is against almost everything anarchists have believed and fought for over hundreds of years. Enough said. --Fluxaviator 16:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

American anarchism is not "fringe." RJII 17:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I meant Anarcho-capitalism is fringe NOT American anarchism which has a rich labor organizing tradition going back hundreds of years in immigrant communities especially..--Fluxaviator 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Also if you care to look you will find very nuanced and interesting thoughts on private property with anarchism over the past few hundred years. However you will also find anarchists consistently opposing the private ownership of the means of production.--Fluxaviator 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. Traditional individualist anarchist don't oppose private ownership of the means of production unless it's unused land. Factories, etc, can permissibly be privately owned since they are the produce of labor. RJII 17:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism opposes capitalism because it creates socio-economic hierarchies (class). If I saw anarcho-capitalists claim that their stipulation of capitalism DOES NOT LEAD TO HIERARCHIES and their philosophy is structured against the creation of all and any hierarchies, then there would be grounds to include anarcho-capitalism as a "school". I have yet to see the proponents of A/C inclusion make this claim. Otherwise, it either belongs in the anarchy article or in the conflicts section, not as a school. --albamuth 17:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you deny that traditional individualists anarchists are a "school" of anarchists? They don't oppose "socio-economic hierarchy." They don't oppose uneven distribution of wealth. RJII 17:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have been reading my comments, then you will see that I oppose the very usage of "school" to describe anarcha-feminism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.

Max_rspct

If you're going to revert, you need to state some kind of rational reason, instead of "yawn." RJII 16:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You claim is un encyclopediac - haven't we been thru this before - check text books, encyclopedias, course books - YAWN - u are a troller! -max rspct 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev keeps removing anarcho-capitalism from the article

Kev, stop your POV war. It is POV to pick and choose which anarcho philosophy is anarchism. If anarcho-capitalism was not noteable you might have a case for taking it out. But, it's a pretty significant movement in philosophical anarchism --a largeer movement than traditional individualst anarchism today which you aren't removing. RJII 18:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a POV war, it is a disambiguation. I am removing anarcho-capitalism not merely because it is less significant than traditional anarchism, but because the AC editors insist on defining the article in accordance with AC point of view, which is ridiculous given that AC is a minority viewpoint. If you would like for me to stop this disambiguation, I am open to begin compromising as I did previously. But that requires that you will be willing to compromise as well. Lets discuss exactly what compromises each of us is willing to make. On the other hand, if you are going to continue with your perpetual edit war philosophy, I will simply ignore you on the talk page. Kev 18:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll compromise anything that doesn't sacrifice the quality, accuracy, and NPOV of the article. RJII 18:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Great. Then here are my proposals. I will compromise on the following points:

* Anarcho-capitalism can be listed under schools, with a link to the AC article. However, as a relatively recent, relatively minor, and controversial sub-movement, its listing will be brief, a couple sentences describing it, a couple sentences on the main proponents, a sentence on its context within anarchism, no pictures.

* Molinari can be addressed as a precursor in the history, bastiat is more questionable.

* The template can list anarcho-capitalism as a school

* Links to various and sundry anarcho-capitalist books, articles, etc, do not belong in this article.

The following I will not compromise on, and if you continue to ignore my requests in these areas I will feel no hesitation in going back to a disambiguated version:

* You will not continue to provide anarcho-capitalist counterpoints throughout the article, particularly the individualist and communist sections, which you continue to overburden with your own personal emphasis. This article does not exist to detail anarcho-capitalist views, but to detail general anarchist views. Anarcho-capitalist points and controversies can be explained in the multitude of other anarcho-capitalist related articles.

* When people provide you with evidence that clearly contradicts some of your edits, you will try to have an open mind and understand that said evidence may indeed have merit, despite your preconceptions.

Finally, the disambiguation warning can stay or go, whichever you prefer. But if it stays it explains that this article describes the anti-capitalist understanding of anarchism, since there is no point in disambiguating if it doesn't. Further, if it stays the Molinari referance in the history is removed. Kev 19:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to contract with you for anything whatsoever. RJII 19:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Then I see that, despite your claim above, you are unwilling to compromise on anything at all. That makes it easier for me now, because I can ignore you. Let me know if you change your mind. Kev 19:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance. RJII 19:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev's compromise seem more than fair to me. Further points can be made by the AC crowd on the anarcho-capitalist page till their heart's content.--Fluxaviator 22:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An open letter to Anarchy Capitalists

This was a post made in response to Fluxaviator above, but I decided to start a seperate topic, as it grew much bigger than what I planned initially. At first I took it upon myself to voice as if I was speaking for other Anarchists, but instead I make this a personal letter and make no claim to represent the sentiments of other Anarchists. However, if you wish to show solidarity then please feel free to align yourselves with this. Be warned as this is highly opinionated.

As I've glanced over once or twice in this article the arguments put forth by the various ACs here seem much less about informing people about Anarchism, but much more seems like trying to mutate the meaning of the term itself.

But, let me extrapolate here to the Anti-Statist Capitalists here: As far as I have ever known it, for other Anarchists as I have known, it would seem to me that Anarchism is the political philosophy that rejects institutionalized authority of all forms, on the basis that any entity which assumes to be the authority or superior of another must by necessity be coercive to enforce this distinction. The core in our disagreement lies in that I cannot consider any private competitive forms of collaboration as non-coercive, unless they can act completely independent of any other. Those with more wealth are by necessity of higher power, they are an authority. The self-proclaimed owner of the workplace proclaims his authority over the workers that he contracted, even though the workers did not necessarily wish to cede their autonomy, they wanted to eat. Just because they consented to the contract did not mean that they consented to terms in it, they simply wanted to live to be able to make those decisions. This is coercion.

Private property is coercive if you consider the logical outcome of it. Maintaining inequality requires coercive institutions, be it a state or a hired gun. You may argue that such coercive force is justified, but recognize it is coercive force, as well as an establishment of authority. People have the right to better their circumstance by will, and if you take more than others then I dearly wish such treatment is reciprocated. By criminalizing it and calling it theft, you create the conditions for criminality itself, just as you create the conditions of drug criminality by outlawing drugs. By criminalizing it, you merely misdirect theft to negative pursuits. It is a regulatory mechanism of society, to ensure that people can see the futility and error of selfish competition (taken to what it fully entails, merely a protracted state of war), and instead so that people can cooperate instead to ensure the consent of all individuals.

Philosophically I cannot agree with your contention that things you merely claim to be yours can be truly yours. I cannot support the accumulation and guard of wealth for some percieved higher purpose by any percieved authority on the matter. Such wealth which requires the whole of the society to produce, should by necessity also be delegated to the proportion were involved in the production of it. In this I mean wealth in a very abstract manner, as I am not so small-minded to think that monetary systems of exchange are the only way to conduct interactions between freely associating people. Indeed currency is highly misleading, because it gives the illusion that those who have more are somehow more qualified at their position, and the person who is equally qualified but without wealth is thrown away.

Given these contentions, in my opinion you are free to claim that you are Anti-Statist, but Anti-Statist is merely a part of Anarchism, which while important, does not reflect the entire whole. If you only wish to emphasize the Anti-Statism, then call yourselves Anti-Statists. If you have an obssession for the term Anarchy, then simply call your philosophy Anarchy Capitalism (as I have done so).

Anarchists have and continue to fight and die for their own ideal of Anarchism, they died fighting for a world without coercion, a world closer to an ideal of justice. They fought against the forms of de facto coercion prevalent in capitalism, and they were slain by the forces aligned with it. I believe it is in their honor that Anarchists are going to defend this article just as one tries to defend a loved one from slander and libel. In my opinion, it is sheer audacity to claim that Anarchism can be aligned with Capitalism. You may fight to take it from us, we will fight for it back.

For the reasons I listed above, I do not respect the contention that Anarchy Capitalism is valid for listing as a school of Anarchism, and I support all those that fight against this contention.

I feel it prudent to reiterate that this is only my opinion of the matter, but perhaps it would reflect some other anarchist's sentiments. If this is the case, feel free to announce your alignment, and on the other hand, feel free to announce your discontent.

Love,

--Softparadigm 08:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One can flip those sentiments over and ask just how anybody intends to enforce the equality required by egalitarian socialists without a massive degree of coercion. It's simply part of nature that people are not "created equal" (Jefferson notwithstanding), in the sense that different people have different abilities, inclinations, and just dumb luck, which wind up with them having inequal wealth and position without the need of coercion to get them that way -- it would take coercion to attempt to change this state of affairs. Michael Jordan can shoot a basketball better than I can (even in his current retired state), so I'd have a lot more trouble than him getting a whole bunch of people to pay money to go into an arena and watch me play. But maybe I'm better at doing computer work than he is. I guess you could try a Harrison Bergeron style of forced equality by imposed handicap, but that wouldn't be very anarchist. *Dan* 14:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard a prominent historical or modern anarchist of any kind advocate equality of ability. It is usually equality of opportunity that they advocate, which many interpret differently, but would probably not require much more than an extensive voluntary co-op to supply in a modern society. As for equality of outcome, I believe that most hope that distribution will not be heavily skewed by means of some kind of enforced meritocracy (i.e. Michael Jordan gets paid a LOT more than he would if there weren't entry restrictions at the state and market level placed on new leagues, stadium use, regulated television placement and airtime, product endorsement in a system of crony capitalism -as if there is another kind-, etc), but the only time I have ever heard of people forcefully redistributing that wealth is in instances where it is somehow violating them, for example by clogging the economy of the whole society (i.e. monopolistically), or being used to exploit (rent, interest, wage) or extort (tax) money from others. And this is only more pronounced in the case of most performers or the programmer example you refer to, where most decent performers could make a decent living doing live concerts, and most programmers could probably get paid a living wage making copy-left software (from service agreements, educating people, and donations to continue making new software), but instead we have a market that enforces IP laws and a handful of performers make millions while a much larger number live in debt to their distributors and the vast majority never get signed or widely distributed at all, so they have a much harder time filling those concert halls, and for programmers a few investors and execs of software companies get to reap the windfall of the work of dozens or thousands of programmers (and distributors) who get paid moderately well (sometimes) but have almost no creative control over their own work and are coerced into working much longer hours than is reasonable. All of this would be rectified by removing the barriers placed on humanity right now by enforcement of laws designed to enrich statists and capitalists, which does not in any way require sci-fi devices placed on our heads to make us stupid.

Maybe you can find some example of anarchists advocating this that you interpret differently? Otherwise, this is just another of your straw-men D. Kev 15:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Those with more wealth are by necessity of higher power, they are an authority," you write. I think this is where you anarcho-socialists go wrong. Anarcho-capitalists look at actual aggression - interpersonal force or threat of it. We think differences in wealth, talent, knowledge, and so on are natural. To take this natural diversity as evidence of aggression (authority) seems silly. Softparadigm, I think you should look up the definition of anarchism. You'll find that it means anti-statism. Anything consistent with anti-statism is compatable with anarchism. That includes capitalism.-67.15.54.56 15:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah, you look at and reject aggression only when you don't agree with it. When you do agree with it, you just refuse to call it aggression (like the Nazi's refused to say they were aggressing against the Jews, or the Bolsheviks refusing to say they were aggressing against dissidents), then you support it and endorse it and encourage it and make it into a market of its own. The authority does not enter into our relationships at the level of differences of ability, it enters in when you enforce particular outcomes and use difference of ability as an excuse for it.

By the way Hogeye, did you know that you have already violated the 3RR on 2 different pages in the last day with this new IP of yours, as well as being in violation of your ban by using a sockpuppet to post here? Kev 15:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

After about the second generation, I hardly think the gaining of wealth is natural. Do you deny its easier for people to gain money when they have higher investment capital? So much of the folly created by markets and competition is unnatural. If society were not organized at all and we were all in a primal state, then I would agree with your contention that they are natural. When you organize and still compete, then this becomes unnatural, because who you are competing against also allows you to compete at all. Why would you bite the hand that feeds you? Society, if you grasp that all parts are integral to its functioning, leads you to the conclusion that cooperation is its natural state. Furthermore, if we examine the definition of Anarchism

1) a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Then we must take into account what that fully entails. I and other Anarchists do not believe that Capitalism promotes voluntary association, rather the structure of the market society itself forces people into relationships. If a man is compelled to do something that he does not want to do, is that not involuntary? --Softparadigm 11:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If a man is compelled to pick an apple from a tree because he's hungry when he'd rather that the apple came to him, is that involuntary? Right libertarians don't think being compelled by necessity is what makes something involuntary in a moral sense. For them, what makes something morally involuntary is that someone is using physical force, the threat of it, or fraud to get someone else to do something. If someone has an apple and you're hungry, and he won't give you any of it unless you give him something in return, your being "compelled" to enter a market is the result of your own hunger and the fact that he won't give you any of his apple for free --he's not actually making you do anything, they say. Can you, as an anarchist, rightfully force him to give you some of his apple? If not, then it's your own ethics that are compelling you to trade with him rather than taking it from him. That's the basic reasoning. RJII 23:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, as the apple tree involves no one else. However, when someone profits at my desperation, that is exploitation. To claim that the factory "owner" can have such control over the people who are necessary for the factory's function is ludicrous. The boss needs the worker, the worker does not need the boss. Therefore, the boss is indebited to the workers, but because of the boss's preliminary standing he can enforce higher earnings for himself at the workers expense.

I would merely advocate a society in which everyone can go out and pick apples, rather then have them be deprived of apples by people who claim to own the tree. --Softparadigm 00:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism/contradiction

RJII, how can 'american tradition' anarchists firmly support 'free' markets and private property and yet be opposed to capitalism? please reword -
The American tradition of individualist anarchism is firmly in support of individual sovereignty, private property, and a free market economy; it is opposed to buying and selling of raw land, as well as profit (i.e., capitalism itself).
or admit it has little relevance to contemporary anarchism except in regards to historical context and the 'conflict' with anarcho-capitalism -max rspct 15:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. Traditional individualist anarchists oppose profit. That makes them opposed to capitalism. A system with private property and a free market economy, sans profit, is not capitalism. It's mutualism (economic theory). You've simply been unaware that not all anarchism is collectivist. And, it's not confined to the past anymore than collectivist anarchism is confined to the past. Individualist anarchism is active today. [18] [19] [20] RJII 17:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RJII is correct. Capitalism depends on a free market, but free markets DO NOT depend on capitalism. Even the wikipedia article reflects that. Individualist anarchists now call themselves mutualists. --albamuth 19:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like the Illuminatus Trilogy definition of the free market.. Are you telling me the NYSE, as part of political economy and the 'free' market doesn't depend on capitalism? without capitalism it wouldn't be recognisable. Exchange or Reciprocity is probably a better word for what most north americans cherish within the 'free market'. (as fm article says -the free-market is an idealized abstraction) -max rspct 11:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No coincidence there. Author of Illuminatus Trilogy, Robert Anton Wilson is an individualist anarchist. RJII 14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Then u have made my day by admitting there's a big A/C POV campaign going on.-max rspct 15:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wilson is not an anarcho-capitalist. RJII 15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

whaddya write here then? below? and u have oft repeated that the EARLY individual anarchists influenced the handful of a/c writers. -max rspct 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists split into two camps, traditional and anarcho-capitalist (as a result of discarding the labor theory of value and adopting a subjective theory of value). Though obviously, there's a lot of collectivist anarchists who don't think that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. However, contemporary individualists anarchists in the anti-capitalist tradition for the most part do regard it as a non-traditional form of individualist anarchism. RJII 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Indiv. Anarchists "split" into anything, and certainly not towards anarcho-capitalism. A/C is something invented by Rothbard, and even if he claims that he based it on the individualists' ideas, it doesn't mean a bunch of individualist-anarchists "crossed over" into capitalism-land. Rather, the followers of A/C seem to come from the opposite side of the fence, from the Libertarian Party and minarchist crowd. --albamuth 03:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

the latest full page revert war

I disagree with whoever is reverting the article to the version that leaves out anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, but he makes a good point if that's what he's trying to do. He's doing the same thing that the other side is doing when they revert to the version that doesn't show anarcho-capitalism as a school of anarchism. The NPOV thing to do is to include all philosophies that purport to be forms of anarchism. RJII 02:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The revert war wasn't due to content, but rather the link spam that was being introduced. Jpers36 05:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A compromise between the anti-capitalist POV and the neutral POV can only be commie. The best bargaining position if you want an NPOV article is an anti-commie POV. Only then is the natural compromise the NPOV article.

So: Me and my "cartel" will make an anti-commie "tat" for every anti-cappie "tit" until a compromise is reached.

Notice to cappie team: Don't change it if the neutral version is up. The neutral version defines anarchism as anti-statist but not anti-cappie or anti-commie, and has anarcho-capitalism as a school both in the article and the template.

You are reverting this article in violation of your 1 month ban Hogeye. Kev 18:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If that isn't Hogeye, then when he gets back, he should take you to arbitration for these unproved allegations that defame his character. RJII 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, he should. But it is Hogeye. Kev 18:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

objection to Rothbard picture

I object to the picture of Rothbard. Everyone knows you have to have a beard to be an anarchist (females excepted). RJII 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This your humour coming out then RJ? Rothbard looks like insurance man. Castro didnae like rival beards or anarchists either (he crushed them) -max rspct 18:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Untrue! I shaved the other day. But I still haven't showered in over a week, which is requirement number two! --Tothebarricades 19:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

RJ, it would appear that the people over at the libertarian article are being POV by stating at the begining that the article will only be about their definition of libertarian, and will exclude libertarian socialism. Since you claim to be entirely objective and have no political bias whatsoever, and you reverted all my attempts to disambiguate, I fully expect that you will head over there, insert a libertarian socialism section (with a picture, and many libertarian socialist counterpoints), remove the POV notice at the top, change all the definitions to be compatible with libertarian socialism, and revert anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Hop to it, you have a reputation for honesty and objectivity to maintain. Kev 04:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that need work. I can't do everything. Why don't you go work on that? RJII 14:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Odd that someone as objective as yourself has decided to focus on ensuring that capitalism is represented as a form of anarchism, and apparently doesn't think it is worth his time to ensure that socialism is represented as a form of libertarianism. I'm sure it has nothing to do with any political bias on your part. You have none, right? Kev 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Who is "yourself"? "RJII" or me? RJII 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually did suggest that all kinds of libertarianism be included in that article. But, for some reason, making this article NPOV is a lot more fun. I think you may have something to do with that. RJII 19:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I always knew you were a troll RJ, but now you give me two sentences at once that verify it. Thanks. Kev 20:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Property definitions

possessions - things you currently control and use personally, which others do not generally use. E.g. your toothbrush and clothes.

personal property - those possessions which your neighbors agree you should control as an individual.

private property - things (possessions and other, including e.g. capital goods) which your neighbors agree you should control (have absolute dominion over) as an individual.

usufruct (aka 'possession property') - private property for which the owner surrenders ownership by discontinuing use/occupation.

collective property - things which your neighbors agree should be controlled by a collective, but not any individual.

Note that property is not simply an asset, but a socially recognized human relationship to an asset.

When Berkman says, "all labor and products of labor are social" he is speaking of the origin of the products in a modern division-of-labor economy. This does not imply at all that ownership of products cannot later be individual or private. If all the people that produced a product agree to gift/sell it to one person, then it becomes the private property of that one person. Unless, of course, the communists deny people the freedom to gift/sell their legitimate property.