Jump to content

Talk:Anarchism/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Talk archives

If you want to talk about deleting information about schools of anarchism you disagree with (e.g. anarcho-capitalism or individualist anarchism), make sure you take a look at past discussions about it. Same goes for other controversial topics.

Open tasks

Open Tasks for Anarchism (Edit this list)
Requested
Articles		 Editing
& Formatting		 Expansion Cross-reference Discussions
of Importance		 Merges

Summary of Arguments / Proposals

Let me try to summarize the arguments the two editorial factions have made (I invite others to try the same or add to the list, just place commentary afterwards). This is a summary, so try to make each comment/bullet entry as BRIEF as possible (one sentence!) and please do not erase/revise others' entries. Use a comments section below for further discussion, please. Again, this is supposed to be a summary of arguments made, not a section for new ones. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and edit some of the longer comments (move them to comment section, and put in a one-sentence placeholder) --albamuth 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) If you still want to talk about "anarcho-capitalism" and its inclusion in the article, please go over this "checklist" of arguments -- if you're about the same argument as one listed, then add your vote on it. If you're going to make a NEW argument, add it to the list, please. --albamuth 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro Anarcho-Capitalist Arguments

  • Gustave de Molinari was first anarcho-capitalist, in 1849
invalid - no original research albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid - research by Hoselitz pro_ac_1 Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
questionable - Molinari was pretty damn close, whether or not he was an ancap per se is open to interpretation. I don't think this is a very important question for this page, though. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
questionable - Given that he never stated as much and predated anarcho-capitalist as such, its a POV matter and not one to be decided by the text of wikipedia Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
dubious - If this sort of retrospective enlistment is permissible, Gerald Winstanley was an anarcho-collectivist Septentrionalis 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Did he call himself that? If not he wasn't. // Liftarn
questionable, it's very much a subjective matter. Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Individualist anarchism will be included as a school of anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism will as well by the same basic reasoning
refuted - individualists were against capitalism and were part of the anarchist movement albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
true since both schools are anarchist (anti-state). Anarchism is compatable with all economic and property systems consistent with statelessness. Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
true Even though traditional individualist anarchism opposes collectivist anarchism (left anarchism) it's still anarchism. pro_ac_2 RJII 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
false individualist anarchists still opposed capitalism -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
false what CyM said. --harrismw 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
prolly not - Individualist anarchism (by which I mean Benjamin-Tucker-ism) is considered "anarchist" by movement anarchists apparently because it derives in large part from Proudhon, which is not really true of ancaps. This is a genetic relationship, so any phenotypic similarity between the two philosophies is a separate question. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
false Individualism opposed institutions necessary to capitalism that are also opposed by all other anarchists other than "anarcho"-capitalists, so the reasons for including individualism amongts anarchist schools do not carry over to "anarcho"-capitalists. Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
Dubious as per Kraus. Septentrionalis 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
'false They are not simmilar. // Liftarn
false, agreeing with CyM. Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indiv. were for private property, and so are anarcho-capitalists. Individualists are considered anarchists, so then should anarcho-capitalists.
invalid equivocation, straw man - nobody is using private property / collective property as a qualifying principle. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
irrelevant since anarchism specifies no particular economic system. See previous. Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
irrelevant but interesting because traditional individualist anarchists believed that those who opposed private property were not anarchists. The same type of thing is happening with collectivist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. RJII 02:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid individualists were still anti-capitalist -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
invalid definition of property is disputed. what CyM said.--harrismw 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
same answer as the previous question. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
irrelevant private property as individualists upheld it was in accordance with anarchist values, tradition, and goals, private entitlement of capitalists is distinct from this. Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
irrelevant // Liftarn
irrelevant, the concern is on capitalism. Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • X, Y, and Z encyclopedias/dictionaries only say that anarchism is against the State.
invalid - biased sample, perhaps even appeal to unsound authority, certainly historian's fallacy. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid The sample was automatically generated by a search engine. pro_ac_3 Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid dictionaries are not used to define quantum physics, expert sources are necessary here as well -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
invalid dictionaries are well known for providing very limited definitions of terms. Not all encyclopedias are created equal. Some are more biased then others.--harrismw 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
partially relevant - this sort of evidence is part of a larger analysis arguing one way or the other on the question of what the most common English meaning of "anarchism" is. It's important evidence, but not definitive by itself. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not proper material to base an encyclopedia on, though they can be used for putting primary sources in context. Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
irrelevant // Liftarn
invalid, dictionary definitions attempt to be concise at the cost of accuracy. Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Proudhon/Emma Goldman/Kropotkin were not against capitalism, so thus A/C should be included...
invalid I believe it to be a false premise but have not bothered to dig up the evidence to the contrary myself. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strawman No one here has claimed that PP, EG, and PK were not anti-capitalist. pro_ac_4 Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid - contradictory evidence pro_ac_5 --Bk0 02:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid - i know that EG and PK at least were clearly anti-capitalist -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
silly Everything I know about these three people says that they were anti-capitalist. --harrismw 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strawman - What Hogeye said. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strawman The claim wasn't that they were not against capitalism, but rather that they didn't define capitalism as contrary to anarchism. However, when viewing all the evidence from their texts, rather than selective portions, it is apparent that they did believe capitalism to be incompatible with anarchism. It is likely that they did not say so explicitly because no one at the time claimed otherwise. Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
false // Liftarn
false statement Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • The way the "anarcho-socialists" are trying to control this article is not very anarchistic.
invalid - ad hominem albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid Ad hom (circumstantial) if it was used as an argument. We agree on one! Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
invalid no reason needed IMHO --harrismw 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid Silly, and founded on a false premise. Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
false (and there is no such thing as "anarcho-socialists") // Liftarn
invalid Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Capitalist Anarchism is a 'school' of anarchism
unclear - is the usage of "schools" even appropriate? albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
obviously by definition of anarchism. Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid and a very noteable and influential one at that (all without having to riot in the streets). RJII 03:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid it is marginal at best. pro_ac_6 // Liftarn
invalid - by definition of anarchism, capitalist boss/worker relationship is coercively hierarchal. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
invalid - while it is an ideology it is not an anarchist one. --harrismw 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid as ad hom - at best an argumentum ab obnoxiousness. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid it is an ideology relevant to the article, but not a "school" of anarchism unless just about every ideology is. And I think Nat put his invalid above in the wrong category ;) Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
false Ancap is a 'school' of liberalism. // Liftarn
false, not an anarchist ideology Sarge Baldy 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Old versions of the article show strong representation of Anarcho-Capitalism
Probably relatively stronger than recent times, since anarcho-socialists have taken over. Hey, we're back! Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
??? - A positive rather than normative statement. Incidentally, I suspect that Wikipedia drifts to the left over time as its original editors were weighted toward computer nerds and Americans. - Nat Krause 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
who cares? Whether or not it was strongly weighted in one direction or another, it should now be balanced out (and up until recent edit wars by a handful of ideologues it was for the most part). Kev 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
As long as the current article is NPOV I don't relly care. Considering that the ancap movment is small enough to fit into a minibus I guess they are overrepresented. // Liftarn

Notes

^pro_ac_1 (and proven not original research) by the Hoselitz quote above (among other things). Furthermore, there was some agreement earlier to refer to Molinari (and Godwin) as proto-anarchists rather than anarchists - a solution that perhaps everyone can live with. I.e. Gustav de Molinari was a proto-anarcho-capitalist, and should be included in the history as such. Hogeye

Whatever agreement there was must have been limited, I have expressed disagreement form the start that any particular sub-movement should claim predecessors in the general history. The general history should be first and foremost about anarchism in general, and when it lists anarchists particular to any sub-movement it should be without interpretation. Kev 6 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

^pro_ac_2 Likewise, even those anarcho-capitalism opposes collectivist anarchism and some of traditional individualist anarchism, it's still anarchism. The reason for both cases is that both traditional individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are opposed to the existence of a state and in favor of voluntary relations between individuals. RJII

None of the anarchists who came before anarcho-capitalism considered capitalist relations to be voluntary. Kev 6 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

^pro_ac_3 The sample was automatically generated by a search engine. I obviously had no control over it. The argument that you should ignore dictionaries and encyclopedias and even past anarchist luminaries and, instead, take a poll, is ... not good scholarship. Hogeye

No one has suggested that past anarchists be ignored, nor even that dictionaries should be ignored. Past anarchists should be referanced, dictionaries should not be used as a basis for an encyclopedia, which should prefer primary sources. Kev 6 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

^pro_ac_4 The claim is: they defined anarchism as anti-statist, not as anti-capitalist. This is the third time Alba has demonstated a failure to grasp the difference between giving a definition and propounding one's philosophy. Luckily, PP, EG, and PK had a better grasp. Hogeye

Hogeye is using the absence of evidence against his claim in select passages as the presence of evidence for his claim. This is a fallacy, but even if it wasn't there happens to be evidence in other passages of their text that each individual believe anarchism to be incompatible with capitalism. That they did not state so explicitly in their definitions is irrelevant, they obviously believed it was entailed because beyond their one-liners they said as much. Kev 6 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

^pro_ac_5 "...we maintain that already now, without waiting for the coming of new phases and forms of the capitalist expoitation of labor, we must work for its abolition. We must, already now, tend to tranfer all that is needed for production—the soil, the mines, the factories, the means of communication, and the means of existence, too—from the hands of the individual capitalist into those of the communities of producers and consumers." — Peter Kropotkin, "Economic Views of Anarchism" (original emphasis). I'd refer to quotes from Proudhon and Emma Goldman as well but it isn't worth my time. Your argument is absurd and invalid. Bk0

Proudhon was soundly anti-capitalist in his productive period; his later transition to "mutualism"/federalism (and, incidentally, Roman Catholicism) is irrelevant to anarchism. Trying to argue that Goldman and Kropotkin were capitalists is laughable. --Bk0 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

^pro_ac_6 From my own experience (yes I know "no original research") I can simply count the different types I've met. I have met two CAs, one IA over 500 (at the same time) anarchists (proper) and about 1500-2000 syndicalists (at the same time). That shows how "noteable and influential" that group is. They are about as influential as Flat Earth Society is on modern geology.// Liftarn

Arguments Against Presentation of Anarcho-Capitalism as Anarchist

  • Anarchism is against rulership and authority, which implies being against capitalism, as capitalism creates rulerships and authoritarian systems.
valid - not just a modern analysis, but one going way back with anarchists. --albamuth 3 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
invalid - Rehashing the same old shit: The vast majority of dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even anarchist luminaries (Kropotkin, Proudhon, Goldman...) define anarchism as anti-state but not necessarily anti-capitalist. See above for quotations, dictionary lists. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
Invalid. Pure POV. Capitalists don't regard their system as containing "rulership" or "authority", as all relationships are voluntary. On the other hand, capitalists believe that socialists are trying to impose their rulership and authority over others. *Dan* July 5, 2005 23:57 (UTC)
true // Liftarn
true Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
false - it is perfectly possible for an anarchist to embrace freedom while still utilizing free trade and monetary units. Just because your strain of anarchism doesn't agree with a particular view, that doesn't mean other anarchists can't agree with it. Rulership and authority to not imply capitalism. NeoChrono Ryu 06:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Anarchism was anticapitalist before Rothbard so that's the way it is
invalid - appeal to tradition albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid - just because the various schools of anarchism in the past were against state-backed "capitalism," it does not logically follow that anarchists cannot favor non-state capitalism. anti_ac_1 RJII 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid every major historical movement/revolt under the black flag has been anti-capitalist -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
largely invalid - agree with RJII. - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
true // Liftarn
largely invalid, as Albamuth said Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
invalid - Just because things were a certain way in the past does not mean that they are forever restricted to remain that way. Change is natural in the way of things. The freedom that anarchism represents reflects this.
  • A/C is an oxymoron because anarchism is anticapitalist.
invalid - the dispute is about whether or not anarchism is to be defined as anticapitalist. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid From a basic definition you draw obvious conclusions. Anarchism is against hierarchy, therefore it will be againstc capitalism. anti_ac_2 --Fatal 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Petito principi Alba is correct. Claiming "anarchism is against hierarchy" begs the question: Does anarchism mean anti-state or anti-hierarchy? Hogeye 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid It is not rule of anarchism to be opposed to "hierarchy." anti_ac_3 RJII 02:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid a handful of internet sites cannot redefine a global movement -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
valid --harrismw 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
definitely invalid - agree with Albamuth. - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid How can you be anti-hierarchy but support capitalism. Anarchism is definitely anti-capitalist. Indeed Bakunin himself said: "Freedom without economic equality is nothing but a lie." There you go.--Sennaista 5 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)
true // Liftarn
valid, although question is posed poorly Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Invalid - Not all anarchists are opposed to capitalism. Why should this wikipedia article exclude those anarchists, while addmiting others? NeoChrono Ryu 06:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether or not they use the word "capitalism," all historical authors but Rothbard are against capitalism as defined by wikipedia.
What about the French physiocrats, and the Economists (Bastiat, Molerini et al)? Not to mention Tucker and Spooner, who had more in common with ancaps than ansocs. Then there's Von Bauerk(sp), Mises, Hayak, and various Old Right folks like Chodorov and HL Mencken and Oppenheimer and ... These guys didn't call themselves "anarchist", but definitely wrote aboout what we today would call anarchist theory. Oh darn, you had me going...
Irrelevant We want to know the definition of anarchism - its essentials and differentia. How "anarchism" was used in the past is not directly relevant. Hogeye 02:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redundant question - same as the first one. - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • All other "schools" of anarchism are mutually compatible; A/C is not.
valid Actually all schools of anarchism are compatible with each other in the broad sense, all major things are the same, like the abolition of hierarchy. anti_ac_5 --Fatal 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
false individualists' [are] squarely against the collectivist anarchists and they say so themselves. anti_ac_6 RJII 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
false All schools are fundamentally opposed to the State, ergo compatible to that extent. Hogeye 02:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
valid all schools have their disagreements and fundamentalists, but ancaps are the only ones who draw almost unanimous mutual exclusivity -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
valid all schools accept that they can not force people to live a certain way (that would be heirarchical) --harrismw 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
false - It's possibly true that all anarchist schools other than the individualists are compatible (I don't claim to understand their philosophies), and it's possibly true that the individualists are compatible with some or even most other anarchist schools; but I find it very hard to believe that the individualist anarchism is really compatible with every branch of anarchism. - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mostly true At least they could work together. // Liftarn
mostly true, anarchists of different schools often group together to a common cause, although admittedly individualist capitalism sticks out a bit. Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anarchism is a growing social movement, A/C is not.
invalidWhat's a social movement? If it's rioting in the streets, then no, A/C is not a growing social movement. It's an intellectual one. RJII 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
bullshit You haven't compared page hits for LewRockwell.com, compared to, say, Infoshop.org, have you? Hogeye 02:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid The libertarian movement is large and significant, with many publications and organizations. anti_ac_4 *Dan* 03:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
valid handful of websites does not compare to Ukraine, Spain, Seattle and other major historical events and the continuing pace of a global movement -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ukraine? Spain? Seattle? Other major historical events? Pray tell: to what extent anarchism had any influence on those? In particular: why would anarchists support Yushchenko, a presidential candidate? Spain - which event in Spain in the recent past do you mean? Seattle: stop mingling anti-globalisation and anarchism. Anarchism is just a small part of anti-globalisation; the vast majority of antiglobalists do not oppose the state - on the contrary! Luis rib 21:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
come on CyM, histroical events can be used to say that anarchism is growing now. --harrismw 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
? Don't know. --harrismw 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The revolution will not be televised - How could we possibly know what the rate of growth for either group is? - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The proponents of A/C inclusion are a small number of zealous campaigners.
invalid' - appeal to ridicule albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid - First of all, I haven't seen any evidence that those proponents of the inclusion are anarcho-capitalists. RJII 02:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
true // Liftarn
true -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
true--harrismw 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
trivially true - The proponents of both sides are a small number of zealous campaigners. - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
irrelevant Size doesn't matter. // Liftarn
irrelevant, i don't see what this has to do with anything. Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • This list of arguments shows that the pro-A/C faction is wrong (implied).
invalid - possible argument from fallacy, it's not what I'm trying to do, anyhow. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • "left-anarchism" and "anarcho-socialism(ists)" are neologisms used in an attempt to re-characterize the anarchist movement.
valid - Phrase(s) coined by Wendy McElroy, not used by other idealogues. They aren't even in the wikpedia list of isms. albamuth 05:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
invalid - That's preposterous. What evidence do you have that McElroy invented the term "left anarchism"? The term has been in wide usage for a long time. An older alternative term for left anarchism, that's been in use for ages, is "collectivist anarchism" [1] RJII 05:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
true // Liftarn
valid collectivist anarchism and "left anarchism" are not the same, as individualists (who used the term) were also anti-capitalist -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The individualists did not use the term "left anarchism." RJII 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Invalid - The first part is true: they are neologisms. I don't see how they are used to re-characterize the anarchist movement, most of which has always been both left and socialist. - Nat Krause 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
true or rather they are political epithets. // Liftarn
  • Though historically individualist- and communistic anarchists were at odds, contemporary adherents to both have no conflict with each other. A/C adherents are at odds with every other anarchist sub-grouping.
valid Mutualists and Social anarchists contend that their flavors of anarchism are currently compatible, despite past ideological disputes. --albamuth 19:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
true // Liftarn
true Sarge Baldy 04:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Notes

^anti_ac_1 This is a case of people being stuck in the past and wanting to keep everybody else there. Of course, anarcho-capitalism, is incompatible with "traditional anarchism." But, so what? This article is called "Anarchism," not "Traditional Anarchism." RJII

^anti_ac_2 By the same logic one could say that a flower is defined as a plant, but it isn't defined as growing in dirt and requiring water, so those things aren't necessary. From a basic definition you draw obvious conclusions. Anarchism is against hierarchy, therefore it will be against, for example, sexism. Capitalism is yet another obvious thing that anarchism is against. Fatal

^anti_ac_3 You think all anarchism is collectivist anarchism. Traditional individualist anarchism does not oppose voluntary boss and employee relationships as long as they stick to the labor theory of value. Involuntary hierarchy is opposed, of course, but not hierarchy in itself unless you're a collectivist anarchist. Maybe you don't think traditional individualist anarchism is real anarchism? If so, you're wrong. RJII

^anti_ac_4 I don't know the exact numbers involved, but the libertarian movement is large and significant, with many publications and organizations (though, as others have noted, they're less prone to rioting in the streets and smashing things, which makes them less-often in the news; however, the local newscast in my area yesterday specifically mentioned the Libertarian Party as the instigator of a successful move to get the county to repeal its ban on Sunday liquor sales). Within the libertarian movement, there are more minarchists than anarcho-capitalists, but anarcho-capitalism (often referred to within the libertarian movement as simply "anarchism", since that term has the meaning of "anti-government" with no socialist baggage in these circles) is widely recognized as the most pure and extreme form of libertarianism even if most libertarians decline to go that far themselves. *Dan*

^anti_ac_5 Actually all schools of anarchism are compatible with each other in the broad sense, all major things are the same, like the abolition of hierarchy. And if you're one of these people that likes to use the word government because you think that excludes other hierarchy, i've got news for you, they're synonyms. --Fatal 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

^anti_ac_6 Again, as I pointed out above, traditioanl individualist anarchists do not oppose hierarchy as long as it's voluntary. All anarchism is not collectivism. That, together with the individualists' advocacy of private property rights and a market economy pit them squarely against the collectivist anarchists and they say so themselves. RJII 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for Common Solution

  • Removing 'Schools' approach in favor of developmental history of anarchism as movement and philosophy.
I like this idea, because I thought of it. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't. Why not have both history, then schools?--harrismw 04:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ToTheBarricades and I had a discussion about this, and it broke down on the question of how anarcho-capitalism should be presented. He wanted no mention until Rothbard (1950s); I insisted that anti-state liberals such as Bastiat and Molinari must be included (1840s). Impasse. Hogeye 04:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Simple solution, don't include any sub-movement "anarchists" who existed before the creation of the term they are being filed under. Thus primitivists don't get cavemen, anarcho-communists don't get Zeno, capitalists don't get molinari. All those individuals can expound on these supposed precursors on their own pages, the general page can be left to those precursors which apply to all of anarchism, so unless there is objection we all get Lao Tzu, Godwin, etc). Saves all the fighting, allows for a detailed history. Kev 6 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
Good solution Never been tried before in a detailed manner, most other proposals have and have failed at some point. It also allows for all movements and sub-movements to be described on the page, and puts them into context at the same time. Kev 6 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Using public survey to settle definition dispute
logical fallacy - argumentum ad numerum even though the anti-A/C side is clearly "winning" albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
logical fallacy - as above Kev 6 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Neutral Disambiguation Page as proposed by Hogeye
pointless - using anarchism (socialist) just replicates the dispute. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand, Alba. It looks to me like the dispute disappears. The ancaps can tweak their Anarchism (anti-state), and the ansocs can tweak their Anarchism (socialist). Instead of agreeing on a definition (ha!), all we have to do is agree not to vandalize the other article. How is this replicating the dispute? Hogeye 02:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1) having "their article" and "our article" is not the correct solution for Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a collaborative project.
2) it replicates the dispute because editors do not want the neologism of "anarcho-socialism" or "left anarchism" used to describe anarchists. --albamuth 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What the hell; I'll call 'em "libertarian socialists" if that makes them happy. Same thing. But perhaps you underestimate the libsoc's ability to refrain from vandalizing the other article.
Realizing that frivolous POV forks are uncool, Wiki might set some limits as follows.
Forks are permissable when:
1) The dispute is regarding the definition of the article, and not merely on the basis of content.
2) There has been ongoing edit wars and page freezes for over 1 year (or whatever specified time period.)
More experienced Wiki editors may come up with better measures for (2), e.g. based on number or rate of reverts or whatever.
Hogeye 00:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
pointless - we already have a well written a/c page. So why bother having another one? --harrismw 04:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Harris, the NDP has absolutely nothing to do with the a/c page. It has to do with the general Anarchism article only. The NDP would point to two articles - one about Anarchism using the broad (anti-state) definition, the other with the narrow (anti-state + socialist) definition - and let the Wiki user decide which meaning to choose. Then, instead of having a permanent edit war, we'd have at most the occasional vandalism of the other faction's article. It solves the problem by giving each faction their own playpen. Hogeye 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only people who claim that anarchism is not against all hierarchy are anarco-capitalists. There is already a page describing anarco-capitalism. Thus there is no need for another page. There would be no need for an edit war if you (and others) just accepted that there is a page on anarchism, and a link to something that is simply anti-state. If you have the two pages like you suggest, then there would be a lot of duplication. --harrismw 01:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only people who claim that anarchism is not anti-state are anarco-socialists. There is already a page describing anarco-socialism. Thus there is no need for another page. There would be no need for an edit war if you (and others) just accepted that there is a page on anarchism, and a link to something that is also anti-capitalist. Hogeye 03:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad idea First, it was tried before and failed. Second, and most importantly, it takes a tiny and controversial sub-movement of anarchism and divides the entire philosophy into two categories for the visitor. This over-emphasizes anarcho-capitalisms relative importance tremendously, and would be as silly as creating a "anarchism (anti-technology)" or "anarchism (anti-property)" POV fork for the other schools (who are less controversial and arguably more significant than AC anyway). Kev 6 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)

  • Instead, have Ancap Article, Anarchism article, and a general anti-statism article. Saswann 30 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)
Good idea I would prefer to try the history approach first, but this is also a good approach. Its very difficult to deny or get in an edit war about claims that anarcho-capitalism is anti-state, or that Molinari was anti-state, so it should allow for stability of that article and hopefully take some heat by POV warriors off of this one. Kev 6 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)

Comments

Well, almost every argument made by either side is either fallacious or has been refuted. Where does that leave us? I think arbitration may be next. albamuth 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's say that by some chance we come up with a consensus. What does it matter? As soon as we get the article the way we want it, a few new guys will show up that weren't a part of that consensus that don't agree with how anarcho-capitalism is represented. Then all of a sudden there's a lack of consensus and we edit war again. I'm just pointing out the futility of the whole procedure. I say just unlock the article and let it be. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and happen over and over and over. Recognize the futility of what we're doing. Don't kid yourselves that we're going to come up with any sort of finality here. All of our edits will be erased an infinite number of times over. Enough is enough. Unlock the article so it can be edited. RJII 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever solution we come up with together will probably be more amenable to a bunch of FNG's that show up than a permanent edit war. Plus it will have more defenders. --albamuth 16:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you seriously using "Appeal to Tradition" against the "anarcho"-capitalists? Haven't you been using this logical fallacy as a cornerstone of your own arguments? The fervency of the ideologies on this page, from both camps, will not "solve" anything. Socialisto 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You might have noticed that I have found faults with the arguments on both sides. My aim was merely to point out that both sides have been making the same weak arguments over and over. --albamuth 05:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added a new proposal with the following rationale:

  1. To avoid confusion, we all should use consitent language and follow accepted usage.
  2. As it stands now, almost all unqualified uses of the word "anarchism" in wikipedia refers to socialist/collectivist anarchism— even Individualist Anarchism is generally qualified.
  3. If we accept the default unqualified term "anarchism" to refer to a philosophy that is anti-state and anti-capitalist, Ancaps aren't "anarchists" by this usage.
  4. If an anti-capitalist article exists, it follows that an anti-statism article should as well, since the two philosophies aren't by necessity linked.
  5. Since the Ancap definition of "anarchism" is synonymous with anti-statism alone, any relevant Ancap material can be added to that article.

I've been trying to NPOVify the ancap article, and my experience seems to indicate that the whole problem stems from a linguistic dispute over the proper definition of Anarchism. I believe both sides are correct. The English language is not as precise an instrument as we'd like it to be, and any solution is going to be, by definition, arbitrary. I suggest the compromise: Accept the socialist/collectivist defintion of the word "anarchism" as anti-capitalist and anti-statist, and use the more general, accurate, and less confusing term "anti-statism" for the Ancap definition of "anarchism" and allow the anti-statism article be a repository for tracing the history and development of anti-government philosophy in general, leaving this page to trace the history and development of socialist Anarchism. This isn't a matter of one side "winning" the debate, but of establishing a common lexicon where people on both sides might find it possible to write a mutually-agreed-upon articles. Saswann 30 June 2005 16:27 (UTC)


Fish story

For many years, the utility of fish in the oceans was rarely questioned until a seminal work, What is Sealife?, was published. In it the author, whom we'll call PP, strongly attacked sealife and advocated the extermination of it. He called himself an anicthist, from the Greek "an", meaning "absence of" and "icthus", meaning "fish".

His followers railed against fish, anemones, whales, sponges, barnacles, and many other ocean-dwellers.

Later on scientists found out that, contrary to how people used the term, a "whale" could not rightly be classified as a fish. They have hair. They breathe air into lungs. They breastfeed their young. They are warm-blooded. Their ancestors were even land-dwellers! That they happened to live in the ocean was not meaningful for scientists - they base their classifications on the structure of an organism, not where it resides.

Soon after, a new movement formed, whose proponents called themselves anictho-whalists. They considered themselves to be anicthists because of their thorough attacks on all fish. But they were very supportive of whales because, although one could easily be tempted to call them fish, they were clearly distinct.

Traditional anicthists were livid. "How can you support whales????" they asked. "You're spitting on the whole anicthist movement! Anicthists have always been strongly against all forms of sealife!"

"But," replied the anictho-whalists, "we're not claiming to be part of the traditional anicthist movement. But if you read any dictionary, which captures the normal usage of the term, you'll see we meet it because we're against fish."

"Oh, sure, if you want to narrowly rely on dictionaries to reflect meanings of words! "

"Um, yeah. And in fact, the original anicthists, like PP, defined anicthism in itself to be anti-fish, not anti-whale."

"That's because any moron who read What is Sealife? is going to walk away opposing whales, and only an idiot would think PP favored whales!"

"Of course he didn't favor whales - we're just saying he didn't define anicthism as anti-whale."

"What the hell is the difference anyway? How can you count something that LIVES IN THE OCEAN, HAS FINS, and even BREATHES UNDERWATER, as 'not a fish'?"

"There's nothing wrong with living in the ocean or having fins. It's the scales, the gills, the lack of hair that's a problem. And whales don't breathe underwater - that's a flawed inference based on a flawed understanding of an ocean tainted with fish. Just because an organism is underwater for a long time doesn't mean its breathing down there."

"Oh, and the sperm whale stays underwater for two hours without breathing, right?"

"YES!"

Cute story, but as an analogy, it doesn't hold up. Anyhow, the argument that A/C's stipulate the definition of capitalism to be somehow different from the commonly understood definition doesn't change the anarchist position of being against the commonly understood definition of capitalism. We've been over this ground before. --albamuth 17:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"the argument that A/C's stipulate the definition of capitalism to be somehow different from the commonly understood definition"
I don't understand. The anarcho-capitalists use the same "commonly understood" definition of capitalism as others. Why do you think otherwise? The issue between ancaps and some others is whether stateless capitalism qualifies as anarchism - whether anictho-whalists are anicthos. We all define whale the same.
The analogy implies that at some point in history the def. of "fish" was thought to include whales. In anarchist history, capitalism was understood as a system for the creation/maintenance of hierarchies, and is still thought of as such. What does this fish story have to do with anything? --albamuth 05:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't see the parallels, do you, albamuth? Here is what actually happened:

For many years, the utility of government was rarely questioned until a seminal work, What is Property?, was published. In it the author, whom we'll call PP, strongly attacked property and advocated the abolition of it. He called himself an anarchist, from the Greek "an", meaning "absence of" and "archon", meaning "ruler".

His followers railed against government, property, hierarchy, coercion, usury, and wage labor.

Later on economists found out that, contrary to how things appeared, laborers actually did earn their marginal value except in cases of artificial intervention. This is because if it were possible to exploit a surplus value, the labor would be bid away at a higher price. That some entrepreneurs do make profits was not meaningful for economists - they base their findings on average profit, not highest profit, which is never guaranteed.

Then a new movement formed, whose proponents called themselves anarcho-capitalists. They considered themselves to be anarchists because of their thorough attacks on all rulers. But they were very supportive of private capital ownership because, although one could easily be tempted to call such owners rulers, they were clearly distinct.

Traditional anarchists were livid. "How can you support capitalism????" they asked. "You're spitting on the whole anarchist movement! Anarchists have always been strongly against all forms of hierarchy!"

"But," replied the anarcho-capitalists, "we're not claiming to be part of the traditional anarchist movement. And if you read any dictionary, which captures the normal usage of the term, you'll see we meet it because we're against government."

"Oh, sure, if you want to narrowly rely on dictionaries to reflect meanings of words! "

"Um, yeah. And in fact, the original anarchists, like PP, defined anarchism in itself to be anti-state, not anti-capitalism."

"That's because any moron who read What is Property? is going to walk away opposing capitalism, and only an idiot would think PP favored capitalism!"

"Of course he didn't favor capitalism - we're just saying he didn't define anarchism as anti-capitalist."

"What the hell is the difference anyway? How can you count something that PROMOTES INEQUALITY, HAS HIERARCHY, and even REQUIRES PEOPLE TO LIVE IN POVERTY, as 'not a ruler'?"

"There's nothing wrong with inequality or hierarchy in themselves. It's the forceful imposition of them that's a problem. And capitalism doesn't require people to live in poverty - that's a flawed inference based on a flawed understanding of a market tainted by states. Just because people live under poverty now doesn't mean the capitalist is causing it."

"Oh, so the plight of the working poor today has nothing to do with, say, capitalists treating them like dirt, right?"

"RIGHT!"

So you're bringing up the old "dictionary def", which was dealt with approx. 200 Kb ago in talk pages - strawman. Then you bring up the "Proudhon didn't define anarchism as anti-capitalist" argument, which was also disproven. And now you say, "there's nothing wrong with inequality or hierarchy in themselves". So...why don't "anarcho-capitalists" call themselves "capitalarchists"? If there is no power structure but that created by access to capital, you would have capitalarchy, not anarchy. After the first wave died and they passed property on to children, you would then have an oligarchy. Is the point so obvious that I don't see it? Help me out here. ;) --albamuth 04:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
>So you're bringing up the old "dictionary def", which was dealt with approx. 200 Kb ago in talk pages - strawman.
No, not a strawman. I have precisely characterized the traditional anarchist position, which is to disparage references to numerous actual dictionaries as "narrow". If you want me to dig up quotes from Kev and (probably) you, I will, if you don't delete them before then.
>Then you bring up the "Proudhon didn't define anarchism as anti-capitalist" argument, which was also disproven.
If by "disproven" you mean "repeatedly and relentlessly misinterpreted as an argument claiming that Proudhon favored capitalism", then yes, it was disproven. However, in reality I haven't yet seen a traditional anarchist actually acknowledge a difference between "not defining anarchism as X" and "favoring X". The above scenario precisely characterizes the practice among traditional anarchists here of thinking that "Proudhon defined anarchism as anti-statist" means "Proudhon favored capitalism." Again, I can pull up quotes.
>And now you say, "there's nothing wrong with inequality or hierarchy in themselves". So...why don't "anarcho-capitalists" call themselves "capitalarchists"? If there is no power structure but that created by access to capital, you would have capitalarchy, not anarchy.
Because the supposed hierarchy in owning capital is not a hierarchy in any economically or morally significant way. So I diverted some of my previous labor into capital goods, making me more productive. This, in and of itself, dominates you how? It is different from me making myself more productive by excercising how? Ancaps recognize certain hierarchies as being unavoidable or good: "I, not you, may dictate the uses to which my body is put. I, not you, may dictate how the product of my labor is to be used."
>After the first wave died and they passed property on to children, you would then have an oligarchy. Is the point so obvious that I don't see it? Help me out here.
I would be glad to help you out. If you oppose inheritance, you oppose me deciding how my labor is to be used. If I want my labor to be used to assist my decendants in being productive, you oppress me by preventing this. It is no different from me selecting a desirable mate in order to have offspring which, as it may turn out, are more productive than others. The logical implication of traditional anarchist beliefs is to support making people equal in ability, preventing people from producing more than others, or stealing the product of their labor. But this is getting off onto a tangent of whose beliefs are right: the discussion here is whether traditional anarchists are justified in saying that ancaps are not true anarchists.
Please understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Whatever your fight is with anarchists is, it is irrelevant here. --albamuth 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Whatever my fight with anarchists is, it's not relevant here? Excuse me, isn't it relevant whether or not anarcho-capitalists count as anarchists and deserve equal space and consideration on an "anarchism" page? Yes, it is relevant. What happened is, someone demolished your arguments explaining why anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism, and you suddenly decided "it isn't relevant". Well guess what? You asked me specific questions. You specifically asked me to help you out. Then I did. Then you decided to invoke that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You're right. It's not. So don't ask me questions you don't want answered, and don't pretend it's irrelevant whether ancaps count as anarchists. You just don't want to face up to the fact that there is no rational basis on which to marginalize ancaps on the "anarchism" page.

social hierarchy and individualist anarchism

Albumuth, you said "See talk" about your claim that individualist anarchists oppose social hierarchy so where are you? Anyway, where have you seen an individualist anarchists say he opposes "social hierarchy"? RJII 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I was busy writing this:

First, let's look at Lysander Spooner's :OUR MECHANICAL INDUSTRY, AS AFFECTED BY OUR PRESENT CURRENCY SYSTEM: AN ARGUMENT FOR TUE AUTHOR’S “NEW SYSTEM OF PAPER CURRENCY.” [2]

Great as it is, this loss of one fifth of our industry could be born with comparative ease, if it came uniformly in each year, and fell equally upon all in proportion to their property. But it [*4] comes at intervals, and falls unequally. And it falls most heavily upon those least able to bear it. In the first place, it falls, in a greatly disproportionate degree, upon those who labor for daily or monthly wages; depriving them of a large part of their usual means of subsistence, compelling them to consume their accumulations, and often reducing them to absolute suffer­ing. In the second place, it is attended with a fall in prices, which sweeps away, at half its usual market value, the property of thousands, in payment of debts, that had been contracted under high prices; thus bringing upon such persona either utter bankruptcy, or grievous impoverishment. In this way a large portion of the people are kept in perpetual poverty; whereas if their industry were but uninterrupted, and the prices of property stable, nearly everybody would acquire competence. Thus the inequality, with which the loss falls upon the people, makes the loss a far greater evil than it otherwise would be.

Secondly, let's look at the social hierarchy article:

Social hierarchy is a phrase used to describe the distribution of political power, wealth, and/or social status among people within a national or cultural group. Usually, the distribution is "pyramidal"— a few people are very powerful, while most have little or no power.

Spooner was very much against slavery and poverty. The super-exaggerated discrepancies in wealth distribution of the middle industrial age were not an issue -- there was rich, poor, and all the ranges in between. However, the wealthy then (late 1800's) were not the kind of wealthy we have today (the 20% that make 80% of the money, or the richest 2% that own 90% of all wealth, whatever those numbers are), tying up vast amounts of resources for their private use. Wealthy in 1870 (if your were a Southerner) meant owning a large plantation and a few thousand slaves. Wealthy up North meant owning a company like Sears-Roebuck. Compared to the rich of today, proportionally, the rich of then were small fries, at least in the United States. Samuel Colt make a lot of money, but no more than your average pyramid-scheme mogul of today.

From his other writings, you can see that Spooner was very much against the privilege of wealth: In Our Financiers: Their Ignorance, Usurpations, and Frauds (1877) [3] he writes:

Perhaps we may conclude that any privileged money whatever, whether issued by a government or by individuals, is necessarily a dishonest money; just as a privileged man is necessarily a dishonest man; and just as any other privileged thing is neces­sarily a dishonest thing. For this reason we may perhaps con­clude that a government that constantly cries out for “honest money,” when it all the while means and maintains, and insists [*11] upon maintaining, a privileged money, acts the part only of a blockhead or a cheat. (emphasis added)

Anyhow, that's my case for including "social hierarchy in the opening paragraphs." --albamuth 18:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Spooner is talking about "privileged money" there. He's not opposed to people getting rich. He's opposed to them getting rich through government-banked monopoly on banking. RJII 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying he's against getting rich. I'm saying he's against the privilege of wealth. You can tell because in his argument against "privileged money", he's making a direct comparison to the evil of privileged persons -- the reason for the French and American Revolutions. Remember that he was a constitutionalist -- "All men are created equal..." He's not for equality of wealth, but for equality of rights. Privileges enjoyed by any over others = social hierarchy. --albamuth 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
What do you say to this: "The moment we invade liberty to secure equality we enter upon a road which knows no stopping-place short of the annihilation of all that is best in the human race. If absolute equality is the ideal; if no man must have the slightest advantage over another, - then the man who achieves greater results through superiority of muscle or skill or brain must not be allowed to enjoy them. All that he produces in excess of that which the weakest and stupidest produce must be taken from him and distributed among his fellows. The economic rent, not of land only, but of strength and skill and intellect and superiority of every kind, must be confiscated. And a beautiful world it would be when absolute equality had been thus achieved! Who would live in it? Certainly no freeman." -Benjamin Tucker RJII 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You are confusing being against social hierarchy with being against equal distribution of all wealth, as in a communist society with a command economy. Tucker/Spooner both supported to right of inventors to retain patents and enjoy material rewards for their intellect. If Tesla somehow created an empire from his wealth, exploiting workers, and enjoying privileges of power, I think both Tucker and Spooner would have some harsh words for him. In modern times, Tucker would say something like: "I don't think we should all be driving Volkswagons. Any worker should be able to afford and maintain a new car without going heavily in debt, but doctors and scientists, having earned through skill and ingenuity, should have every right to drive around in a Mercedes or Aston-Martin. Look at the Privilege article. Wealth is not automatically privilege, though it can be made into such. --albamuth 18:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. Proudhon criticized communism in the same way. It went something like this: communism is "weak over strong"; property is "strong over weak." You keep confusing communist equality with anarchist equality. --TelemachusSneezed 01:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
And this: "... there are people who say: 'We will have no liberty, for we must have absolute equality. I am not of them. If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living." -Tucker. No collectivist would EVER say that. RJII 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, you are knocking down this "collectivist" straw-man. Show me an anarchist proclaiming that every single person should be issued the same clothes, the same car, the same amount of labor, the same rations of food, and so forth. --albamuth 19:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"Social hierarchy is a phrase used to describe the distribution of political power, wealth, and/or social status among people within a national or cultural group."
It looks to me like you both agree that Spooner was against unequal political power, but not unequal wealth or social status, the latter two being the natural result of liberty. So the quibble is over whether individual anarchists oppose social hierarchy. Technically, if you go by the Wiki definition above, Alba's claim is correct - they do oppose social hierarchy as defined as the disjunction of three criteria. But I agree with RC11 that it is misleading to phrase it that way, because most people will misinterpret it to mean against differences in wealth. It would be clearer to say individual anarchists were against unequal political power, in order to avoid the erroneous impression that they are against unequal wealth or social status.
Exactly. ";;Social hierarchy" is such a vague term that can cover so much that it's basically not effective in communication. To me, social hiearchy means differing wealth levels, which somehow means that people have power over others. Why not just get down to the root of the matter? Anarchists oppose coercion. RJII 19:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that the indiv. anarchists have no objection to some people having power over others, aka "privilege"?
The edit in contention is within the opening paragraph, not specific to individualist-anarchists. I suggest editing the Individualist section to include qualifiers as to what they regard as social hierarchy. --albamuth 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the intro accomodate individualist anarchism instead of assuming all anarchism is about collectivism and "cooperation." RJII 19:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You miss the point. Stating that anarchism is against social hierarchies DOES accomodate individualist anarchism. Secondly, you are still using the "collectivist" straw-man (or as someone else pointed out, a political epithet) which others have already shown to be invalid. --albamuth 05:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
No I am not using it a a political epithet. Communist anarchists call themselves collectivists. It's only an epithet in your own mind. Let me ask you, what exactly is a social hierarchy to you? RJII 05:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree precisely with the Wikipedia article's definition, as quoted above. An encyclopedia should work to dispel misperceptions, not cater to them. --albamuth 05:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
That article is a joke. Looks like my next move may be to attack that article then. RJII 06:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
"Attack"? Are you going to change every article on Wikipedia simply to win debates? --albamuth 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course not. Winning a debate means nothing to me. But Wikipedia is a basically a mess. Getting better, but still a mess. I'm just here to help straighten it out. If it weren't for me, this article would still be ignoring the American individualist anarchists. Anyway, about social hierarchy, would you consider employer/employee arrangements to be social hierarchy? Individualists do not oppose that either. RJII 15:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
If winning a debate means nothing to you, then why do you persist when the debate was clearly over long ago? I already told you what social hierarchy is, and how individualist-anarchists oppose it. Why don't you read and try to understand what I wrote, instead of just scanning for ways in which to attack it? How is anyone an anarchist if they don't oppose hierarchy? And don't go out and change the hierarchy article just because it doesn't fit your agenda. --albamuth 15:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that a situation of employer/employee is a social hierarchy. Is it not? Individualist anarchists do not oppose that. RJII 16:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
"What becomes then of the personal liberty of those non-aggressive individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer..." -Benjamin Tucker RJII 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's use Tucker (and I am not going to cut up his words, as you do):

[4] "How are we to remove the injustice of allowing one man to enjoy what another has earned?" I do not expect it ever to be removed altogether. But I believe that for every dollar that would be enjoyed by tax-dodgers under Anarchy, a thousand dollars are now enjoyed by men who have got possession of the earnings of others through special industrial, commercial, and financial privileges granted them by authority in violation of a free market.

Do you understand what "privilege" means yet? One social group (industrialists) has special privileges given to them by authorities. When one group of people has power over another group of people within a society, you have a 'social hierarchy. It's that simple. Voluntary employer-employee relations, as Tucker advocates in "Voluntary Cooperation a Remedy" is not a social hierarchy, it is a contract between individuals. --albamuth 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tucker is saying he opposed government-backed monopoly that causes "privileges." Anyway, do you deny that an employer has a sort of "power" over his employee? It may be contractual but it's still hierarchical. The problem with saying anarchists oppose "social hierarchy" is that it's very vague. It could be changed to "involutary social hiearchy" or "coercive social hierarchy" and it would be just fine. RJII 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You even put, yourself, into the social hierarchy article: "commonly superiors, called bosses, have more power than their subordinates." So which is it? Is an employee/employer relationship social hierarchy or not? RJII 17:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I would say that that is a workplace hierarchy. If the employer restricts the liberty of the employee, even after a voluntary contract is enjoined, Tucker would be foaming and spitting mad. If the object of the employer-employee relationship is that of an experienced craftsman teaching apprentices the ways of the craft, and in turn receiving help in the form of labor, AND PAYING THEM THE FULL WORTH OF THEIR LABOR, Tucker and Spooner would both be satisfied. Check out balanced job complex for an idea of non-hierarchical workplace organization. Here's a salient quote:
[5] It has been stated and restated in these columns, until I have grown weary of the reiteration, that voluntary association for the purpose of preventing transgression of equal liberty will be perfectly in keeping with Anarchism, and will probably exist under Anarchism until it "costs more than it comes to"; that the provisions of such associations will be executed by such agents as it may select in accordance with such methods as it may prescribe, provided such methods do not themselves involve a transgression of the liberty of the innocent; that such association will restrain only the criminal (meaning by criminal the transgressor of equal liberty); that non-membership and non-support of it is not a criminal act; but that such a course nevertheless deprives the non-member of any title to the benefits of the association, except such as come to him incidentally and unavoidably.
(ironic that the "talk pages" of back then seem to echo the sentiment of ones today) --albamuth 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what that has to do with employee/employer relations. He's talking about private defense forces that protect liberty and property (like anarcho-capitalists advocate). Anyway, you call employee/employer "workplace hierarchy" instead of social hierarchy. I'm sure there are others who would call it social hierarchy. The problem is that "social hierarchy" is really vague and can lead to all kinds of interpretations. RJII 04:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Workplace hierarchy is a social hierarchy. Tucker vehemently objected to the way the big labor unions protected their monopoly on skill, rather than allowing each worker to learn and progress as they were capable to. He saw that as a restriction on liberty. That exerpt (which is not about private defense forces, it is about cooperative , public defense forces) precisely illustrates Tucker's emphasis on the maximization of liberty. In a workplace, or in a society, if liberty is curtailed by certain people, anarchists should band together to fight the enemies of liberty. Privilege of some curtails the liberty of others, or means that those others are not as free as they should be. Working harder or more skillfully to earn more and thus drive a nicer car is not a privilege, in the sense of rights, because it is earned. Social hierarchy is the stratification of society according to privilege, or other rights assignated arbitrarily. The individualists are therefore against social hierarchy. It seems pretty clear to me. --albamuth 04:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes he is talking about private defense forces. Private, in this sense, just means not government owned. Anarcho-capitalists favor the same thing ..voluntary defense by private individuals (private meaning not government-affiliated). A public defense force would be a government. Aside from that, what do you mean Tucker says anarchists should band together to fight employers? Tucker advocated that violence not be used. If someone didn't like their boss retaining profit from wages, the individualist anarchist just walks away and set up their own business based on the labor theory of value, and respects the liberty of others to enter into profit arrangements in employment if they're foolish enough to do so. So you say "workplace hierarchy is a social hierarchy." Is having a boss who pays an employee the full produce of his labor workplace hierarchy? I say it is. A boss is a boss, even if he's paying you more. RJII 04:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
"Public" defense, as in protecting the liberty of everyone, not just the owner(s) of that defense force. I also never said anything about fighting employers. A boss is a boss is a boss, but think a little more about the boss-employee relationship: in a voluntary system, the employee agrees to do work the boss assigns in exchange for money. In a system where employment was readily available for all who wanted to work (Spooner made many arguments against impovrishment and unemployment), any employee that was being mistreated could leave to another job or start their own business. Such mistreatment includes using managerial position to leverage power. The management-employee relationship, is ideally a cooperative arrangement to get things done. Overstepping that arrangement into the realm of coercive power (the term you keep reinserting into the intro) curtails the liberty of the worker. --albamuth 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "Public" defense, as in protecting the liberty of everyone, not just the owner(s) of that defense force." Did you not read the quote that you provided? He says "non-membership and non-support of it is not a criminal act; but that such a course nevertheless deprives the non-member of any title to the benefits of the association, except such as come to him incidentally and unavoidably." That means, if you don't take part it in you don't get protected unless it's by accident or unavoidable (as in a free rider problem).RJII 05:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I suppose "everyone" was a bit vague. Sorry to confuse you. --albamuth 05:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
So, it's the same as anarcho-capitalism in that respect. Voluntary defense associations would be in operation that protected individual liberty and property. If you don't sign up with one, you're left out in the cold. RJII 05:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, though the scope of what "property" the association protected might be different than A/C's (probably a long discussion in itself). --albamuth 04:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Tucker was not against the so-called "workplace hierarchy" unless someone was making a profit off of it. Tucker was not against hired labor at all, so long as the work was paid at full price. However, Tucker agreed with Herbert Spencer's "Law of Equal Freedom", and supported the right to make a profit off of labor. He thought it was wrong, but a right nevertheless. Kind of like staying drunk all the time is wrong, but one has the right to do so. Spooner would say it's a vice but not a crime.

Which does not contradict my assertations of what Tucker advocated. --albamuth 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC) By the way, 67.15.119.25, you should check out the talk archives before trying to insert "national anarchism" into the article again. --albamuth 05:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Social hierarchy is a meaningless term?

RJ, you rv calling it a "meaningless term", but you fight the usage on the talk pages by saying that 1) it does not apply to individualist-anarchists and 2) that is vague and prone to misinterpretation. If you think the term is meaningless, then let's discuss that.

By meaningless, I mean that it's subject to different interpretations. I'm not aware of any universal meaning of the term. And the Wikipedia article sure doesn't help. To me, it can mean a variety of things, differing levels of wealth among individuals as well as the employer/employee situation. But, that's just my interpretation. And you have yours. Nobody seems to know what exactly it is, if it's anything. RJII 05:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC) By the way, where is this "social hierarchy" stuff coming from? Where is anarchism defined that way? RJII 05:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Social hierarchy is a lot more specific than simply saying that anarchism is against all hierarchy. Scientists studying behavior of animals use the term a lot; sociologists and anthropologists as well, without bothering to define it. A Google search turns up as much. It hardly needs its own special definition -- it's merely a compound word, formed of words most people understand. A society has politics; political hierarchy is certainly objected to by anarchists. What is the big deal? The term aptly describes what anarchists object to: a society in which some individuals have more liberties/rights/privileges than others. It doesn't in any way imply "equality", which I'm sure you would have an objection to. --albamuth 17:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Then what do you say to this, from the anarcho-capitalism article: "The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of socialist political movements, and use a general definition that includes rejection of all hierarchical social organization, rather than just the state. They regard the uneven distribution of wealth among individuals in a capitalist system as inherently hierarchical. Therefore, they see anarcho-capitalism as antithetical to the principles of anarchy." According to you, this is wrong, correct? Uneven distribution of wealth is not social hierarchy. RJII 18:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The key phrase is the uneven distribution of wealth among individuals in a capitalist system. In a capitalist economic system, wealth bestows priviliges to the owners of it, according to anarchists. So I don't think that is wrong. --albamuth 03:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The only way you can have unequal wealth distribution is if you have private property. The reason that private property is opposed is because it leads to unequal distributions of wealth. These class distinctions in wealth are exactly what the communist anarchists oppose. And it's what they mean by social hierarchy. They say they oppose uneven wealth distribution in a capitalist system, with the understanding that a capitalist system has private property and that private property is the reason for uneven wealth distribution. Saying that one opposes private private property goes hand in hand with saying that one is for equal wealth distribution. I think the "social hierarchy" thing really only applies to the communist anarchism . Now that individualist anarchism is in the article it doesn't really apply. I know you've adjusted it to have a precise meaning, but I foresee problems because "social hierarchy" goes beyond that for anarcho-communists. RJII 04:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Without getting back into the whole "what is private property?" debate, the conclusion of "unequal wealth distribution = social hierarchy" may be drawn by some anarchists and not others, but it doesn't mean that those others don't oppose social hierarchy for their own reasons, as I was trying to demonstrate earlier, of the individualist anarchists. --albamuth 05:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Which is why saying anarchists oppose "social hierarchy" doesn't really communicate anything, but only confuses things. Some oppose it under one definition. Others don't oppose it under another definition. RJII 21:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleting types of anarchism

What's this with deleting certain philosophies? Is there some kind of Official Anarchist Authority out there that decides which philosophy is or isn't allowed to represent itself as a form of anarchism? RJII 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Anarchism/Archive15, where the "national anarchist" troll came along. If you think a neo-nazi group has anything to do with anarchism, well... then I should cruelly ridicule you. --albamuth 17:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Nowhere do I see national anarchists advocate "exterminating" the Jews, as Proudhon does, and nowhere do I see them calling Jews an "collective organic parasite" as Bakunin does, yet those individuals are listed here as anarchists. This picking and choosing of who is or who isn't an official anarchist, and censoring or ostracizing them, is not only inconsistent with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, it's downright Archist. Those who engage in such behavior are the real fascists. RJII 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting -- though anti-semitism on Proudhon / Bakunin / Shakespeare's part is regrettable, I fail to see how a single, neo-nazi front group with one or two web pages is part of the anarchist social movement / philosophy. Anyway, I have to go to work, so in the meanwhile (about 10 hours) please help the discussion out with some relevant links/sources, rather than simply making edits to which there is much disagreement about. Simply editing controversially without discussion invites reversion and is a waste of your time and mine. --albamuth 17:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't give me that crap. I've been engaging in a huge amount of discussion here. RJII 17:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Now you're getting off topic. I've noticed that you make edits and when someone objects and reverts, instead of allowing the discussion to conclude, you simply re-do controversial edits. And your arguments digress into such nuances and sidebars that it seems to me that you simply want to prolong the argument as a smokescreen for your edits, whilst you continue making the same edits over and over. It seems like you don't care what other people think. I just want to point out that editing in this manner is non-productive, because without agreement there is only permanent edit war. --albamuth 07:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
That's not true at all. I care very much what others think, but I also care about enforcing the Wikipedia NPOV policy. About a permanent edit war, get used to it. This is a permanent edit war. Do you realize how many years this has gone on? It does not end. You have to be out of your mind if you think consensus will ever be reached on this. Anarchists have a long history of denying that each other's philosophy is real anarchism. That's not going to stop as long as there are POV warriors around. And POV warriors will always be around. I'm the opposite of a POV warrior; I'm trying to allow every philosophy that represents itself as a form of anarchism. RJII 17:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I've read the archives and various national anarchism pages. They are clearly against the state, which makes them anarchists. They are apparently into Bookchin-like municipalism, with affinity groups based on race (rather than e.g. economics or ecology).
Anarcho nationalism is a part of rascist and far right-wing movements. This is rascist ideology. And this is one of many proof that it's NOT enough to be against state to call yourself anarchist. Maybe we should put here somalia as an example of "anarchist country"? There is almost ideal anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-nationalism with class and ethnic bosses at the top of pyramid of power.--XaViER 11:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
At the very least, it demonstrates clearly that when anarcho-capitalists use the word "anarchism" they are not refering to the same thing as what anarchists traditionally (and still today) refer to. That calls for a disambiguation. Kev 12:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalists use Pierre Proudhon's definition. What definition do you use?
Any common one. But ACs don't use Proudhon's definition, they actively distort the meaning of the words he uses. This is obvious from the fact that they come to conclusions that blatantly contradict his own concerning the meaning of those words and the use of that very definition. In other words, again, they are using the term "anarchism" to mean something different. Kev 09:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The old-timey socialist anarchists just don't "know the way the wind blows," apparently. They want to freeze anarchism in 1880, and refuse to acknowlege the up and coming philosophies and movements. In the words of Voltairine de Cleyre, advocate of anarchism without adjectives:

"there is nothing unanarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to."

Even the some of the "old-timeys" didn't have a POV definition. Look at the definition from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica: "ANARCHISM (from the Greek, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." ? RJII 17:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
you should read WHOLE article from the 1910: "(...) As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress.(...)"
And i see that @capitalists stuck in 1970 economics. But economics changes and you still read Rothbard again and again.--XaViER 17:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
That says "the anarchists." It doesn't say one has to oppose profits to be an anarchist. Anarchism is defined as the top of the article. It's just that capitalist-anarchists didn't exist in 1910. As anarchism is defined, anarcho-capitalism definitely fits. Anarcho-capitalists believe in voluntary relations. The support profit if both sides contract to a profit arrangement. Traditional American individualist anarchists, opposed profit as being inconstistent with the labor theory of value, but they would allow it to occur since it was contracted. And, it's not only anarchists that oppose ownership of raw land. Classical liberals, such as Locke, Jefferson, etc, also opposed it --nothing special about traditional anarchists in that respect. RJII 19:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib says in edit summary: "Consensus is to keep a small paragraph on AC" Then why are you reverting to version which includes A/C as a school? I have argued for the retention of a small paragraph and mention of anarcho-capitalism!! -max rspct 21:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Christian Anarchism

RJ11, will you please provide documentation to prove your claim that Christian anarchists oppose tax resistence? I can show that its founder, Tolstoy, supported tax resistence, as did many of the Quaker anarchists, so I don't agree with your generalization at all.

Well, this is from Tolstoy's work "The Kingdom of God is Within You": "

Q. Can he pay taxes to such a government?

A. No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not to resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the government, and is exacted independently of the will of the subject. It is impossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some kind. Since the Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged to offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by the authorities.

-How's that? RJII 16:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


"Mine is the true revolutionary method. If the people of the empire refuse, as I believe they should refuse, to render military service - if they decline to pay taxes to support that instrument of violence, an army - the present system of government cannot stand." - Tolstoy

RJ11, in the quote you gave, Tolstoy answered, "No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes." So he did support tax resistence. I think you have misunderstood the rest of the quote due to the non-standard use (or translation from Russian?) of the word "resist." (which is understandable, unless you'd read the book.) In "The Kingdom..." the word "resist" means the use of violence or evil. I.e. chapter 1 title: "THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE...". Then he quoted William Lloyd Garrison and Ballou:

Q. Ought the word "non-resistance" to be taken in its widest sense--that is to say, as intending that we should not offer any resistance of any kind to evil?

A. No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's teaching--that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.

The quote you gave, RJ11, means that Tolstoy supports non-violent tax resistance, but not resistance such as mugging tax-collectors.


Why anarchism is not merely "anti-state"

Here's a stepwise progression:

  1. orginially called "libertarians" (and still called that outside the U.S.), anarchists were all for maximizing liberty.
  2. liberty for all does not exist when some people have more liberty than others.
  3. privilege / social hierarchy therefore, curtail equal liberty in a society
  4. the economic policies of capitalism creates social hierarchies
  5. the State defends Capitalist (classical liberal, neo-liberal) economic policies, as well as the social hierarchy of its own power structure
  6. therefore, in order to achieve maximum liberty for all, anarchists seek to do away with Capitalism and the State.

To call anarchism simply "anti-state" is highly innaccurate and oversimplified. I am not making a case for not including anarcho-capitalism, merely trying to lay the whole "anti-state" definition to rest. It would be like calling Buddhism anti-materialist. There are much deeper reasons behind both philosophical threads. --albamuth 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In 19th century America, libertarianism referred to individualist anarchism. Just something to keep in mind. RJII

Anarchism isn't based on being "anti-state", as some A/C proponents have argued. Rather, anarchism arrived at the anti-state conclusion after considering the economic and power relations of the prime agents within society. Now, keep in mind that this a historical view of anarchist ideals. Starting with Kropotkin's "scientific socialism", there have been many theoretical advancements inculcated into anarchism, and quite a few that have been left behind in obsolescence.

3) Only if it involves coercion aka rights violations aka initiation of force. Voluntary hierarchies are permissable, and do not detract from liberty. They should not be coercively prevented.
4) Not coercive ones.
5) I agree with the second part - the State definitely defends its power, and tends to grow like cancer. The first part is totally wrong: the State is the enemy of property rights and a free market. Most socialists seem to be unable to discern the difference between stateless laissez faire and corporatism. It's weird.
6) Only those misguided anarchists who don't realize that many people prefer stateless, voluntary capitalism. Like Voltairine, I say let all economic theories compete freely in the market.


You've made the bald claim that "Anarchism isn't based on being anti-state" over and over. Yet virtually every dictionary disagrees with you; Proudhon disagrees with you; Tucker disagrees with you; Voltairine de Cleyre disagrees with you. Get over it. Go read the fish story again.
The fish story doesn't make sense. Your assertations don't make sense either: many people prefer stateless, voluntary capitalism --since when? --albamuth 23:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The fish story makes sense. Traditional anicthists consider whales to be a kind of fish, or at least as bad as one. Anictho-whalists, based on science, do not. Traditional anarchists consider wage labor, interest, and profit to be a kind of exploitation or rulership, or at least as bad as one. Anarcho-capitalists, based on economics, do not. 24.243.188.29 02:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
So basically you're calling anarchists a bunch of idiots by analogy. Why not just say "they're stupid -- they don't know what they're talking about" instead of trying to use a story about how mammals are not fish? Besides, the reason whales are "mammals" and not "fish" is by virtue of the Linnean taxonomic classification system. You might as well call them all "multicellular organisms". All the divisions and classifications that you're making such a big deal about is not contributing towards the quality of the article. --albamuth 13:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If I can show neutral observers how unreasonable it is to marginalize anarcho-capitalism, I think that contributes to the quality of the article. Now, am I calling anarchists stupid? No, of course not. I just think they use a rather unhelpful definition of domination/exploitation/rulership. An inexperienced observer may balk at the claim that whales are not fish, since they have so many superficial similarities. But a dispassionate analysis of the facts shows whales to be very distinct. Likewise, an observer might balk at the claim that a boss is not a ruler, because of the superficial similarities, ignoring the far more numerous deviations. Is it stupid to think that whales are fish? Most people think whales are fish on first introduction to the two, so no. But they're wrong, or more specifically, no scientific classification can put them together. And further, if there were a word that, according to most dictionaries, meant "favoring the absence of fish", I would think anyone wanting to get rid of fish would meet it, even if most people self-describing that way historically hated whales too.24.243.188.29 01:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I love when people try to rearrange their arguments as a deductive chain. They think they're making their case stronger by showing how it follows of logical necessity, but in reality they're showing how minor flaws in one step destroy their case utterly. I don't find such logic-chopping productive. So let's begin. In 2) you shift from supporting maximal liberty to supporting liberty for all. If they're the same thing, 2) is a non-sequitur because maximal liberty could obtain, for example, when A has 2 liberty and B has 3 liberty. Perhaps you mean maximal *equal* liberty. While we're not looking, you in fact do shift to this in 3). 4) is true, but it unfortunately also holds for the economic policies of anti-capitalism. Seizing the product of my labor to level out a potential hierarchy is itself a hierarchy. (Traditional anarchists like to get around this by claiming that, no, they're just taking direct action to maintain a state of anarchy, but who do they think they're fooling?) 5) is true - sometimes. Sometimes states enforce private property rights. Usually they violate them and more often support socialist economic policies (income redistribution, social security, exemption from prosecution for union violence and on and on and on). *Some* people who call themselves anarchist look at all superficially hierarchical occurrences and want to get rid of them; the more honest ones favor preventing women from trying to look beautiful because that creates a hierarchy in which they can get what they want from men more easily. There is plenty of room for debate on what constitutes an undesirable hiearchy. So ancaps find it less distateful to allow a worker-boss "hierarchy" to develop than to force a hierarchy by expropriating someone's labor. So traditional anarchists find it less distasteful to seize the labor of the more productive than to allow a worker-boss hierarchy to develop. Does that make one more anarchist than another?
So ancaps find it less distateful to allow a worker-boss "hierarchy" to develop than to force a hierarchy by expropriating someone's labor. So traditional anarchists find it less distasteful to seize the labor of the more productive than to allow a worker-boss hierarchy to develop. What are you talking about? --albamuth 23:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm talking about how ancaps find it less distateful to allow a worker-boss "hierarchy" to develop than to force a hierarchy by expropriating someone's labor and traditional anarchists find it less distasteful to seize the labor of the more productive than to allow a worker-boss hierarchy to develop. Since that probably doesn't answer your question, I can only guess at what you mean. Example: say there's a traditional anarchist system that involves money (and please don't deny that they exist). Under that system, let's say a bunch of friends and I save up our money and trade it for a factory, then hire workers for a wage. Many traditional anarchists would be totally okay with them taking over the factory because I didn't share the profits with them. That's expropriation of my and my friends' labor because we earned the money through labor and traded it for a factory. Does that clear up what I'm getting at? 24.243.188.29 02:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
So anarchists advocate "seizing the labor of the more productive"? That's a rather epithetical characterization of syndicalism. Insulting, and untrue. Syndicalists advocate "seizing the means of production away from the unproductive" -ie workers taking control of factories. Anarchists in general do not think owners and bosses have been "productive" simply from moving capital around and telling people to work harder -- even the individualist-anarchists agree.
Yes, and that's a very narrow view of the role of the capitalist in free market. But we'll never be able to convince each other on that point here. Regardless, I have heard traditional anarchists say that merely having more money or wealth (two different things, btw) than someone is a form of domination. If people were compensated according to their productivity - however you define that - then in order to maintain equality, you would have to, yes, steal from the more productive. So at least some - probably most - advocate stealing from the more productive. Traditional anarchists seem to want to have it both ways: pay people the true value of their work AND prevent inequalities.
Secondly, your example is ridiculous. Why would you need to buy a factory in a mutualist-currency system? It's pointless to even own a factory, since every worker in a mutualist system (the only historical example of anarchist economics I can think of besides Kropotkin's anarcho-communism) will get paid fully for their labor and the products sold exactly at the cost of labor. There are no profits for you to keep. Nobody's going to take over your factory if you decide you want to make a profit -- but you'd have to use some sort of capitalism-enabled currency system, not an anarchist one. So again, you're arguing against a position that does not exist, otherwise known as a "straw-man". --albamuth 13:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Not a strawman. First of all, the *goal* in mutualism is to get workers to be paid what, according to socialist formulas, is the value of their labor. Nothing stops me from *offering* less than the formulaic amount, nor people from *accepting* such offers, unless you like intervening in mutually beneficial transactions - but I'd drop the "pro-free market" rhetoric if you are. It's typical of traditional anarchists to assert that "there's no X in my system" without specifying what they would do to stop X from arising. If someone ran the numbers and decided I wasn't giving them enough of the profits, they would have no problem seizing the factory that *I* and my friends worked hard to raise the money for. 24.243.188.29 01:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd be careful with only referring to collectivist anarchists as "traditional anarchists." Individualist anarchism is traditional as well. RJII 01:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, albamuth, but USer 24.243. and RJII do have a point. First, you didn't answer 24.243's claim that your logical chain is, in fact, illogical (something I believe as well). The onus is on you on that one. Second: selling the products for the cost of labour won't work because the price is decided by the consumers. They buy according to their preferences, and if they don't like the price, they won't buy. If the cost of labour is too high, no-one will buy the products, and they will pile up, and in the end you'll have to fire the people (or keep over-producing endlessly). If the price of labour is too low, people will buy too much of the stuff, which may be harmful as well (eg. think of what would happen if hamburgers were sold at a very cheap price). BTW I don't see how this part of the discussion really concerns anarchism - it's rather the kind of discussion I'd be having on Communism. Luis rib 19:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't. What I was refering to is mutualism, an economic theory propounded by Tucker and still... well, theorized about by contemporary individualist anarchists (see Mutualism.org). Secondly, I never said it was a logical chain, only a summary of the reasoning behind anarchists objecting to the state. The phrase "maximum liberty" is misleading, I must admit. Saying "the maximum possible, simultaneous range of liberties available to every member of a society that do not infringe upon the liberties of others within that society" is a little long-winded. But then again, this is not a philosophical argument that I wish to make (which is how it was interpreted), only an illustration of the anarchist point of view, no matter how "illogical" it may be in my humble choice of words, which are based on premises drawn from the anarchist analysis of the world. I try to be brief, since these talk pages seem to grow exponentially over time, and this is what I get... ;-P --albamuth 03:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem wasn't merely your imprecision (which, no doubt, did impede my understanding of what you were getting at). You said flat-out untrue and misleading things in your reasoning. Claiming that the State defends classical liberal ideas??? What??? To get that, you'd have to ignore almost everything the State does, including its *socialist* economic policies. That's what bothered me the most: how when the state pitches in to help protect pre-existing private property rights, well, according to you, that's characteristic of everything the state does. But when it redistributes income, punishes productivity, implements socialist retirement schemes, oh, well, that's just part of the natural order of things and the state has nothing to do with it. Why the narrow focus on the (arguably) pro-capitalist things the state does? I guess it regresses back to the whole argument about "Property is based on violence." "Possession is based on violence too." "Yeah, but that violence is okay because it's not exploitation." "What's exploitation?" "When you do something I disagree with." Huh? 24.243.188.29 02:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again, it's not my reasoning. It doesn't matter if you think the State is more socialist than capitalist; it doesn't matter if I think the opposite. Irrelevent. The anarchists see the State as pro-capitalist and pro-social-hierarchy, among other things. Ergo, the article about anarchism illustrates what anarchists think. --albamuth 05:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, now you're just assuming your conclusion. You're trying to show that all anarchism must be anti-capitalist. To prove this, you're using the fact that everyone you consider to be a "true anarchist" believes that the state is pro-capitalist. In reality, some anarchists, like me, recognize the very obvious fact that states promote socialism too. In response, you say we're not anarchists. So what again was the purpose of this exercise? At least with the fish story I was able to characterize the dispute between traditional anarchists and ancaps - that they have reasonable, differing views on what a ruler is. Here, all you're doing is saying anarchists believe this because anarchists believe it - the anarchists you approve of, of course. 24.243.188.29 06:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead of Schools...

I made a suggestion a while back of doing away with the "schools" concept for an evolotionary epistemological approach. This is how I envision it (chronological order):

Section title: "Evolution of Anarchist Theory"
Subsection: (example) Application to Feminism
Emma Goldman, blah blah blah, Lucy Parsons, blah blah in 1925, blah blah blah, identified patriarchy as blah blah blah, referred to anarcha-feminism, blah blah radical cheerleading...
Subsection: Deleuzeian rejection of fascism
Gilles Deleuze blah blah blah desiring-machines blah blah pathological fascism

And so on and so forth. This solves the following problems: 1) the fact that anarchism really doesn't have "schools" in any reasonable sense, as every single anarchists' ideas are slightly different yet usually compatible 2) anarcho-capitalism is included without having to be defined as "anarchist or not", simply as a branch of thought that history has yet to reveal the outcome of 3) it covers the terms ("anarcho-primitivism", "anarcho-communism") as they come up in history without creating the misconception that they represent rival gangs of anarchists 4) the "History" section can be greatly reduced, eliminated, or merged, reducing article size and redundancy 5) the "Conflicts" can be addressed as part of the history of anarchism 6) people wishing to find out about the specific terms can still find them in the article

What d'ya'll think? --albamuth 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this is pretty good approach generally, as it would help cut down on redundancy, integrate the history, and might get around whether to define anarcho-capitalism as "anarchist or not", which has proven to be a singularly wasteful and unnecessary argument. Of course, we should be careful not to paper over the differences that do exist, but overall I do think this is a very positive approach.--Pharos 23:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A sandbox draft of this approach is at Anarchism/historical now, though it needs a lot of work. --albamuth 07:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • To start with: "67.15.54.56," kindly bugger off and start your own experimental page instead of vandalizing alba's. Second: great start alba. I left some suggestions on your talk page. --TelemachusSneezed 22:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

stipulative definition of private property

Why the hell are you deleting that anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists are for the abolition of private property? You said something about them having a "stipulative definition." But, they don't have a different definition than anyone else. What's up? This is from an anarcho-syndicalist article "The primary goal of Anarcho-Syndicalist activism is to abolish the wages system through the abolition of the insitution of private property and the class-divided society it creates." --from anarchosyndicalism.net They and communist anarchists use the term "private property" ...so that's exactly the term that should be used. You think they have some special definition? What do you think that is? RJII 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC) I can't believe it. I get resistance when I say that individualist anarchists support private property, and I also get resistence when I say that communists anarchists oppose it. This crap has got to stop. It almost seems as if the editors that support these philosophies are embarrassed about what they stand for. It's very strange. RJII 05:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just having 'private property' there is misleading RJ and u know it. Albamuth is spot-on when he talks of the stipulative definition -max rspct 13:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
How is it misleading? Neither of you guys have an explanation. Just B.S. RJII 13:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner defines: "the principle of individual property ... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." You say communist have a "stipulative definition." What is it then? Enough bullshit. RJII 13:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Common usage of "private property", according to the wikipedia article:

In common use, property is simply 'one's own thing' and refers to the relationship between individuals and the objects which they see as being their own to dispense with as they see fit. Scholars in the social sciences frequently conceive of property as a 'bundle of rights and obligations.' They stress that property is not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things. Property is often conceptualized as the rights of 'ownership' as defined in law.

So without explaining the anarchist separation of private property and personal property, simply stating that "X-anarchists are against private property" becomes misleading. Having to explain that for each section in 'Schools' would bloat the article significantly, so that nuance is better explained in the sub-articles. Even Spooner, as you quoted him, is using the term individual property -- tell me, does he mean private property, instead? This is another problem that could be solved with the suggestion I made above. --albamuth 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course Spooner means private property. That's what private property is ..property of an individual. Maybe the problem here is that a few of you just don't know what private property is. What "nuance" are you talking about? Communist and syndicalists don't have another non-standard definition for private property. You say that but you are unable to come up with one. Private property is individual property ..that which an individual has absolute dominion over. The reason communists oppose it is because it's not egalitarian ..it leads to different social classes. If individuals have property and wages they can keep accumulating that property and form a class division. That would be "to each according to his ability", and a violation of the maxim "FROM each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." I suggest you read this section of the anarcho-syndicalist FAQ [6] RJII 16:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Check out the private property article. Saying that syndicalists oppose all private property would mean to the average reader that no syndicalist would have their own pair of shoes, which is false, of course. I'm not arguing against your definition of it, which is a scholarly one, but the utility of using it in the article without extensive stipulation is misleading. --albamuth 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, if someone is so dense to think that the abolition of private property means people would be naked, then we can always say they want it to be replaced with collective property. How's that? RJII 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
But that's not how anarchists conceive collective property working. Nobody wants to share underwear, not even anarchists, and this extends to a great number of things. Remember the whole concept of personal property vs. private property? And personal possession versus collective possession vs private possession? And what about the metaphysical, Kantian objection to the very notion of property? The whole matter is quite complicated. But go ahead and make whatever edits you want--I'd rather work on an complete article re-organization (see other section). --albamuth 06:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Nobody wants to share underwear, not even anarchists Let me just say, your experiences are different from mine. 24.243.188.29 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Warren as first to describe himself as anarchist

RJ edited this article with the following claim in the summary, Josiah Warren was the first to adopt the title "anarchist" according to historian ..not Proudhon. I require a source of the text from Martin and the page number to verify this. And no, I will not accept interpretations or heresay, if Martin does not himself point to a primary source from Warren, or if this is simply Martin calling him the first individualist anarchist (or simply referancing the fact that someone else called him that), then the edit goes. Kev 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in this, too. Martin's claim is apparently made in: James J. Martin - Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908, Adrian Allen Associates, 1953 (1957, 1970). Does anyone have access to this book?

Reverting Talk Page

I don't exactly know what happened, but it looks like TelemachusSneezed either accidentally or intentionally reverted this talk to an outdated version. I'm reverting back now. Jpers36 03:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Accident: I saved and the stuff below appeared. Not sure what happened. When you guys revert backwards, do you just cut-and-paste the old material, or is there a special "revert to..." button I'm missing somewhere? --TelemachusSneezed 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you CesarB, for showing me the "art of reversion." --TelemachusSneezed 22:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to spin off "Schools of anarchism" section into Alternative models of anarchism

Looking over the article in its present state, I feel that it devotes way too much space to the section on "Schools of anarchism." This is going to be very misleading to a reader who doesn't know much about anarchism, because it gives the impression that there's no over-all coherence to anarchist thought, when in fact there is. I've known a lot of anarchists, and none of them believed in capitalism, Christianity, racial separatism, or nationalism. I don't think that there's any question that Anarcho-capitalism, Christian anarchism, black anarchism, and national anarchism exist; that they have more members than could meet in a VW bug; and that they deserve their own articles. However, they're utterly unimportant when seen against the backdrop of anarchism in general, and IMO it's wildly inappropriate that "Schools of anarchism" currently takes up almost half of the whole article. I'd like to propose spinning off that entire section into a separate article, Alternative models of anarchism. And just to put my cards on the table, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, and my main focus on WP is articles about the history of racism in the U.S. I'm actually more in sympathy with Anarcho-capitalism than with mainstream anarchism, so I'm not suggesting this as a way of attacking ideologies I disagree with; I simply think the article is unbalanced and misleading in its present state. I think spinning off this content (as has already been done with the anarchism template) could really help to eliminate the constant infighting that has afflicted this article.--Bcrowell 16:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the "constant infighting" is harming the article but helping it. There is no point in having a stagnant article for the sake of stagnancy. The article is is better than it was several months ago, and it couldn't have happened without conflict. I'm not judging your proposal, but to try to find ways to push disputes off into the corner is not the way to go, in my opinion. The quality and dynamism of the articles is more important than the contentment of the editors. RJII 16:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the "constant infighting" is harming the article but helping it. I disagree. The NPOV template at the top of the article is an admission of defeat; it tells prospective readers that the content of the article isn't trustworthy, and I think it's true that the content of the article isn't trustworthy, because it's unbalanced. And even putting aside the issue of balance, the organization of the article is completely incomprehensible. For instance, the section on "Conflicts within anarchist thought" has random material thrown into it on the McKinley assassination, the Haymarket Riot, and anarchism's demonization in the press. In my experience, the first thing that happens when an article goes into a revert-war tailspin is that the quality of the article stagnates and/or deteriorates.--Bcrowell 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that that there's a lot of garbage as well as bad writing in this article. But, it was worse before. I think the worse parts are the sections that people haven't been fighting over, but neglecting ..like anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. I've started to do a little work on those sections and have started to encounter some resistance (it didn't even bother to mention that anarcho-syndicalism and communism oppose private property, if you can believe it). So hopefully better things for those sections are in store. As far as it being unbalanced, you should have seen it before --individualist anarchism was ignored as if it didn't exist. Fortunately, I was able to get that section in. It looks like in the past this article was edited by people who thought all anarchism was collectivist-based. Feel free to work on any section that you think needs work. RJII 17:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
When an article is being fought over like this, it becomes very difficult to work on. The article gets locked a lot, the talk page is flooded with vitriolic personal attacks, etc. A dysfunctional article drives away people with fresh perspectives, who might otherwise have gotten involved in improving it. Personally, I wouldn't do any major work on this article while it was the subject of this kind of dogfight.--Bcrowell 18:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It's been suggested that omitting the Schools" section and making the article history-based would reduce disputes and make the article more stable. Let's test that theory. Here is a sample history-based article: Anarchism/historical. Is this, more, less, or about the same in controversy?

It still needs to be organized better so particular concepts stand out, in their own subsection. Each subsection should start with the inculcation of the concept into anarchism, the history of it within anarchism, and end with either how the concept was dropped/replaced/merged/cemented in anarchist culture in the case of "history", or its current standing (controversy/conflict) in the case of contemporary anarchism. --albamuth 06:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Talk Page -- Again

Revert to an outdated version happened again, this time by Bcrowell. Is there some sort of bug or hack that's going on? I'm reverting back to the last version before the introduction of outdated material. Jpers36 17:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a software bug. I added "Proposal to spin off ...," but then a whole bunch of old content got added on after it, so the sections were no longer in chronological order. I then took "Proposal to spin off ..." and shifted it back to the end. I'm totally baffled by the edit history, which doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what I actually did. The diff between the 17:00 and 17:01 versions shows me reinserting the old content, which I didn't do. Weird!--Bcrowell 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It happened again to me also. I'm reverting to the last unscrewed up revision. --TelemachusSneezed 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It happened to CesarB. Reverting. This bug is getting pretty annoying, so I reported it to Wikipedia on their bugs page. I'm wondering: each time it happened to me, I had opened up the edit box in a new window so I could more easily reference what people had discussed on the parent page. Is that when it happened to you, Bcrowell and CesarB? --TelemachusSneezed 22:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I had the bug too -- see the history and I had to revert three times. The key is when you click and it says "editing an out-of-date version", then it will bug out when you submit. Going back and hitting edit again seems to do the trick. It might have to do with the fact that these talk pages are so active and the diff history is super long. --albamuth 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Letter to Socialists

We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same. What is the common goal of economists and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible, and where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labour shall be as just as possible? May not our common ideal, apart from all distinction of schools, be summarised in these two words: abundance and justice?

Such, none among you can deny, is our common goal. Only we approach this goal by different paths; you proceed along the obscure and hitherto unexplored defile of the organisation of labour, while we proceed along the broad and well-known highway of liberty. Each of us is attemping to lead in train a hesitating and groping society that scans the horizon seeking, but in vain, the pillar of light that formerly guided the slaves of the Pharaohs to the Promised Land.

Why do you refuse to follow the path of liberty alongside us? Because, you say, this liberty which we so extol is fatal to the labourers; because it has thus far produced only the oppression of the weak by the strong; because it has give birth to disastrous crises in which millions of men have lost in some cases their fortunes and in other cases their lives; because liberty unbridled, unregulated, unlimited – is anarchy!

Is this not the reason that you reject liberty? is this not the reason that you demand the organisation of labour?

Well then, if we prove to you with sufficient clarity that all the evils which you attribute to liberty – or, to make use of an absolutely equivalent expression, to free competition – have their origin not in liberty but in the absence of liberty, in monopoly, in servitude; if we further prove to you that a society of perfect freedom, a society disencumbered of every restriction, of every fetter, such as has never been seen in history, would be exempted from the greatest part of the miseries of the present régime; if we prove to you that the organisation of such a society would be the best, the most just, the most favourable to advancement in the production and equality in the distribution of wealth; if we should prove all this, I ask, what would be your response? Would you continue to proscribe the freedom of labour and to inveigh against political economy, or would you, rather, rally openly to our banner, and employ all the precious fund of intellectual and moral forces with which nature has endowed you, to speed the triumph of our henceforth common cause, the cause of liberty? - A Dreamer [7]

Social Hierarchy

"Social hierarchy" is a vague and misleading term which does not belong in the definition of anarchism. It looks like some POV types are trying to redefine anarchism according to their narrow school. Again. Yes it is vague. To anarcho-communists and syndicalists social hierarchy includes class distinctions determined by differing levels of wealth. But other anarchists, such as individualists, don't oppose unequal wealth distribution ([8] --hence their support of private property. They don't even think in terms of classes, but individuals. Introducing the article to say that anarchists oppose "social hierarcy" is a remnant of the former state of this article when it was assumed, improperly, that all anarchism was collectivist.

Your argument actually supports the usage of "social hierarchy" in the intro: if anarcho-communists and-syndicalists have a different interpretation of it than other anarchists, but those other anarchists are also against "social hierarchy" in their own terms, than the term works for everyone. --albamuth 03:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
No, it means that people disagree on what social hierarchy means, so the term is unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia article.
It is indeed vague and not confusing. To anarcho-communists and syndicalists social hierarchy includes differing levels of wealth (class distinctions). But other anarchists, such as individualists, don't oppose unequal wealth distribution ([9] --hence their support of private property in the produce of labor (including wages). They don't even think in terms of classes, but individuals. Introducing the article to say that anarchists oppose "social hierarcy" is a remnant of the former state of this article when it was assumed, improperly, that all anarchism was communist based. RJII 17:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
"communist-based" hahah -- Communism is based on anarchism. Nobody disagrees with what "social hierarchy" means and how it applies to the article, except you and Hogeye (and Hogeye is a banned troll). I really don't see why you're still pushing this issue. --albamuth 17:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. For communist-anarchists social heirarchy includes unequal distribution of wealth. Social hierarchy includes class distinction that exist simply by virtue of the lack of wealth egalitarianism. Try to find one individualist anarchist that says he opposes "social hierarchy." You won't. Then try to find any individualist that says he opposes unequal wealth distribution in a governmentless society. You won't. You'll find the reverse --that they oppose the communist ideas on that. So to say that anarchism is necessary opposed to "social hierarchy" is wrong. By the way, communism isn't based on anarchism. Anarchism was around before communist philosophy came. Communist-anarchism developed as a result of breaking away from Proudhon's individualism and mutualism. Communism is an ecnonomic system. Anarchism is the lack of government. When you put those two together you get communist-anarchism. RJII 17:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Any POV definition of anarchism will be reverted. Anarchism has nothing to do with hierarchy - period. Some socialist branches of anarchism make a big deal of hierarchy, but that is only their hyphenated school, and not intrinsic to anarchism.

Anarchism/historical

Started it off, but I don't want to be the only one working on it. It needs a LOT of citation, quotes, and follow-through of sections. I simply reorganized the text on the existing article. Editing it made me realize how deficient in documentation/citation the existing article is. IMHO this is a good avenue for serious, scholarly work. --albamuth 03:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Proto-anarchist candidate?

I haven't been editing this page, so I wouldn't want to add this myself, but I thought I'd draw people's attention to Étienne de la Boétie and The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude as an early anti-statist work. Saswann 20:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this has been considered a proto-anarchist work. It's included in the volume "Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas" by Robert Graham. --Tothebarricades 00:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this discussion?

There seems to be two differing ideas on what the AC-inclusion discussion is all about:

(a) To discuss the proper place of "Anarcho-Capitalism" in the history of Anarchism.
(b) To debate the validity of Anarcho-Capitalist theory.

I realize there will be overlaps between these two topics, but there doesn't need to be nearly as much as people might think. Debating the validity of Anarcho-Capitalism would be great, but I'm of the opinion that such a debate is starting to cloud the real issue: Anarcho-Capitalists claim "Anarchist" status; that's fine, but then what is their proper place in the history of Anarchism?

Can we please settle on what this discussion is meant to resolve? The "validity" debate can continue somewhere else. --TelemachusSneezed 19:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a few ardent POV socialists like Kev have decided that anarcho-capitalism is not a valid form of anarchism, and routinely censors references to ancap. To those who see anarcho-capitalism as invalid, the answer to question (a) is 'There is no proper place in this article for it.'
The two main demands of the big tent faction are 1) the definition of anarchism should not exclude anarcho-capitalism, and 2) anarcho-capitalism be included as a school. There are other less important disputes concerning whether anti-statist liberals such as Bastiat and Molinari should be included in history, and whether Molinari should be referred to as the first anarcho-capitalist.
I'm having trouble taking seriously the claim that I'm ardently pushing a POV from an editor who has been banned for his constant one-sided war to revert to his personal pet version of the page, and who continues to violate wikipedia constantly by violating the 3RR and the conditions of his own ban. Everyone knows that this is you Hogeye, this very IP address you are posting from now has already been banned once as a sock-puppet of yours, so there really isn't much credibility here. If you want to be honest, post as Hogeye after your ban is over, and stop running around as an anonymous and using anony proxies to avoid your ban. Kev 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so fast to assume it's Hogeye. I saw a message board a few weeks ago (i think it was an anarcho-capitalist forum) where they were talking about this article, and organizing something in regard to ancap being excluded. I don't remember what the site was. Also, I just tried to access Wikipedia through one of the IP's being used, as a test, and I was able to ..i left a test edit as well on the user page. I kind of doubt it's one person. RJII 04:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
My assumption that this particular IP is Hogeye was based on the use of phrases like "socialist assholes" and "buttfucker" which he's used in the past. I mean, I assumed it was him to begin with but I only made the accusation after seeing that. --Tothebarricades 05:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Recurring flaws in intro

I keep seeing flaws appear and disappear in the intro. Rather than edit them, I wanted to discuss them so we could resolve any disagreements and avoid an edit war, if that's possible. So what do I consider flaws?
"In the place of centralized political structures, private ownership of the means of production," - individualist anarchists believed in private ownership of capital goods, so that statement should be removed or qualified.

Absolutely they don't oppose private ownership of the means of production. I find it bizarre that Kevehs claims to be an individualist anarchist, but is unaware of this fact. Here's a quote from Benjamin Tucker: ""...Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But, though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few... Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing." RJII 04:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"and exploitative economic practices, such as rent," - two problems: many if not most do not consider rent, in and of itself, exploitative. This needs to be reworded to indicate it is anarchists who make the characterization. Second, Leo Tolstoy, whom the article considers an anarchist, believed communities should rent out their land, since he was a Georgist. Of course, that's a bit ambiguous because it can be argued that he only wanted that as an intermediate step on the way to anarchism, though he would probably advocate non-violent resistance to those who refused to pay the ground rent in a fully anarchist society.
"these movements favor social relations based upon ...community control," - again, the individualist anarchists didn't want community control.
"While opposition to both the state and hierarchy are primary tenets of anarchism," - it needs to be clarified exactly what hierarchy refers to. Most anarchists favor the rights of possessors of an object to dispose of it over other claimants. This is, strictly speaking, a hierarchy, at least in the minds of many people, who will be confused by such a statement.

Communist anarchists oppose wealth inequality, because they result in class distinctions, which is why they oppose wages. If someone is paid wages (which is private property) then those who are wise enough to accumulate it become of another class. These class divisions as a result of differing levels of wealth are included in what the communist anarchists mean by social hierarchy. Individualist anarchist don't oppose this, much less even think in terms of classes. So it shouldn't be said that anarchists oppose "social hierarchy." RJII 04:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to hear the justifications for these statements in the introduction. 24.162.140.213 03:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

These issues are covered in the NPOV version of the article. E.g. "Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. Various schools of anarchism interpret 'rulership' in various ways, ranging from opposition to the State to opposition to any hierarchy whatsoever."

Also in Kev's deletion spree, he deleted the sentence about Godwin opposing all organized cooperation. He said above in Talk that it was false. Well, this is from the Stanford Encyclopedia: "Godwin sketches his positive vision of the egalitarian society of the future, one which, having dispensed with all forms of organised co-operation, including orchestras and marriage, so as to ensure the fullest independence to each persons' judgment, will gradually witness the development of the powers of mind to the point that they gain ascendancy over physiological process allowing life to be prolonged indefinitely." RJII 04:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: The fraudulent disambiguation article that was being used by POV'ers to exclude anarcho-capitalism has just been deleted, after a vote. RJII 04:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where can I find the record for this deletion? 24.162.140.213 05:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
here...[10]
Your edit, "Godwin advocated an extreme type of individualism opposing every kind of organized cooperation among individuals" is simply untrue. When faced with your evidence from an encyclopedia, I must admit a weakness for defering the primary source of Godwin himself,

Associations, as a measure intrinsically wrong, the wise man will endeavour to check and postpone, as much as he can. But, when the crisis arrives, he will not be induced by the irregularities of the friends of equality to remain neutral, but will endeavour to forward her reign, as far as the nature of the case shall appear to admit. It may even happen that, in the moment of convulsion, and the terror of general anarchy, something in the nature of association may be indispensably connected with the general safety. But, even granting this, it need not be prepared beforehand... It appears reasonable that, when a man is unjustly attacked by the whole force of the party in power, he should be countenanced and protected by men who are determined to resist such oppressive partiality, and prevent the rights of all from being wounded through the medium of the individual, as far as that can be done consistently with peace and-good order.

Godwin did not oppose all organized cooperation, he opposed insitutionalized organizations and to a lesser extent was wary of any form of cooperation, but he in fact endorsed several forms as, at times, necessary and even beneficial.
And yes RJ, your decision to spur the deletion of a disambiguation page created by an anarcho-capitalist sympathizer as a solution to this on-going edit war, and thus destroy any attempt to reach Nat Krause's proposed solution, because you advocate an unending edit war as the desirable and inevitable nature of wikipedia, is noted. But really, you should note all the other attempts at compromise and solutions offered on both sides of the issue that you have destroyed as well, if you are in the mood to discuss your accomplishments. Kev 04:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Is that supposed to matter to me that the page was created by an "anarcho-capitalist sympathiser"? I don't sympathize with anyone. I'm just here to help relay the truth. I'm very open to compromise, but I won't compromise the NPOV policy. This article must not choose which anarchist philosophy is "real anarchism." When I got here, the only kind of anarchism that was mentioned was the communist type. Mention of individualist anarchism had long ago been deleted by POV warriors. So, I created an individualist anarchist section. I'm sure another will show up and delete that. I also put Christian anarchism in the article and encountered resistance (possibly because they don't say they oppose capitalism). I'm also putting in anarcho-capitalism, black anarchism, and national anarchism. I'm not a POV warrior. I don't pick sides. I'm just a warrior for truth and NPOV. There are three encyclopedias listed in the external links and none of them define anarchism anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, or anti-social hiearchy or any other such bullshit like you and a couple others are trying to insert. Anarchism is opposition to the existence of government, in favor of voluntary relations between individuals. It's as simple as that. RJII 05:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
LOL! RJII 16:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy among the left-anarchists

Okay, the socialist anarchists here seem to have a huge problem with labeling de Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist directly (if you ask them where his beliefs diverged from ancaps, they're a little light on details, but that's another story), because the term "anarcho-capitalist" was created long after his time. Yet, the current article labels several feminist anarchists and a feminist anarchist group as "anarcha-feminists" even though, as the anarcha-feminism article states, that term was not created until the 60's. If you want to argue that the article doesn't explicitly state that Emma Goldman, et al. were anarcha-feminists, it's very misleading to have EG's picture right there. Unless this inconsistency can be reconciled, I plan to either reference de Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist in all relevant places or change the references to the feminist anarchists to "influences" on anarcha-feminism, the way de Molinari is treated with respect to anarcho-capitalism

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism/Archive_23&oldid=1054341627"