Talk:Anarchism/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Comments

• There also needs to be a rough academic consensus on all these points. Sarge Baldy 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Serious question -- what constitutes a rough academic consensus? A number of references? Some publishing houses? MrVoluntarist 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • It's pretty subjective. But if we're going to have a tree definitively listing anything, then everything should be agreed up almost beyond a doubt. There's a difference between saying X source says Y is a Z and saying Y is a Z without any qualification whatsoever. Which is why I think having a tree is a terrible, terrible idea. Sarge Baldy 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. My standards for this tree are equally as high. --AaronS 05:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like all the links are covered by citations now. The challenged claims, that Molinari is an anarchist and Stirner supports private property, have also been supported. It looks like Sarge and Aaron are already wimping out rationality-wise. I suspect no evidence would satisfy them! Hogeye 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Right. I've created a straw poll on this topic here, so we can get some outside opinion on the topic. Please feel free to add points to both sides of the argument. Sarge Baldy 09:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the particulars of Hogeye's tree is totally pointless, for all the reasons I've stated before (and Sarge Baldy's points with which I agree absolutely). Let's all just vote at the link above.Bengalski

Wow, a day a way and everything lets rip. I think the tree should be removed and agree that discussing its particulars is pointless. Furthermore it creates a useless two dimensional picture, whereas in reality through interconnected wiki pages wikipedia creates a much more useful mesh of information. This flattening out serves to highlight an economist reading of the differences between different anarchists all higgledy-piggledy with people who may or may not have been anarchists (who perhaps should be on a different page. To anyone who has given serious attention to Stirner's writing (which I must admit I haven't read for over twenty years) it is clear he no more supports private property than he supports any other abstraction, and Hogeye's reading of him is just as flat as his chart. Harrypotter 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to read Stirner again! He is against a right to property, but he is not against taking or holding property. To him, property is a matter of might takes right. It is totally clear that he thinks private property is permissable, i.e. he's not against private property.

Re Molinari being an anarchist: evidence and sources have been generously cited. Hogeye 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually what you say shows I don't need to re-read Stirner: he is not interested in whether private property is "permissable" or not (permitted by whom? might one ask?). The fact that he is not against private property in no way indicates that he is in favour of it. Whilst he may wish to take possession of this or that concrete object, he clearly has no interest in the sort of abstratct speculation associated with anarcho-capitalism.Harrypotter 19:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nietzche, Stirner, de Molinari did NOT call themselves anarcho-capitalists. They must be removed from that section. Marx was not a anarcho-communist, remove him from that section. "Economic ind/col" should have a "social exploitative/unexploitative" to balance out the POVs. Infinity0 ^talk 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry, it sounds like we agree on what Stirner thought; we just disagree on whether to call it capitalism. Stirner thought that private property was permissable whenever the Ego so willed. This makes him a capitalist in my book. I never claimed he was an anarcho-capitalist or engaged in speculation about the nature of property.

Infinity> "Nietzche, Stirner, de Molinari did NOT call themselves anarcho-capitalists."

No one claimed they did. Please stick to the issues. Were they in fact capitalists? (By the definition of capitalism, regardless of what they called themselves.) Molinari is capitalist for sure; Stirner and Nietzche are, too, if you go by the private property in capital goods is permissable definition of capitalism. Hogeye 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the definition. And the diagram implies they are, since they are within "capitalists" section. Molinari is not an anarcho-capitalist, which is what the diagram is about. Infinity0 ^talk 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The sources say he was an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not aware of any that says he wasn't. Here's an additional source: "In fact, what Faucher and the others had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism. This was in the 1840s. It is interesting to note that it was at the same time, in Paris, that Gustave de Molinari was proposing, in a more systematic manner, his doctrine of the private production of security.[16] Much later the Molinari position was taken up by Murray Rothbard..." (Ralph Raico, Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century). RJII 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"the first presentation anywhere in human history of what is now called anarcho-capitalism" though admitting that "Molinari did not use the terminology, and probably would have balked at the name." from Gustave_de_Molinari. Molinari never calls himself a capitalist; stop trying to stick that label onto him without his consent. Infinity0 ^talk 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course he would balk at the name. Capitalism used to have a different definition than it does today. And, you don't have to call yourself an anarchist to be an anarchist. For example, Stirner never called himself an anarchist, yet sources say he was one --so he's in the article. Yours or my judgement on whether someone was an anarchist or not doesn't matter. What matters is what the sources say. RJII 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Who changed the definition? Who agreed to it? The sources from themselves deny they are capitalists. So don't include them based on arbitrary, disputed semantics. Infinity0 ^talk 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition evolved. Nobody agreed to it. It just happened. Capitalism used to mean concentration of capital, or simply ownership of capital. Now it refers to a economic system with minimal, or no, government intervention. (By the way, Molinari never denied he was a capitalist ..if he did he would be saying he opposed individual ownership of capital --which he didn't). RJII 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it means the same thing it meant before. Someone may wish that every modern reference to "capitalism" actually "refers" to his own favorite little political sub-philosophy, but that doesn't make it the truth. 24.22.58.51 12:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, capitalism isn't a generic term for free-markets. Infinity0 ^talk 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, capitalism isn't a generic term for free-markets.Harrypotter 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you two had better put the Marxist texts aside. This is the 21st century. Capitalism now refers to a laissez-faire system economic system. Capitalism: ":an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." (Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary). RJII 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not agree with Hogeye, who fails to take on my point about things being permissable. Who is it that grants the permit? Stirner chose not call himself an anarchist, just as the Red Army Fraction did not call themselves anarchists even though lots of sources say they were. Many years ago most sources would have said that world was flat - but does this mean that it was flat at that time, or that flat had a different meaning. I think not. Just as Stirner chose not to call himself an anarchist, Marx stated he was not a Marxist. But both clearly have a relationship to the respective -isms. Now anarcho-capitalists may feel inspired by Stirner and Molinari (who I thankfully know nothing about), and indeed it may be useful to mention them on a page on anarcho-capitalism. But on a page on anarchism it is perhaps only relevant to mention Stirner, because he had much more pervasive impact on anarchism rather than Molinari, who just had an impact on an-cap. My view is tha people like Stirner and Proudhon had a much stonger impact on a differing stream individualist anarchism which has much closer affinities to fascism - which certainly presents itself as anti-capitalist, as does Bolshevism - even though I would argue both serve as facades for capitalism as defined in really existing social relations. Oh yes, I can of course offer sources for this, whether Otto Ruhle or Paul Mattick. But these can be referenced into articles in a constructive way facilitating intelligent use of wikipedia, rather than going for maximum product placement of an ideology which is so ill-formed that it would escape notice were it not for the over-zealous partisan approach of one or two of its ill-informed acolytes.Harrypotter 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry> "being permissable. Who is it that grants the permit?"

In Stirner's case, he himself (his own Ego) makes permission by virtue of its will. Harry, there is a reason that I wrote "permissable" rather than "morally permissable." In Stirner's case, there is no moral element in the permissability.

Both Infinity and Harry seem to be concerned with who called themselves anarchist. Frankly, that is irrelevant to the article. We couldn't care less who called themselves what. What we want to know is who was what. Molinari was an anarchist, by definition. Stirner, judging from what he wrote in The Individual and His Property, thought private property was permissable. He obviously has no moral objection to profit (trivially, since he has no moral objection to anything). Capitalism is normally defined as "an economic system in which the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned and operated for profit." So Stirner was a capitalist. Was Stirner an anarchist? It depends on whether you require one or both of the criteria set forth below in the "Defense of Anarchism, Wolff" section. Stirner, like Wolff, did not think the State had any legitimacy, yet (also like Wolff) did not necessarily oppose the State. If Stirner or his Union of Egoists got control of a State, they would have no compunction against using it as they willed.

Harry> "My view is tha people like Stirner and Proudhon had a much stonger impact on a differing stream individualist anarchism which has much closer affinities to fascism."

Sounds interesting. Is there a name for this school? Does it have any theorists? I welcome a section on egoistic fascist Euro-Anarchism or whatever you want to call it. If you find any evidence of such a school, let me know so I can add it to the chart. I've heard rumors of such a school, but so far have nothing more substantial than yeah, some guy who robbed banks in France, associated with the Mafia I think. Hogeye 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On Stirner as anarchist As this is not a page on Anarchists, but anarchism that is what we should focus on. Clearly Humpty Dumpty can be regarded as an excellent example of individualist anarchism, and perhaps is the model which some of the people participating in this article seek to emulate. It seems there are issues of Deep framing here, and perhaps to make issues of power relations more transparent on the anarchism page, we should be creating more links with pages such as Troll-sysop struggle as they might lift the level of debate with a certain amount of self-reflection.Harrypotter 16:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Woodcocks "Family tree"

George Woodcock, author of the most widely read English-language history of libertarian ideas, devotes a whole chapter to 'The Family Tree' of anarchism and examines claims of influence and/or sympathy in the work and lives of Thomas Jefferson, the Levellers of Cromwell's England, Chinese philosophers such as Lao-Tze, and many others. Organised Anarchist movements have appeared in most if not all countries of the world and any complete history of anarchism would, from their own statements, have to include the likes of Oscar Wilde, Tolstoy, John Cage, George Orwell, Ghandi, Noam Chomsky, Michael Foucault and Germaine Greer. [1]

Does anyone have a copy of Woodcock's book? I have it at home but not here, could we compare his "tree" with Hogeye's perhaps? - FrancisTyers 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is in Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements? [2] - N1h1l 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The book is available online at Questia [3], but you need an account. - N1h1l 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the Woodcock book. His Family Tree chapter is about precursors of anarchism. (So it doesn't help with our tree.) It covers - in a lot more detail - what our article covers in its Origins of anarchism section. He puts a lot of emphasis on the Digger movement, in particular Gerrard Winstanley, who anticipated both Tolstoy and Kropotkin in some ways. A tidbit about an early use of the term "anarchist": "In curious anticipation of French Revolutionary invective, one Cromwellian pamphleteer stigmatized the Levellers as 'Switzerising anarchists.'" (pg. 44, Anarchism, Woodcock.) That would be about 1648!

Woodcock gives credit to Condorcet ("one of the greatest minds of the age") for the idea of mutualism. Proudhon's other "pillar", federalism, he traces to Girondins through political societies and the Commune of Paris.

In his book, he sequentially looks at Godwin ("The Man of Reason"), Max Stirner ("The Egoist"), Proudhon ("The Man of Paradox"), Bakunin ("The Destructive Urge"), Kropotkin ("The Explorer"), and Tolstoy ("The Prophet"). In remaining chapters, he looks at anarchism in various countries. Hogeye 04:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Other useful books are James Joll, The Anarchists(out of print) and Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible. Sjeraj 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity's rejection of sources

I noted in the anarcho-capitalism section that it's "sometimes regarded as a form of individualist anarchism." Infinity deleted it. So, I added it again with 2 sources. Infinity deleted it. So I put it back in with 4 sources. Infinity deleted it. His explanation was "wow, RJII, you must be right, you found 4 people who say that out of 6 billion in the world! seriously, spamming sources doesn't prove your point." It certainly does prove my point. It looks like Infinity is becoming another AaronS in his refusal to accept sources, no matter how many are provided, and no matter how qualifed. This is exactly the kind of disruptive editing we don't need on Wikipedia. RJII 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the kind of think I'd tend to start and RfC or arbitration over, or whatever the next step is. MrVoluntarist 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. I've been harrassed enough with bogus and vague arbitration cases, intended for nothing but harrassment and censorship. One with clear refusal to accept sources would be legitimate and straightforward. RJII 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, is that why the vote is currently 4-0, and it's not exactly in your favor? They must all be crazy! --AaronS 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because I engaged in a few "personal attacks." Big deal. That's nothing compared to censoring sourced information, as you and Infinity are prone to doing. RJII 03:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sourced information isn't necessarily any more POV than adding it. Although honestly I'm baffled about some of these efforts, such as AaronS's effort against the term "liberal anarchism". I actually find that term much more appropriate and informative than "American individualist". While other anarchists see themselves individualists in some sense, no one else would want to associate themselves with liberalism. Sarge Baldy 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It comes from back in the days of the old anarcho-communists. As Murray Bookshin says: "Anarcho-individualism was largely marginalized by mass socialistic workers' movements, of which most anarchists considered themselves the left wing. In an era of stormy social upheaval, marked by the rise of a mass working-class movement that culminated in the 1930s and the Spanish Revolution, anarchosyndicalists and anarchocommunists, no less than Marxists, considered anarcho-individualism to be petty-bourgeois exotica. They often attacked it quite directly as a middle-class indulgence, rooted far more in liberalism than in anarchism." They refused to acknowledge, though it's true, that anarchism actually was originally derived by radicalizing liberalism. AaronS is taking the old anarcho-communists for their word that liberalism can't be anarchism. As a result, he fears that noting that individualist anarchism is radical liberalism creates a link with anarcho-capitalism which he DOES recognize as being liberalism (though not anarchism). The old arguments against individualist anarchism, he wants to make now against anarcho-capitalism --that it's not anarchism, but liberalism --this is a common attack from the old-school communist anarchists, or those with communist/sympathies, today. RJII 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I won't deny that anarchism was rooted in liberalism. I think The Politics of Individualism does a good job of spelling out that anarchism was basically liberalism that rejected "instrumental individualism" (although the American individualists brought it back in their own movement). Sarge Baldy 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope that everybody has enjoyed putting words into my mouth. For the record, I accept that anarchism has some roots in liberalism. I just think that "liberal anarchism" is a seldom-used word, and is not synonymous with individualist anarchism. If you remember, the only time I removed the term "liberal anarchism" from the article was when RJII had replaced individualist anarchism with it or equated individualist anarchism with it. --AaronS 05:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can understand attacking it as a neologism, but I don't understand what anarchists outside of the American tradition have ever embraced the term "liberalism". And actually now that I think about it, I suspect a number of them wouldn't have wanted have liked the term either. Certainly almost all of them opposed some elements of social contract theory, such as marriage. So maybe it is best that we avoid the term. Sarge Baldy 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "word." It's just a shorter way of saying "Individualist anarchism derived by radicalizing the classical liberal doctrine of laissez-faire in individual liberty and economic freedom." That terminology is used even less. But, of course we know this is just a smokescreen. I stated the reasons you opposed the term above. RJII 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, I wouldn't call American individualists particularly laissez-faire economically. I see their liberal twist as being a belief in social contract theory and competition, and even that was fairly limited in its extent. Sarge Baldy 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me interject here that, IMO, neither individualist anarchists like Tucker and Spooner, nor economists like Bastiat and Molinari, are proponents of the social contract theory of the origin of the State. All those preferred a conquest theory, as detailed by e.g. Herbert Spencer. In general, liberal anti-statists preferred the external conquest theory to the social contract theory.[4] Just FYI. Hogeye 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Social contract theory, if you're talking about Rousseau's idea of a social contract, is collectivist, not individualist. It says that an individual should submit his will to the "general will." In fact, Spooner's No Treason is considered a classic argument against the social contract. What do you mean they're not laissez-faire economically? Where do they advocate government intervention? "The only true believers in laissez faire are the anarchists." -Benjamin Tucker RJII 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A better question is, where do ANY anarchists argue for government economic intervention? Since your point had no meaning to me I took it to mean support for a "free market". If the economic system is based on a labor theory of value, it clearly isn't "free", it's intentionally restricted. As for social contract, I mean it in the sense that people are seen as capable of making binding contractual arrangements. Although now that I think about it, maybe it's only anarcho-capitalists that are really fervent about that. Sarge Baldy 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you think they wouldn't allow profit to be taken. Well, that's not true. They think people should be allowed to contract in whatever terms they wish and no one, including government, should forcefully prevent that. If I want to hire you to work at a rate that gives me profit and you agree to it in exchange for getting the job, for someone to interefere with that would be violation of the right of contract --which the individualist embrace as the highest law. It's just that they thought the ability to profit would be negligible in a laissez-faire environment due to increased competition. Benjamin Tucker says: "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right [ethicality] of usury" -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty I,3. Profit is exploitative, but it should be allowed --the state should not interfere. But, again, it's the state's fault for making profit possible through interventionism. The problem is not the capitalist (owner of capital), but government for giving the capitalist privilege through interventionism. "Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital." -Benjamin Tucker RJII 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stating my reasons for me. What other positions of mine would you like to choose for me? Should I even bother writing anything at all? But, blast it all! You've discovered my smokescreen. Now my status as the leader of an evil cabal to destroy all of your benevolent and humble works has been revealed. --AaronS 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever accuse me of being benevolent and humble. RJII 05:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, please try and avoid sarcasm. :) - FrancisTyers 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you'll start a bogus arbitration case against me, because someone else started one against you? Nice logic, jackass. Infinity0 ^talk 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how cutting down four sources to two is rejecting sources. I am baffled by your paranoid thought process. Infinity0 ^talk 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that this line of arguement has really led to insults, name calling and oversensitivity on both sides. Both sides have validity to their points and there is little that is going to get them to budge either way. I have to say that academically if a source can be found and cited it usually does count, though I am not sure that I agree with the point of view. Either way, there is too much ethos in this debate and not enough logic.

In Defense of Anarchism, Wolff

There's a nifty little book used to teach anarchism in political science departments at some US universities called In Defense of Anarchism, by Robert Paul Wolff. It was first published in 1970s. Is anyone familiar with this book? Hogeye 08:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting book, but you have to be careful. The 'anarchism' Wolff is referring to is not what either of us would understand by anarchism - for you, a philosophy advocating abolition of the state; for me, a complex historical and (just about) living movement. It's a few years since I read it but as I remember: he is stipulating a definition of 'philosophical anarchism', which means a particular position for the purposes of a particular philosophical argument, basically that no individual has a moral duty to obey a political authority. He then argues for this position, as I remember, in a Kantian fashion - using a transcendental argument involving Kant's categorical imperative.

His argument thus relates to the foundational issue in political philosophy called the problem of political obligation, and in this context philosophical anarchism is often used to mean simply the position that there is no such thing (in a moral sense) as political obligation. How does this relate to anarchism as we use the term? I would say - this philosophical anarchism' is generally a component of anarchist philosophies, because I think anarchists would agree that they don't have a moral duty to obey authority. And some anarchist writers have specifically argued against the moral issue of political obligation (I think maybe Godwin started this off). But anarchists also believe a lot more than that - e.g., that it is in fact desirable to abolish the state.

Thus Wolff's philosophical anarchism has some relation to anarchism as we're discussing here, but isn't exactly the same. It has more relation though than other philosophical uses of the term - eg. Paul Feyerabend called his position in philosophy of science 'anarchism'.Bengalski 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much my take on the book: He talks about the moral basis for anarchism, defined in terms of authority. Thus he writes about the same thing as Burke, Godwin, and others did. Wolff even does a nice imitation of Lysander Spooner (he uses the argument from "No Treason".) He has a clear, concise argument on why authority is illegitimate - why the State has no moral authority and why there's no obligation on the individual to obey.

This is definitely pertinent material for the article. After all, judging from the intro wars, many editors prefer to define anarchism in terms of authority (rather that anti-statism or tradition). I think we need a section on "philosophical anarchism" with some of this material. (Also, we need a section on geoanarchism, which we have totally ignored.) When the article gets unlocked, I'll add these two sections. Hogeye 16:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps we could have anarchism as a disambiguation page with links to Philosophical anarchism and Anarchism (social movement), and then also have another separate page for Anarchist which could then link to both, and to List of anarchists, also merged with the Anarch page. We should also consider that as time passes simply finding a compromise between existing editors is likely to be temproary measure reflecting the momentary balance of power, which could easily be upset should othes try to become involved at a later stage. By creating such structures, it might help create a framework which would be more useful to people usingwikipedia as a resource.Harrypotter 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in its political theory sense makes two claims:

1. Authority is illegitimate.
2. Authority should be abolished.

For all anarchists, "authority" includes the State in the Weberian sense.

Wolff's book is about the first, but not the second. Since this is a part of anarchism as defined in the article, I don't see any reason to make it a separate article.

Anarchism (social movement) is a different story. The movements often have little to do with theory, and more to do with mass psychology. The importance of anarchist theorists is often uncorrelated with whether they inspired social movements. Separating theory from movements could make the article shorter, which is a good thing, I think. Finally, separating Anarchism (political theory) and Anarchism (social movement) may promote article stability. It would to some degree separate the edit-warring factions, since (I observe) the cappie and commie contingencies seem to coincide with whether one defines anarchism as "a philosophy advocating abolition of the state" or "a complex historical and living movement," as Bengalski aptly put it. Frankly, what I care about are ideas; to me, "movement" means taking a dump. Hogeye 19:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's being called here 'philosophical anarchism' is notable as a position within academic political philosophy, as well as a source of ideas related to anarchism per se, and deserves a page under that category. But it's not as notable as 'political' anarchism, or what we've been discussing on this page. Thus it wouldn't be giving due weight to treat the two equally on a disambiguation page. But certainly I'd be in favour of having a section, or at least a link off to a page on the philosophical debate about political obligation. (I'd be wary of creating new sections given this page is getting ever bigger again - shame we've lost Fifelfoo.) Even if it had a section in this article, it would definitely need a separate page also as there is a lot to say. There's a pretty massive literature of philosophical debate which we haven't even begun to touch on here.Bengalski 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism Tree v06

File:AnarchismTree06.gif

Incorporating some suggestions, I've made some changes.

1. Some people pointed out that, technically Max Stirner was not an anarchist. (He didn't oppose the state; he merely asserted that it had no legitimate authority.) So Stirner is no longer "boxed" as a bone fide anarchist.
2. Some people objected to Stirner being implicitly considered a capitalist. He's even more ink-blot than Proudhon! So I put Stirner on the line like Proudhon, hopefully indicating that it's unclear what the fuck he is.
3. I added the fourth major economic category, Georgism, and the major proponent/theorist of Geoanarchism, Albert Jay Nock. (I could put a more recent personage, like Fred Foldvary, I suppose, but Nock seems more well-known and appropriate.)
4. I changed the format to gif, to get a transparent background.

What do y'all think? Hogeye 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just as acceptable as any originally-researched and overly-reductionist chart. Totally inappropriate for this article. --AaronS 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

George didn't influence Nock? I disagree. As for "overly-reductionist", what nuance does it gloss over? Keep in mind that Wikipedia necessarily simplifies things in philosophy articles -- it's simply not practical to quote every philosopher word for word. Even setting aside copyright issue for recent ones, it would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. It seems like the positions of Georgism should be between Socialism and Mutualism shouldn't it? That way as you move to the right you get more individualist, right? The Geoanarchists think the commmunity owns the land, unlike the Mutualists and Capitalists. And, again, like I've said before, I think Spooner should be in there as an influence on Rothbard for natural law. RJII 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Georgism should be between mutualism and capitalism, I think. They only think the community should get the rent of the land, not the land itself; otherwise, they want full capitalism. But that might make some arrows weird as they stretch across Georgism. Btw, how notable is geoanarchism? Are there references beyond the one Foldvary article? MrVoluntarist 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But the reason they think the community should get the rent is because they think the community owns the land, in Georgism ("Single-Taxers"). If you use the land, you're using their land, so therefore you should pay them rent. I don't really know how notable the anarchist form is. RJII 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is some collectivism involved, but if you look at their agreement with ancaps and laissez-faire proponents on pretty much everything else, Georgism falls between capitalism and mutualism, not mutualism and socialism. MrVoluntarist 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Were the Georgists anti-profit? RJII 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Complicated question. Short answer: no. Their position is that, as long as you pay the assessed ground rent for use of land, whatever difference you get between your income and your expenses is 100% legitimate and non-exploitative. However, reading Georgist arguments (especially from lefty types), it sometimes seems like they want to re-assess ground rents so that profit is inherently impossible. I've also criticized Georgism before on the grounds that someone could kill the profit of any business simply by submitting an appropriately-sized bid for their land, forcing the government to re-assess the land rental value up enough to eat up whatever profit they would make. (It would be hard for them to just walk away since they can't take the fixed improvements like houses.) George also claimed that profit "does not exist", i.e., any profit corresponds to someone's loss. (Speculation "cancels out" and arbitrage counts as labor, not profit, in his view.) You figure it out. MrVoluntarist 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is not three theorists, and it did not stop with Rudolf Rocker. Stop making these fucking charts, Hogeye, put them on your mediocre little website. --Tothebarricades 05:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee, no. This doesn't go nearly far enough to be fair. We need to a new column left of anarchism branching off from Bakunin to document the anarcho-fascists! They're being repressed! Sarge Baldy 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Spooner in. Check.
• Georgism to the left of capitalism. Check.

It's hard to say which differs from capitalism more. Georgism is capitalism except for land; Mutualism is capitalism except for profit.

TTB> "Anarchism is not three theorists, and it did not stop with Rudolf Rocker."

What would you consider the main socialist anarchist schools? Hogeye 06:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye. About the table. Why not add David Friedman at the bottom of the anarcho-capitalist column? Rothbard is dead, and Friedman represents the present generation of thinking in this line. Also, I think its fair to draw a line of influence to him from the Georgists. --Christofurio 00:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

David Friedman is brilliant! I've read "Machinery of Freedom" and "Hidden Order." I was there when he debated George Smith at the Freedom Forum in San Francisco (natural rights vs utilitarian approach to libertarianism.) I'm such an unabashed fan that I got him to autograph my "Hidden Order." So you don't have to twist my arm.

After thinking about it, I decided that only dead guys should be on the chart. But your idea is great - let's let everyone play. We can list 5 or 6 contemporary luminaries of each category below the main chart. This makes it editable, and keeps the chart simple & clean. See the new version below, with David Friedman in the cappie column. Hogeye 08:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Geoanarchism

Not long ago I thought anarcho-Georgism was pretty much extinct. Maybe not - check this out: Geoanarchist links

Good point. Carson, an anarchist, is sympathetic to Georgist ideas. Also, in Kyriazi's book, he refers to opposition to the state as "anarchism". MrVoluntarist 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article exists on Wikipedia, but is only a redirect to geolibertarianism. // Liftarn

Tree Poll

In case anyone has missed it, there is a straw poll on Hogeye's tree here. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing more worth saying about it.Bengalski 11:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. I wouldn't accept any tree, even if I'd designed it myself. So I don't see a reason to discuss "changes". Sarge Baldy 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. I wouldn't accept any tree, even if I'd designed it myself. So I don't see a reason to discuss "changes".Harrypotter 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So far, 4 for including the tree, 5 Against, and 3 if it can be improved. Votes fall pretty much along the usual lines: non-socialist anarchism qua philosophy people vs. socialist anarchism qua movement people. As usual, the poll was a total waste of time. This division is predictable, e.g. I knew that the ideology people would appreciate the idea of adding Wolff's academic philosophical thoughts about anarchism, and adding in a section on the Geoanarchist school. To the ideology folks, these are important ideas about anarchism, and should obviously be included. As expected, the movement folks rejected these out-of-hand, since they are not part of traditional "movement" anarchism. I surmise that a movement is any collection of people who refer to themselves as "a movement." Heh-heh. Hogeye 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All I was rejecting there was your absurd tree.Bengalski 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise the vote as over by any means. - FrancisTyers 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your "division" is contrived. Having a mass movement to support your philosophy certainly does increase its notability -- but that's not all that is important, and most of the people here aren't emphasizing that aspect of notability. There are various factors that go into philosophical notability: whether or not most people have heard of it; if it is an offshoot or branch of another philosophy, whether or not most people who have knowledge of that philosophy have heard of it or accept it; whether or not most scholars have heard of it or accept it; the number of reputable books that have been published about it; the number of well-known or relatively well-known philosophers or people who support it or accept it; whether or not it has a notable following; whether or not it has historical significance; etc. Please don't trivialize this discussion. --AaronS 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a fine set of factors. Now, if you wouldn't mind, would you please apply them to a) Wolff's philosophical anarchism, and b) geoanarchism, and let me know whether you consider these to be philosophically notable? Perhaps your evaluation will surprise me. Hogeye 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary's search results for geoanarchism: There are no results. What? No dictionary definition? It musn't exist, then. --AaronS 03:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist Property Systems

Here's some stuff I added to an anarchism-related article. Comments? Hogeye 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Property is a relationship between people regarding a scarce good. Denying the validity of the State, anarchists consider all property to be allodial. The following property qualification types address who may hold property and how can it be transferred to a new owner.

Who May Own

• pure property - anyone or any group may own
• community property - the community collectively is permanent non-transferrable owner
• corporate property - only certain collectives or types of collectives may own
• caste property - only certain types of people may own

Note that in corporate property arrangements, the property-holding collectives can range from feudal guilds to modern corporations. In this anarchist context, the corporations are generally called "communes," "syndicates," or simply "collectives."

How Transferred

• contract property - owner retains ownership until he agrees to alienate
• possession property - owner loses ownership upon non-use or abandonment

These are the property arrangements favored by the four basic anarchist schools of thought.

Anarchist Schools	Socialist	Mutualist	Geoist	Capitalist
Land and natural resources	corporate possession	pure possession	community	pure contract
Man-made capital goods	corporate possession	pure contract	pure contract	pure contract
Is it moral to collect profit from land, labor, or capital?	No. It's criminal and should be expropriated.	No, but it's non-aggressive, so shouldn't be prevented.	No, for land; Yes, for labor and capital.	Yes. It's permissable, and generally a virtue.

You're leaving out labor as the source of property, for both mutualists and capitalists who espouse labor theory of property. For them, contract or not, private property is created by labor. RJII 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I see you're talking about transferring. This chart is kind of bizarre. RJII 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neat way to organize it all. Though some will object to the non-standard usage (socialists will be livid at being told they support something "corporate"!). Also, geoists oppose profiting from land. Any profit they accept, they would say is due to labor or capital. MrVoluntarist 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not above goosing the socialists a little! Actually, while not common usage, it isn't really non-standard to use "corporate" in a general sense. E.g.Corporatism as related to fascism. Or the use of "corporate" by Llosa in his "Liberty for Latin America" book - where he uses the term in relation to laws decreeing positive rights based on group membership as opposed to equal individual rights under the law. Good point about Geoists and profit, MrVoluntarist. I need to change that to something like: Yes, but with proper ground-rent, profit from land would disappear. Or better: No for land; Yes for labor and capital. (Done.) Hogeye 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it need to be that complicated. Private property, by definition, is something someone has abolute dominion over --meaning he can transfer it to others, sell it, whatever. So, all it really needs to point out is what system supports private property, and in what. RJII 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand; private property in the terminology above is "pure contract" property. But simply private property or not hides some of the differences between e.g. socialism and mutualism. It makes a huge difference whether you treat land as possession property a la Proudhon or collective property a la Bakunin.

Also, "private property" leaves ambiguous what happens when someone leaves for a while. That's why discussing Proudhon is so difficult; his idea of possession is private in the sense that individuals can own stuff. He can "transfer it to others, sell it, whatever." But it so happens that if he stops using/occupying his stuff for a short threshold of time, he loses ownership. When I say "private property," I implicitly include the contract condition - that property cannot easily be abandoned, that it must be transferred generally by agreement only, not by merely stopping use. I frequently use the neologism "sticky property" (in lieu of "private property") to emphasize this aspect.

My thought was to try to improve on the table in Individualist anarchism, which tended to grow rows for every little nuance of property type. Hogeye 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But for Proudhon, in the case of land, it's not even private property in the first place. Even if you're using land, it's not private property --it's just use (possession) --you're merely using what is the property of no one. It's not private property before or after you stop using it. This is the same position as Tucker for the land itself. If you plant a crop on the land, the product is your property, but not the land under it for the Americans (for Proudhon?). RJII 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon's conception of "possession" property is private in the sense that an owner controls the property, and may buy or sell or use it as he wills. The critical difference between possession property and sticky private property is that if you leave it for a 'short time,' it's deemed abandoned. For mutualists, Proudhon can legitimately sell Bastiat his print shop, so long as P occupies the shop and hands the keys over to B in the shop. Think of possession property as private property with a really really short abandonment time.

Proudhon, in What is Property, is inconsistent about this; he calls it commonly owned but privately possessed, but this amounts to private ownership with an abandonment clause. So long as you don't abandon the item in question, you can wheel and deal as well as any capitalist. Hogeye 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as a comment I see the concept of a chart as being just as problematic as the "tree". Need I remind you that anarchism is a theory and not an ideology? Thus there is no common ground for agreement on anything in these traditions, and picking a few prominent theorists to represent entire movements is POV. This page in general is sad in its attempts to reduce anarchism to simple ideological classifications, when in fact there is often as much disagreement within these so-called "schools" as between them. Sarge Baldy 21:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is enough difference between schools to classify them, hence there are names for the schools. Disagreements of individuals within the schools can be taken care of with statements like "most hold that..." or "some hold that..." RJII 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So all political thought is anarchism?? Nice logic. I'm starting to think there is no point in making the tree, since most anarchists were influenced by many non-anarchist thought schools. Infinity0 ^talk 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"So all political thought is anarchism??"

Where in left field did you come up with that? LOL! Are there some non-anarchist influences which you would like me to add? Do you request a Hegel to Marx link? Hogeye 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the one adding "Socialist" and "Capitalist" as schools of anarchism. Infinity0 ^talk 13:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it: you're confusing economics and politics, and still don't know the definition of our subject. I'll type slowly.

anarchism - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished

Do you see anything about economic systems? I guess instead of "So all political thought is anarchism", you really meant, So any type of economic system consistent with statelessness is compatable with anarchism. Hogeye 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Marx an anarchist?

Someone asked this question earlier, and I found it both amusing and relevant. A minority of editors believe that anarchism should be defined as mere anti-statism, and nothing more (and that state means formalized nation-state government, and nothing more). Well, Marx was an anti-statist. Sure, he believed that the state needed to be seized by the proletariat and become a dictatorship, but only as a means to a clear end: stateless communism. His goal was always stateless communism, his ideal was stateless communism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat was, to him, merely a means of achieving stateless communism (such a state would "wither away," he argued).

So, Marx was an anarchist, if anarchism is simply anti-statism. Any editor who wants to push for this definition of anarchism needs to accept it with all of its consequences. --AaronS 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Maybe James Madison was an anarchist, too. He only believed that government was necessary because men are not angels. Government, to him, was a necessary evil -- but what if that necessity were to be taken away? What if men became angels? Madison was, after all, a Christian. The aim of most Christians is to embrace the life of Jesus, follow in his footsteps, and spread the gospel. That way, mankind approaches moral perfection. So, is Madison a Christian anarchist? --AaronS 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's disciminatory to shut out anarchists like Marx and Engels who believed in a transitory state. Clearly you people are just being closeminded! This idea of declaring people anarchist retroactively needs to stop, as does this nonsense that anarchism is the same thing as anti-statism. Sarge Baldy 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Errico Malatesta wrote that "Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end." and Donald Rooum defined anarhism as "opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritrocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all it's forms." So that definitions of "state" and "government" can be quite wide. And to Hogeye's delight you can see that it's not defined as opposition to capitalism, but only mentions "the wages system". ;-) // Liftarn

Aaron brings us an ambiguity which came up in the discussion of the anti-statism article. Anti-statism can be interpreted in two ways: anti -(statism) and anti-stat(ism). The former means being against statism, while the latter means being against the institution of state itself. The dictionary/etymological definition of anarchism as anti-state uses the latter meaning - an anarchist is against the very existence of a State in principle. If you want to get formal, here goes:

One is an anarchist iff ( (one believes state authority to be illegitimate) and (one believes the state should be abolished immediately) ).

• Marx probably fails #1 and certainly fails #2. Any support of a transitional State disqualifies one to be an anarchist.
• Evolutionary "anarchists" like Thoreau fail #2 so are not technically anarchists.
• Those who make anarchism contingent on utopian conditions such as a basic change in the nature of man, such as Madison and Marx, fail #2 so are not anarchists.
• Stirner passes #1 but fails #2, so he's not an anarchist.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you. Hogeye 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You cleared nothing up. Anarchists don't have to be against the state in principle at all. It might not be a question of legitimacy at all, but rather desirability, for instance -- and that's just one possibility. You're redefining anarchism. It's rather fun to watch. --AaronS 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee Uncle Hogeye, I guess something can't possibly be anarchism if it doesn't fit your own definition of it. And I suppose you're right that geoanarchism is one of the most important schools of anarchism. I mean, it almost gets 1/3 as many hits on google as spiritual anarchism, and 1/22nd as many as anarcho-transhumanism! IT'S HUGE! Sarge Baldy 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AaronS> "Anarchists don't have to be against the state in principle at all."

Amazing! All this time and you don't know what an anarchist is. Ah, yes - you use the dildo definition: A dildo is anything that has traditionally been called a dildo.

Sarge, I never claimed geoanarchism was large, or a movement. I claim it is a notable and significant form of anarchism. It influenced Leo Tolstoy, was favored by such notables as Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov, and perhaps most importantly, has a major influence on environmentalism to this day. Ever hear of bioregionalism? How about libertarian municipalism? Both owe much to geoist thought. Do you think people should own their watershed? Pure geoism. Hogeye 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, you're making less sense than usual. Anarchists don't have to be opposed to the state in principle. They can oppose it for other reasons: it's undesirable, it's inefficient, it's exploitative, etc. --AaronS 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what "in principle" means? MrVoluntarist 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, to say that anarchists oppose the state in principle would be to posit that they oppose the very nature of the state, i.e. they oppose the state because it is the state. An anarchist might oppose the state for several different reasons, however; or, in other words, they might oppose the state not because it is the state, but rather because they feel that states tend to do things or create things that they disagree with. --AaronS 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody opposes the state "because it is the state" -- that's circular. They oppose "the state" because defined to have X, and X is bad enough to justify the opposition. People who oppose all states because of tendencies toward some X are still opposing the state in principle -- they adhere to a principle that excludes states. Opposing specific states is just that -- opposing specific states, not states in general. IF someone believes states are necessarily exploitative, they oppose the state in principle. MrVoluntarist 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But one does not have to believe that states are necessarily exploitative to be an anarchist. One could believe that they are usually exploitative and not want to take one's chances -- but if that person were presented with a benevolent absolute monarchy, for instance, they would accept it. Or if someone though that states were usually inefficient, they might be an anarchist. But if they were presented with a state they felt was more efficient than anarchy, they would accept that. Before presented with such states, however, they are anarchists. Regardless, if anarchism is anti-statism, Marx is an anarchist. He opposed to state because he saw it as a tool of oppression. He believed that the only way to destroy it was for the proletariat to seize control and destroy it from within. He was an anti-statist, and, according to your flat-footed definition of anarchism, an anarchist. --AaronS 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First, let's try to use words correctly -- flat-footed means "surprised" or "unprepared" or "unable to react quickly" (deriving from sports where one must be "on his toes" to react quickly). I have no idea how that is supposed to apply here, unless you're saying people who use the anti-statist definition of anarchism have a medical condition, in which case you've reached a new low. Anyway, if someone took a "weigh the costs" approach and accepted some states, that would not be opposition to the state "in principle". If one opposes all states for some coherent, unifying reason, that is opposition to the state "in principle". That's a good reason why the writers of the Anarchist FAQ aren't opposed to the state in principle -- they love it as long as it attacks capitalists. MrVoluntarist 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check the dictionary before you try to insult my intelligence. Merriam-Webster provides this definition of flat-footed: "proceeding in a plodding or unimaginative way : PEDESTRIAN." A good example of flat-footedness would be to claim that a dictionary definition settles everything about a complex philosophy (there's a reason why students of philosophy read The Republic instead of the dictionary entry for "platonism"). Also, your response is a rather convoluted way of saying "You were right, I was wrong. What a waste of time!" But I get the drift. --AaronS 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did I agree with anything you said? And you're making my point for me -- you're calling the definition "unimaginative" now? Definitions are supposed to be true, not "imaginative"! MrVoluntarist 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My darling MrVoluntarist, sweetheart, to be flat-footed is to be pedestrian -- like your understanding of anarchism. Philosophers use the term often. It means to approach or explain a complex theory in a way that does not do it justice. --AaronS 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntary beat me to it, but perhaps Aaron could use some repetition. If someone opposes the State "because they feel that states tend to do things or create things that they disagree with," then clearly they "oppose the very nature of the state," i.e. oppose it in principle. By "oppose in principle" I mean opposition to the institution of State, as opposed to, e.g. current rulers or personnel, or current policy. This is a distinction that I often have to explain to (US) "liberals" - actually socialist democrats. Some say they "oppose the government" because of e.g. its unilateral military intervention or refusal to socialize medicine, or whatever. This is simply opposition to the personnel or policy of the current ruling elite. The last thing these 'big government' types want is a weaker state! So I have to explain the difference between being against the State itself, and simply not liking the way its currently run. Marx did not oppose the State in principle. He thought that the State was legitimate so long as it was a dictatorship of the proles and assisted in the transitional phase to pure stateless communism. He did support - did not want to abolish - this transitional State. Hogeye 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that you've missed the point. That's what happens when, instead of thinking, you have canned and trite responses. Use your noggin'. --AaronS 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So, it's decided. According to the dictionary, Marx was an anarchist. --AaronS 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, why does the second part of your definition apply to the word "anarchy"? An-archons means no state, regardless of how it is achieved. Infinity0 ^talk 20:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

anarchism - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished

That is the dictionary definition. "All forms of government ... should be abolished." I (and virtually all other English-speakers) interpret that as meaning abolished immediately. Transitional government is included in the term "all." But this is frivolous: You are arguing something you know to be ridiculous. A Xtian who believes that government will go away after 1000 years of dictatorship by a cum-again Jesus is not an anarchist. Neither is Marx, who wanted a who-knows-how-long dictatorship of the proles. Hogeye 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, now Hogeye! Let's not add words to the definition that aren't there. If the good folks at Merriam-Webster meant to say "all forms of government... should be abolished immediately," they would have. Or do you suggest that they ran out of space? In The German Ideology, I believe, Marx argues that the state would disappear very quickly after the proletariat seized power in an industrialized society. That's when communism would be achieved. Sounds like an anarchist to me! --AaronS 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let a Hundred Trees Bloom

Perhaps we should have a tree or chart comparing individuals by their relation to nationalism, or religion.Harrypotter 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It also should show anarchism's relation to eating people. Anarcho-cannibalism [5] is a criminally overlooked but vital part of the anarchist movement. Sarge Baldy 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is indisputable that Georges Bataille's acéphale secret society is a major (if unboxed) influence on contemporary anarcho-cannibalism, and you would have an arrow up his arse obviously from Nietzsche (Ayn Rand well to one side, brandishing a whip). The question is whether to take the arrow through Foucault or directly from Bataille, and whether indeed the Fijian anarcho-autoctho-cannibalistic tendency bypasses the main chain of linkage straight into the NEFAC.Bengalski 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We should also add a Z dimension to the tree, to represent cosmic influences. It is well-documented that Alfred Jarry's communications with Buddha and the Invisible Pink Unicorn provided much of the emphasis for the strongly political work Ubu Roi that defined the anarcho-absurdist wing that eventually cumulated into mainstream anarcho-cannibalism. Sarge Baldy 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you guys were serious at first. I was getting ready to create an anarcho-cannibalism article. Adding new kinds of anarchism to Wikipedia is a hobby of mine. RJII 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wiki standards, one funny post to a kiddies "anarchist" forum does not a school of thought make. Hogeye 02:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Suppressing minorities? Tut tut... ;) Infinity0 ^talk 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources?

With the vast majority of anarchist publications available for free on the internet, I don't think citing a few things would be such a problem as it should be. --70.131.129.181 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Availability != credibility, Hogeye sockpuppet. --AaronS 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was me and not a Hogeye sockpuppet. I was just stating that it would be easy to cite something since a lot of the texts are easily available online. If they were only available in print, it would be more difficult to cite something generally because someone would have to have access to the text. --Jazz Remington 12:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem finding credible sources. There's more of a problem of people asking for sources, then ignoring them. E.g. recently someone asked for a couple dozen sources to justify the links in the Anarchist Tree. After citations for every link were promptly provided, the reaction was basically we don't care about sources, they're all irrelevant, don't confuse us with facts, we didn't really want sources, that was just an excuse to delete information not compatible with my sect. For Aaron and Infinity, asking for citations is simply a ploy - I've come to the conclusion that they really don't give a damn about citations. Hogeye 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Repeat after me: a pro-capitalist author can't anachronistically call someone an anarcho-capitalist, but a pro-socialist author can anarchronistically call someone a communist. Brilliant. MrVoluntarist 17:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget Aaron's trick of demanding a source, sorta-arguing with it, and then "forgetting" about it after two archives, so that you have to give it again. Btw, though someone might want to check this out [6] -- a recent mainstream reference to anarcho-capitalism. (Actually, it's referring to a 100% different philosophy because it doesn't hyphenate.) MrVoluntarist 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right, I'm just full of nasty tricks. Considering the accusations you guys constantly sling at others, I can't help but feel that you're a bit delusional. First of all, who asked for sources for your tree? It was MrVoluntarist that set up that section of the talk page. Beyond the fact that the tree is original research, most people had already stated that they would oppose any such reductionist tree. So, stop trying to swift-boat people. You're all venom and no substance. --AaronS 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, if every link in the tree is well-documented, that means it's not original research. That's the purpose of clearly documenting them for you. (Of course, you're probably going to forget that that ever happened.) Once the tree opponenets realized this, they changed tunes. Why can't its opponents just say what they mean? MrVoluntarist 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody changed tunes. You've got a terrible case of selective reading -- but, whatever, that's what allows you to have your delusional image of a sinister cabal of "anarcho-socialists" who are trying to push their agenda (see WP:MPOV). Original research has always only bee one of the major concerns with regard to this tree. And what are these well-documented sources that you speak of? Marxists.org, Anarquismo.com, Wendy McElroy, Blackcrayon.com, Biography.ms (otherwise known as Wikipedia), Mises, and the Objectivism Reference Center. Quite a list of credible sources! --AaronS 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's delusional? None of the sources used to justify the links on the tree came from those places.

Are you serious? Might want to take a look at the archives. --AaronS 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, some of those appear. The reason I didn't remember them was because, like I said here, those sources were themselves citing reputable sources, or were making a rather uncontested link. (Does anyone serious dispute Rothbard's association with the Austrian school????) For a case like this, quoting a primary source is acceptable to show who their influences were. If an author says "X, influenced me, and here's why", that kinda settles it. We can debate about how similar the philosophies are, but the chart is only about influences, not similarities. MrVoluntarist 19:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And it doesn't make sense to say OR is "one reason" -- tree opponents can't really give a reason. That is, they can't spell out what conditions a tree would have to meet to be acceptable. It's contradictory to say "the tree should be excluded because it's OR, and it doesn't matter if it's OR."

You're making no sense, here. --AaronS 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm making perfect sense. Try again. MrVoluntarist 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it's original research matter or not? If it matters, does it have original research. Whenever someone tries to address any of these concerns, they switch to the next and forget about the previous. Then they make the "tree poll" and come up with all new reasons! Let's give a reason and stick with it so we can rationally discuss the topic. Your opposition can withstand rational discussion, right? MrVoluntarist 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And you can withstand multiple reasons for opposition, right? Apparently not. --AaronS 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can. Just say, "I oppose the tree for reasons X, Y, and Z. If X, Y, and Z no longer held for a particular tree, I would not oppose it." That wasn't so hard, now was it? But what happened was that people would say, "I am opposed to the tree because of X." Then X is shown to be false and they try, "well, big deal, it's bad because of Y". That just makes it look like you're inventing ad-hoc reasons as you go and/or being a moving target. Just lay your cards on the table so we have a well-defined standard of what you think should be excluded so we can have a rational discussion about the tree. MrVoluntarist 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But that didn't happen. Funny that! --AaronS 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it did. That's precisely what happened. This whole "oops, I forgot the evidence against me" is getting old, methinks. MrVoluntarist 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole "let's make claims without backing them up" thing is getting old, too. So is the "everybody who disagrees with me is part of an evil conspiracy" bit. It's still got some charm, though! --AaronS 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction: a small number of the justifications came from McElroy, but they were pretty much undisputed anyway. I don't remember those sources comprising a significant number of the justifications; to the extent that they did, they were referencing respected sources. MrVoluntarist 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Record

I'd just like to keep track, for the sake of dispute resolution, of how many times here people have had the courage and cojones to admit that they were wrong about something. I know I have, but I have yet to see RJII, Hogeye, or MrVoluntarist admit any kind of error. --AaronS 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist:None of the sources used to justify the links on the tree came from those places.

AaronS:Are you serious? Might want to take a look at the archives.

MrVoluntarist:Okay, you're right, some of those appear.

I can't wait for AaronS to "stand corrected" and then use that as more evidence of his intellectual honesty! By the way, I've seen people try to use this trick before. Admitting you're wrong more often is no proof the other person is wrong. Everything you've been accused of is well documented. Unlike you, others here don't "forget" inconvenient facts. MrVoluntarist 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just so evil, aren't I? You're life must be pathetic, being surrounded by so many demons. --AaronS 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not evil, wrong. Not demonic, brazen in what you think you can get away with. MrVoluntarist 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it seems all AaronS is interested in is nitpicking and bickering. He reminds me of my ex-girlfriend. RJII 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you two are just precious with your little rants. The one thing that I have emphasized all along: credibility. The one thing you have failed to provide: credibility. That's all. Oh, and MrVoluntarist, might you provide some evidence of everything that I've been accused of? I know that you all have trouble coming up with proof to back up your claims and statements, but I would be interested in seeing some for once. I'm always hopeful! --AaronS 20:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nag, nag, nag... RJII 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vindication of Natural Society

I just finished reading the first-ever anarchist essay, "Vindication of Natural Society." It is really quite excellent, and makes many of the same points modern anarchists like us make. I cut out some of the obscure and outdated parts, and a section detailing ancient wars, and made a Hogeye Condensed Version. So, I invite those who want to know more about anarchism to check it out. I invite comments and typo corrections. BTW, it contains one of the best anti-war rants you'll see anywhere! Hogeye 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's certainly better than "stealing oil from bad people is okay, but the Iraq War is bed because it's stealing oil". MrVoluntarist 20:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." -Max Stirner RJII 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Heathian anarchism

Okay, since some accuse me of coming up with obscure variants of anarchism, let me really do it! I give you ... Heathian anarchism. I promise I won't put it on the tree.

"Spencer H. MacCallum's The Art of Community is well calculated to disquiet Professor Chomsky. This is the first systematic presentation in print of what might be calIed the "Heathian" sub-variant of anarchism, after its creator, Mr. MacCallum's grandfather, Spencer Heath. The Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned by single private corporations, which would own and rent out the land and housing over the area, and provide all conceivable "public services": police, fire, roads, courts, etc., out of the voluntarily-paid rent. Heathianism is Henry Georgism stood on its head; like George, Heath and MacCallum would provide for all public services out of rent; but unlike George, the rent would be collected, and the land owned, by private corporate landlords rather than by the government, and the payment therefore voluntary rather than coercive. The Heathian "proprietary community" is, of course, in stark contrast to the scruffy egalitarian com- mune dreamed of by anarchists of the Left." - Murray Rothbard, The Libertarian Forum, Vol. II #18, Sept. 15 1970

Hogeye 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AnarchismTree07

File:AnarchismTree07.gif

An Anarchist FAQ Anarcho-syndicalism Anarchy Archives Spunk Library Infoshop.org indymedia.org Anarchism Web Site Chomsky on Anarchism

BlackCrayon's Individualist Anarchism The Memory Hole Mutualist.org Carson's Mutualist Blog Individualist Anarchist] Zenetics Ind. Anarchism] What is Mutualism?

What Is Geolib? Geonomy Society Dr. Fred E. Foldvary Thomas Paine Network Debbie Clark Harold Kyriazi School of Living HenryGeorge.org

Anarchist Theory FAQ David Friedman Wendy McElroy Strike the Root Anti-State.com Against Politics LewRockwell.com Molinari Institute

More confusing than the last, and yet without adding an iota of necessary complexity. You've outdone yourself. --AaronS 08:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a little cleaner, with even column widths. What do you think of the anti-capitalist/capitalist indicator? Actually, the original idea was to put a few contemporary theorists in each column. I got a little carried away with the links. Hogeye 08:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it better than the previous versions. Good work :) Just a little further, and I might support it being in the article. Infinity0 ^talk 11:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, Gustave should not be in a box, since he is not an anarchist. Infinity0 ^talk 11:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

More rubbish, exposing the impossibility of the whole project. Georgism is not anarchist as it involves paying rent to the state beside the fact peopel want to talk about geoanarchism. Likewise it is colllectivist in this repect. How much more of this bogus POV stuff do we have to put up with?Harrypotter 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, much as I've enjoyed some of our interactions in the past, I'm getting increasingly tired of the way you can't accept that wikipedia is not the place for your original research. Now on anarchist economics too you're inserting your charts and writing nonsense about 'the four basic anarchist schools of thought' (which turn out to be 'socialism', 'mutualism', 'geoism' and 'capitalism'). As if anyone but you has ever carved up anarchism in this way. (Or maybe you're taking this from Rothbard or some other ancap, but that's no better. And I think unlikely seeing as geoism only became one of our basic schools about a week ago.) I'm seriously starting to think about submitting a request for arbitration on your original research habit. Does it have to come to that?Bengalski 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist critics of most kinds of anarchism claim that the criticized kind of anarchism requires a state. This is nothing new. As far as I know, anarchist geoists wouldn't have a state seize the land in response to failure to pay rent, but rather, people would just stop recognizing the owner's claim, i.e., "you're on your own". MrVoluntarist 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Like when the U.S. refused to recognise Saddam Hussein's claim to Q8? Hey, maybe we do need a page on anarcho-cannibalism for Armin Meiwes after all.Harrypotter 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. "refusing to recognize" Saddam's claim to Kuwait -- in the context of geoanarchism -- would simply mean that they wouldn't reward, punish, associate with, or dissociate from anyone on the basis of what they did to Kuwait, not that they would invade it. MrVoluntarist 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry, Georgism can be statist or not, just like socialism. Geoists might pay ground rent to a state or a commune, just as socialists might work in a factory owned by a state or a syndicate, depending on their level of statism. Like libertarians in general, geoists are usually minarchist or anarchist, with minarchists predominating.

Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and Leo Tolstoy were geoanarchist long before I was born - I didn't make up this school, Bengalski. People have been classifying forms of anarchism for a long time. BR (before Rothbard), historians tended to classify anarchism into two types - collectivist and individualist. Some still do, e.g. Murray Bookchin in Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. It took people like Rothbard, Roy Childs, and the Tannahills to convince non-socialists that "anarchist" doesn't have to mean "bomb-throwing commie terrorist." Thus, people who had not used the term to describe themselves are now known to satisfy the definition of "anarchist."

I don't know why this bugs you so much. MrVoluntary has pointed out several cases where we already do this in the article, e.g. the word "anarcha-feminism" wasn't coined until the seventies, yet we have Emma Goldman with photo, and the assertion "anarchist feminism has existed for more than a hundred years." This is of course perfectly analogous to the claim, "anarcho-capitalism has existed for over a hundred years." If Emma is an anarcha-feminist, then Gustave is an anarcho-capitalist. Hogeye 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They may (or indeed may not) have been geoanarchist long before you were born. What bothers me is that they could become, on your say so, one of 'the four basic anarchist schools of thought' a few days ago.Bengalski 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not omnipotent, Bengalski. The reality existed long before I noticed it, independent of my say so.

For wikipedia purposes, the reality as you have noticed it isn't enough. To make a claim like this you need some reputable sources who have noticed it first.Bengalski 10:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good news, folks! AnarchismTree07 is now available in the svg format. Get your red-hot image here, and tweak to your heart's content using Inkscape, a free program! Is capitalism great, or what? (The image looks funky here, but on the Wiki download page and in Inkscape, and for generated gifs or jpegs it looks fine, at least on my system.) AnarchismTree07.svg Enjoy! Hogeye 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But everyone knows that open source is communism! ^_____^ - FrancisTyers 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The SVG is fucked up. Why does it have a huge gap around it? Infinity0 ^talk 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to use InDesign, Infinity, so I don't intend to mess with cleaning it up in Inkscape. I posted that so RJII and others who want to use Inkscape can do so. (It's set up on an 8.5x11" sheet; that's why the gap below.) Francis, open source is a wonderful example of capitalism. People trading value for value without coercion, psychic profit totally unrelated to labor time or other socialist fetishes - we anarcho-capitalists love open source. Many of the open source guys are libertarians. Hogeye 16:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no trading in open source and no intrinsic profit. It is actually a better example of a gift economy, popular in Anarcho-Communism "Anarcho-communists advocate a pure gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning.".... "The free software community is an information gift economy. Programmers make their source code available, allowing anyone to copy and modify/improve the code. Individual programmers gain prestige and respect, and the community as a whole benefits from better software.". In reality of course I'm just making a rhetorical point, open source software does tend to fit into all kinds of models. You could see it as the work of rational human beings working towards a common goal to satisfy their needs and boost their egos. Open source does not however have rent, restricted access to property (any sourcecode under the GPL can be taken and used by anyone else provided that the modifications are released) - of course the "owner" of the code can change the license but it doesn't apply retroactively. It all depends on where you look at it from. It is also true that many open source guys are libertarian, most do not talk about their economics however. This is from my experience, hell I'm a member of the Free State Project. [7] ;) - FrancisTyers 17:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, did you know most computer hackers (inc. open source coders) are left wing? [8] Infinity0 ^talk 20:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The key idea is as you wrote, Francis, "Individual programmers gain prestige and respect, and the community as a whole benefits from better software." That's good capitalism! Trading value for value; all parties benefiting ex ante. We anarcho-capitalists love that!

I understand that some socialist types are hung up on money. We anarcho-capitalists see money as simply the most liquid commodity, and don't attribute magical powers to it like some of y'all do. We realize that many/most trades are for more esoteric and abstract things, like "prestige and respect." We see the essential - utility - while you socialists are grubbing about cluelessly like misers. Here's a good essay for you by Bastiat: [What is money?]

Infinity, I believe Francis ("It is also true that many open source guys are libertarian..."), not you. Hogeye 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the owner of that site I just gave you... Believe them, if you're going to believe anyone. Infinity0 ^talk 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, you fail to point out the differences. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that you find some aspects of collectivism similar to your own ideology, or likeable. We are all trying to make the world a better place. Infinity0 ^talk 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I said libertarian and I didn't specify economic preference for a reason. I didn't mean Libertarian as in US-centric style. Re: Hogeye, it isn't trading, there is no profit, there is no rent and no usury (interest), there are no banks, no speculation, no employment of one over another, there are no shares and no dividends, wages, salaries and piece rates don't come into it! Sourcecode is held simultaneously in common and in private hands (wow!). Any one person can take the sourcecode and build on it themselves. It isn't comparable with the "real world" because in reality there is not unlimited land, unlike sourcecode. If your idea of anarcho-capitalist society is a society without rent, interest and speculation then sure I'll hit that up.

I'm sure anarcho-capitalists do love open source, and anarcho-communists and anarcho-whateverists do too for the same reasons. It represents people working together without coercion for a common goal, both with competition and cooperation and winning! I couldn't care less about money. PS. Please don't call me a socialist, you have no idea. - FrancisTyers 22:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis> "It (open source) isn't comparable with the "real world" because in reality there is not unlimited land, unlike sourcecode. If your idea of anarcho-capitalist society is a society without rent, interest and speculation then sure I'll hit that up."

Sourcecode is like all information - it's not economically scarce. Thus (agreeing with Tucker) it is not legitimate property. I'm for all voluntary action; whether it makes a monetary profit for programmers or not is none of my business. For open source programmers there is profit, just not necessarily monetary. Not immediately, at least. Besides prestige and respect that you mentioned, there is experience gained and creation of a sort of programming portfolio. Many have or get jobs partially due to their open source work. Or become self-employed entrepreneurs doing custom coding for open source projects. Hogeye 02:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been here too long without my correction: There is no trading in open source and no intrinsic profit. Absolutely false. People are paid all the time to write free/open source software. I would know. I'm one of the payers. I had an idea for a program, and, being unable to program part of it or find people to contribute their time and effort for free (imagine that!), I hired a programmer to do that part of it. Once the code has all been put together and its effectiveness demonstrated, I will open source it. So a programmer is profiting from and trading open source software. And it's not just me: IBM, Sun, and Google pay open source developers. MrVoluntarist 17:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism Chart

File:Anarchism chart 1.svg

I made this up in Inkscape, feel free to edit away. - FrancisTyers 20:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides, surely a free software project that relies on: Rather than top-down governance, its developers claim to encourage an egalitarian culture where authority stems from an individual developer's abilities and active involvement in the project. is much more appropriate for developing an anarchism chart :)) - FrancisTyers 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Individualism should be dilineated though. Capitalism/Anti-capitalism isn't the only division. RJII 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, anti-capitalist and capitalist. That'll do nicely to balance out "collectivism" and "individualism". :D Infinity0 ^talk 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you upload a PSD format somewhere, with text layers? Infinity0 ^talk 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least this represents the distribution of anarchism more fairly and doesn't clutter everything with stupid labels. And it also doesn't focus completely on economics or make things quite as simplistic. But I'm not sure how entirely useful it would be to anyone. I also don't know about the Proudhon to Tolstoy connection, and I don't think Errico Malatesta should be quite where he is. Nietzsche is also misspelled. Sarge Baldy 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tolstoy met and admired Proudhon, and indeed called War and Peace after one of his books. I think you want a big link from Jesus to Tolstoy though - could also have Winstanley and the diggers as an offshoot from that. And according to Hogeye, Tolstoy was a geoanarchist (though most Tolstoyans even by Hogeye's characterisation were communists, and T himself was an aristocratic landowner, at least until a few days before his death when he gave it all up to enter an Orthodox monastery.) But where do we put the cannibals? Is there a Jesus link there too - 'body of christ'?Bengalski 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. The relation between Jesus and the cannibals is pretty much academic consensus. As Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, unless you Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man

and Drink his Blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53)

Sarge Baldy 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to expand this chart into the third dimension, possibly fourth or maybe even fifth. jesus was influenced by many people, and influenced many religious anarchists. Also, some people say god influenced jesus, so perhaps we should put "god" around dotted lines (meaning "existence is disputed"). Infinity0 ^talk 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

That's not bad. Not bad at all. Comparing the graph to the tree:

• The graph loses all information concerning schools of thought. But I understand that some editors want to portray anarchists as basically agreeing on most things, and think that differences in ideology should be downplayed.

• Even broader long-entrenched categorization - collectivist vs individualist anarchism - is totally missing. Spooner, Kropotkin, what's the difference, eh?

• On the plus side, not showing economic schools allows putting in multiple notables from the same school, like Malatesta and Chomsky rather than just one representative socialist anarchist Bakunin.

Other than that, there are some specifics I would question.

• Molinari was an anarchist, as already profusely cited.
• Proudhhon was not influenced by Marx (other than inspiring criticism of communism)
• Needs a Henry George to Tolstoy link
• Chomsky was influenced by Orwell and no one else? (I'd question whether Chomsky is really an anarchist, too. I've seen some quotes...)
• Where's my gal - Voltairine de Cleyre?

Overall, I think the tree tells more than the graph. And is better aesthetically. I downloaded Inkscape, and will try it out soon. Hogeye 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant that Proudhon influenced Marx. But I guess I should have added arrows to those. Anyway, anyone can fix this because it is in a standard, open, file format. - FrancisTyers 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Molinari added as an anarchist. Proudhon -> Marx. Henry George -> Tolstoy. Russell -> Chomsky. Voltairine de Cleyre added. Hope the arrows make things more clear... - FrancisTyers 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The double arrows are a good touch. Voltairine de Cleyre certainly had a mutual impact on Emma Goldman though. Sarge Baldy 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. - FrancisTyers 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

De Cleyre was influenced by the Benjamin Tucker school, called herself an individualist anarchist, and opposed Emma Goldman philosophically in the areas pertinent to distinguishing indidivualism from communism: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." -de Cleyre RJII 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. - FrancisTyers 01:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, Thomas Jefferson influenced Josiah Warren --he praises the Declaration of Independence as asserting individual sovereignty (a source for this: "first American exponents of individual anarchism such as Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. Their intellectual development was not influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence" [9] Also, he was influenced by Adam Smith --as in the labor theory of value. Proudhon was also influenced by Adam Smith and actually credits Adam Smith for the labor theory of value (though I don't have a source for that on-hand). RJII 02:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

When adding Adam Smith, make sure to note that he influenced Karl Marx as well. Sarge Baldy 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey gang, I've got a brilliant idea. Why doesn't someone make some software to have an open website of interlinked pages where members of the public can come and edit pages so that people places things and ideas can all be interrelated by blue words underlined whih you can click on to find the next place in the chart?????Harrypotter 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Some other comments: Ayn Rand is a capitalist, and Rand, Rothbard, Molinari, and Nock have been described as individualists. MrVoluntarist 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. - FrancisTyers 02:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard is a US libertarian, not an anarchist. Gustave de Molinari is a "laissez-faire liberal", not an anarchist. Albert Jay Nock is a US libertarian, not an anarchist altough he did describe himself as a "philosophical anarchist" so I guess he can stay. // Liftarn

Go away, Liftarn. We've been through that already. And learn the definition of anarchism, will you? Francis, by your definition isn't Henry George a capitalist? He's not against profit at all. George (like many geoists today) was a (pro-capitalism) libertarian except on one single issue - land ownership. If you take capitalism to mean private ownership of the means of production and non-opposition to profit, geolibertarians are definitely capitalist. Hogeye 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I "Go away"? There are as many definitions of anarchism as there are anarchists (and then another bunch from non-anarchists). Just to pick some: "Anarchism is "stateless socialism." (Bakunin), "Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." (L. Susan Brown), "Anarchism is a philosophy of freedom. It is a body of revolutionary ideas which reconciles, as no other revolutionary concept does, the necessity for individual freedom woth the demands of society. It is a commune-ist philosophy which starts from the individual and works upwards, instead of starting from the State and working downwards. Social structure in an anarchist society would be carefully and consciusly kept to a minimum and would be strictly functional; where organisation is necessary, it would be maintained, but there would be no organisation for its own sake. This would help to prevent the hardening of organisations into instututions - the hard core of government." (Bill Christopher, Jack Robinson, Philip Sansom and Peter Turner), "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism." (Guerin) "Anarchism as a political philosophy seeks to dissolve all forms of authority and power, and if possible, wishes their complete abolition." (Peter Marshall) "Anarchy, -- the absence of a master, of a sovereign." (Proudhon), ""Anarchims is opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritrocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all it's forms."" (Donald Rooum) "Anarchists are extreme libertarian socialists" (Donald Rooum) So, why don't you learn the definition of anarchism? // Liftarn

Henry George wasn't an anarchist so he hasn't been separated into capitalist/non-capitalist. The chart is supposed to be about Anarchists. Same goes for Marx, etc. - FrancisTyers 17:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I thought that left-right was supposed to roughly correspond to degree of capitalism, and distances roughly correspond to agreement. (And up-down to time.) I guess those don't apply on this chart. Never mind. Hogeye 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's getting to look like an epidemiological map of STD transmission! Seriously, it's looking pretty useless. You'd do better just listing these folks under their schools - you simply have a hard to read list of people. I guess that's what happens when you try to cram data into a chart, rather than using it to illustrate higher order concepts. Hogeye 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very simple to clean this chart up. All you need is to make the arrows have right-angle bends in them, and only vert/horiz lines. Infinity0 ^talk 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It could do with some cleanup yeah :) Anyone want to do the honours? - FrancisTyers 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone, with more graphical self-confidence than I possess, put David Friedman's name beneath that of Rothbard? Rothbard is dead, and did his best work in the 1970s. Friedman is very much with us, and the latest important representative of the anarcho-cap line of thought. --Christofurio 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would if I could. I downloaded "Inkscape" but haven't been able to figure out how to use it. RJII 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes as well. When using the straight line tool, right click to drop the line. Otherwise it'll make you do a curve. Then you can right click on the line, hit Fill and Stroke -> Stroke Line, and use the Start and End markers to add the arrows in. Sarge Baldy 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm going to give up though. The program is way too technical for me. I think I'm going to try something with Paint (if I can even figure that out). RJII 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So we've got George Orwell and Karl Marx the anarchists then :) - FrancisTyers 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That change really didn't make any sense. Pretending all anarchists are strictly individualists or collectivists really doesn't work, as much as you might like simplifyings things down to those terms. It does look a lot cleaner than the last version though. Sarge Baldy 05:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I like how the Infoshop anarchist FAQ categorizes anarchism: "The main differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists." [10] I like the terminology "social" anarchism ...that avoids the disputes over the term "collectivist anarchism." By the way, Tolstoy wasn't an individualist. RJII 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think to be more NPOV, there should be "Anti-Communist" differention underneath --that would include both the labor-value individualists and the capitalist individualists. Then you could put the communists in a shaded box. RJII 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Noam?

Whatever Noam Chomsky might call himself, and despite how much the authors of this article might admire his writings, he's way to into various forms of Communism to be an anarchist. He certainly hasn't added much to the movement. I think he should go. --71.141.136.236 08:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

He is definitely a member of the libertarian left. He is anti-statist and supports the idea of business and public affairs being owned and controlled by the workforce. He believes that democracy is something you do everyday, not something that you do in a booth. That's direct democracy and direct action. So you've got somebody that is against concentration of capital and state power. You've got an anarchist. He just happens to be a realistic one instead of a utopian idealist with no hope of accomplishing something in the real world. Besides you've got it backwards. He doesn't toute himself as an anarchist because he's not very fond of labels, he gets called one because it's what he is. CJames745 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it all depends on which day of the week you catch the slippery Gnome. Sometimes he's an apologist for the Ottoman Empire86.139.209.16 14:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is probably the best known living author who has defended anarchism on print and talk on several occasions. His inclusion in any wikipedia article on anarchism is certainly more justified than that of a majority of authors we've been talking about. I mean, I love Tolstoi and believe he has to stay, but Chomsky is even more of an avowed anarchist – on the libertarian socialist side.

Infoshop FAQ Schools Tree

This link to the Infoshop Anarchist FAQ that RJII gave us has some really interesting stuff. They make their categorization on the same basis RJII and I do - economics. There is one minor difference as RJII points out; they use the word "social" rather than "collectivist" for the top level division. I.e. Social Anarchism vs. Individualist Anarchism. Reading on, one sees why they do this - they want to reserve the word "collectivist" for a lower level. They admit to being biased toward social anarchism, and only give one flavor of individualist anarchism. The only thing I would add to their classification is the geoist and capitalist schools. They have a different take on something we've discussed here - two flavors of mutualism. They see two variations of mutualism - social and individualist. So here's the Infoshop FAQ schools of anarchism tree, with the addition of children for Individualism.

So basically - not only do they not agree with you that capitalism and geoism are two of the 'four basic schools of anarchism', but they don't include them at all.Bengalski 10:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually this tree isn't bad. I don't tend to consider capitalism as having anything to do with anarchism. Afterall when the "father" of anarchism, Proudhon, said "Property is robbery" I think that kinda makes it pretty clear. But it's also worth accepting that there is something that exists today that is called anarcho-capitalism, and it should be noted rather than censored. I just think it's really important to stress that it is outside of anarchist consenses and history and only seems to exist in America. And as long as that is pointed out, I don't see a problem. CJames745 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The main thing I don't like about it though is that it still puts Proudhon way closer to capitalism than he should be as an individualist. It is true that Proudhon believed in a free market. I wouldn't really go so far as to say I don't believe in a free market myself. I just don't believe people should have to pay more for something or workers should have to make less just to fulfill an abstract concept like profit. Let people come to a consenses on their own salaries for god's sake. They are OUR companies. I'm rambling now. Also it needs to be pointed out that anarcho-capitalism's closest ties are to the libertarian party. CJames745 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A free market is one thing and capitalism is another thing. Some people seems to forget that there is a deifference. To be clearer some modern anarchists use "the wages system" instead of "capitalism". // Liftarn

The way the mutualists look at it, a free market is capitalism without profit/usury. Capitalists don't define it that way; to us profit is irrelevant to the definition of capitalism. If you think profit is permissable, you don't make contrived differences like that - freedom of trade is freedom of trade. If you don't profit, then its still capitalism; you're just not very good at it! Hogeye 16:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutualists think what makes profit possible is economic interventionism by the state. Anarcho-capitalists think it would still occur in laissez-faire --especially in investments, where, though the investor is not actually laboring, he's not going to be willing to invest or lend without compensation for the risk of losing the investment. Profit isn't really necessary for capitalism to exist, but it's necessary for economic growth in capitalism, as some profit needs to be reinvested to produce more wealth. RJII 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Mutualism listed under Social? Mutualism is individualist --it required individualization of property so that trade can occur. RJII 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism proper has to do with mutual banks and no usury. If "possession" of the means of production is open to any individual or group, then it is individualist mutualism. If the means of production must be owned by certain blessed collectives, then it is social(ist) mutualism. If you read the Wiki article on mutualism (economic theory), you'll see it doesn't have to be individualist (or even anachist.) Hogeye 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What mutualist says that says that the means of production can't be, or is unethically, individually owned? RJII 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The Infoshop FAQ says, "The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune) instead of being independent co-operatives." But they don't give the name of any mutualist who agrees with this; this may be just the anarcho-commie writers setting up a strawman. So I'm with you - unless there exists a mutualist who agrees with that distinction, I also take it with a large grain of salt. The Infoshop claim, to rephrase, is that social mutualists would restrict the type of corporation that may "possess" mutual banks to territorially-based associations ("communes"), while individualist mutualists would allow any individual or volutary association to "possess" a mutual bank, with location irrelevant. Hogeye 18:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Karl Marx was an individualist after all! "Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations." - FrancisTyers 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Source? Note that that's not true property though --the individual does not have the right to dispose of it as he wishes --he can't sell it. Buying and selling is abolished. The individual doesn't even own himself really, since he's not allowed to sell his labor to others --wages are abolished. RJII 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote :) Of course it seems like the quote is wrong anyway...

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations."

"Der Kommunismus nimmt keinem die Macht, sich gesellschaftliche Produkte anzueignen, er nimmt nur die Macht, sich durch diese Aneignung fremde Arbeit zu unterjochen."

It was, of course from the Communist Manifesto ;) Reading your change you could equally say that an individual doesn't even own himself in anarcho-capitalism either as he has no right to the land he stands on. Perhaps in anarcho-capitalism humans would evolve wings to deal with this dilemma. - FrancisTyers 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In anarcho-capitalism, the individual can indeed own land. One can come to own land by "mixing one's labor" with unowned land ("original appropriation"), or purchasing it from someone that originally appropriated it (or as a gift from someone else). It's true ownership --private property --since one can dispose of it as they wish --keep it or sell it. RJII 16:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What if you're one of the many who has no land? You're out of the game? Sarge Baldy 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you go to someplace where land has not been appropriated yet (or improperly appropriated, as in, by the state), and appropriate it. Or, you can buy some. RJII 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, like Mars or something, but you still have to work out how to get there. Again, I feel wings would be in order! - FrancisTyers 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean ! I'm sure any New York City apartment dweller could go out and find a nice large chunk of land to appropriate! It's not so hard! Sarge Baldy 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How about improperly appropriated by say an absentee landlord? Do you have a right to that land? Or could he just employ people to throw you off? - FrancisTyers 16:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure people get guidebooks so they can keep all the rules straight. Sarge Baldy 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In anarcho-capitalism, you can't come upon land and simply claim it as yours (which is essentially what a state does). You have actually occupy or use the land (or purchase it). Now, if you stop using your land --say you want to take a break from farming for a few years, then you still own the land (since it's been transformed by your labor). Then, yes, you would have the right to throw someone off your land that is using it without your consent (or require payment for use). This differs from mutualism where the land itself is not property, but the crops would be your property. In mutualism, if you don't keep the land in continual use then others should be free to come along and use the land. RJII 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-captalists aren't into the impossible equality of outcome; we like equality of rights and/or equality of process. Since everyone equally had the right (freedom of action) to buy land, this is procedural fairness.

Now, to answer your question: If the landlord rightfully owns the land, then he has a right to evict squatters. But if the landlord doesn't rightfully own the land, go for it! For example, governments do not rightfully own land - they get virtually all their wealth from conquest and plunder. So it is permissable to squat government buildings and government land. But privately owned land is sacrosanct! Hogeye 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. The U.S. Government has massive land holdings. Those are fair game for anyone that want to occupy and use, start a business, or whatever, in anarcho-capitalism. RJII 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. But do you think everyone would have access to them? Not everyone lives in Alaska or wants to live in the Nevada desert. And I guess Anarcho-capitalism isn't exactly a huge fan of environmental preservation, is it? Sarge Baldy 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could make the argument that anarcho-capitalism preserves the environment more than mutualism (or communism). In mutualism, no individual, or group of individuals, could purchase land and leave it unused as a nature sanctuary; anyone is free to come along and cut everything down. There would be nature preserves in anarcho-capitalism. (In fact, there are a lot of private nature preserves in the U.S.). RJII 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

My apologies for trolling. Next time I will try harder to restrain myself, perhaps by repeating the mantra "Wikipedia is not a bulletin board" ten times before a possibly trollish post! :) - FrancisTyers 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think there's quite a difference between trolling and being clearly sarcastic. I think the latter just keeps things lively in here. Sarge Baldy 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

classifications of anarchism

Hopgeye's diagrams classify anarchists by what he believes to be their attitude to property. This is just one way you could go about it. Eg. I was looking at the Enciclopedia_Espasa, the most famous Spanish encyclopedia and supposedly the world's largest printed encyclopedia, and noticed it gives not one but five different classifications of anarchism:

1. by what they think is the 'ley suprema de la conducta humana' (supreme law of human conduct)

-- 'geneticas' -- natural law theories - Bakunin, Kropotkin

-- 'criticas' -- a) idealists Proudhon, Tolstoy; b) 'demonistas' either altruists (Godwin), or egoists (Stirner, Tucker)

2. how they understand the community that will replace the state

-- 'Federalistas' - Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker

-- 'Espontaneistas' - Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoy

3. relation with the law

-- 'anomistas' (who deny law altogether) - Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoy

-- 'nomistas' - Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker

4. conception of property (Hogeye's choice)

-- 'indoministas' (deny property altogether) - Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tolstoy

-- 'doministas' (recognise some form of property) - a) individualistas - Tucker; b) colectivistas - Bakunin; c) comunistas - Kropotkin

5. process for reaching anarchism

-- reformistas - Proudhon, Godwin

-- revolucionari@s - a) pacifists - Tolstoy, Tucker; b) insurrectionists - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Stirner.

So we could have five diagrams splitting them up according to each of these. Or there was Harrypotter's clever idea involving blue underlined links which readers could navigate as they choose, thus allowing not five but millions of ways of relating and categorising thinkers and events.Bengalski 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, how did they organize the encyclopedia article itself? Did they have sections about, e.g. individualist anarchists, anarcho-communists, and collectivist anarchists, etc. Then they used an economic categorization. Just the fact that we use the economic names for these schools should be a clue. Anarcho-syndicalism is the only (non-issue-oriented) school named for a strategy or end-state rather than an economic idea.

Some of their classification is rather odd. E.g. The pacifists are "revolutionary" rather than "reform"??? OTOH 3# view of law is interesting; I've had many a discussion with anarchists who think law/arbitration/enforcement wouldn't exist in a free society. Perhaps I'll start calling these folks "anomistas" instead of "naive utopians." Hogeye 18:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No there are numerous commonly discussed anarchist 'schools' that are not named for economic ideas. Here's just a few which have featured in the article: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, Christian anarchism (you may remember Kropotkin's three 'basic categories' were collectivism, individualism, and christian anarchism), anarcha-feminism, libertarian municipalism, platformism, etc etc bla bla bla ... All at least as or more notable than 'geoism' or ancapism.

That's why I qualified it with "non-issue-oriented". Xtian, primitivism and feminism are all issue-oriented. The others you mention (libertarian municipalism, platformism) are just sub-branches of collectivist anarchism or commie anarchism (depending on whether they want to use money or not.) Hogeye 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you base this on? These are only 'issues' rather than categories because you have decided from the outset to categorise according to economics. But there is no a priori reason why 'proposed property system after abolition of the state' should be the primary categorisation rather than a secondary matter of 'issues'. We could as well start with strategy: reformism, utopian projects, revolutionism, syndicalism, platformism (or other unified organisation theories - which reminds me another thinker we're missing here is Sébastien Faure with his 'synthesism', not to mention other French luminaries like Louise Michel and Elisée Reclus), insurrectionism etc etc ... Then they could later subdivide into eg. individualist vs. christian utopian communities; Stirnerist or communist insurrectionists etc. There have probably been as many 'great debates' within anarchism over strategy as between individualists and collectivists.Bengalski 21:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think there's a very strong economic bias here. Economics is only one "issue" in anarchism, which Hogeye has exaggerated into being the only one. Sarge Baldy 21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, while we're on anarchist schools there really should be something on Francisco Ferrer and anarchist education.Bengalski 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The term [anomism] also apparently exists in English. What really interested me was 'demonism', which apparently includes Godwin (an altruist demonist) as well as Stirner and Tucker. Or maybe I just wrote it down wrong. Bengalski 20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism Schools

File:AnarchismSchools.gif

In case anyone has not read the pertinent section of the Infoshop FAQ, the chart above provides a synopsis. This is not a map of influences; it is a categorization of anarchist schools of thought. This is straight out of the Infoshop FAQ, except for the geoist and capitalist boxes. Here are objections given so far:

1. Anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism. We've beaten this dead horse enough. Go find a dictionary. {Dictionaries aren't political texts --Marinus 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
2. Geoism isn't notable enough. Fuel for the fire: Anti-State.com symposium on Geoism & Market Anarchism
3. There's no such thing as "social" mutualism. This school should be deleted unless someone can find a citation from a mutualist saying that only local communes should own mutual banks. I.e. The InfoshopFAQ claim about mutualism needs to be backed up.

Hogeye 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Stirnerite individualist are left out. I wonder if there is a name for them besides Stirnerites? Maybe nihilist anarchism? RJII 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Proudhon (don't ask me to interpret it): "The theory of mutuality, or mutuum, that is to say exchange in kind, of which the simplest form is the loan for consumption, where the collective body is concerned, is the synthesis of the notions of private property and collective ownership. This synthesis is as old as its constituent parts since it merely means that society is returning, through a maze of inventions and systems, to its primitive practices as a result of a six-thousand-year-long mediation on the fundamental proposition that A=A." (Economic Contradictions, 1846).

I don't think there is a Stirnerite school. "Stirnerite" is an outdated term for "consequentialist," as far as I can see. E.g. "We should note here that Tucker, as a Stirnerite, unfortunately did not believe in "rights" in the conventional natural law sense."[11]

I'm leaning to your position, RJ, that social mutualism (as InfoshopFAQ means it) does not exist. I think what has happened is the social(ist)s want to claim Proudhon as on their side, so have invented a new school and ignored Proudhon's clear support for private "possession." Hogeye 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"While we are considering association, let us note that mutualism intends men to associate only insofar as this is required by the demands of productions, the cheapness of goods, the needs of consumption and the security of the producers themselves, i.e. in those cases where it is not possible for the public to rely on private industry, nor for private industry to accept the responsibility and risks involved in runnin the concerns on their own...There is undoubtedly a case for association in the large scale manufacturing, extractive, metalluirgical and shipping industries. No one now disputes this...It is also evident that a guarantee of proper performance and low prices cannot be given eitehr by companies holding a monopoly or by State-run concernes that operate in the name of the State and for the State. This guarantee can be given only by free members of an association who have obligations both to the public, through the contract of mutuality, and to each other, throught the normal contract of association (Political Capacity, 1865). It certainly doesn't look like he opposes private industry. I'm not clear on what exactly he means by "association." Are you? RJII 20:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"The aim of industrial and agricultural co-operatives, including workers' associations where these can usefully b formed, is not to substitute collectivities for individual enterprise, as was foolishly preached in 1848 [by the Fourierists]." It is to secure for all small and medium-sized industrial entrepreneurs, as well as for small-property owners, the benefit of discoveries, machines, improvements and processes which would otherwise by beyond the reach of modest firms and fortunes." (Theory of Property) RJII 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also there's this: "Mutualism has unlimited individualism as the essential and necessary prior condition of its existence, and coordinates individuals, without any sacrifice of individuality, into one collective whole - by spontaneous confederation, or solidarity." - Clarence Lee Swartz, "What is Mutualism?" (1927). My conclusion: So-called "social mutualism" wherein banks should only be owned by a local "commune" is not a school. People who believe that fall into the "social collectivist" school, i.e. they are social collectivist anarchists who are particularly interested in banking. I'll modify the chart accordingly. Hogeye 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the faq, I don't know why they would claim that Proudon's proposed national bank was "social anarchism" and the mutualist banks proposed by, say, Greene, is individualist. It seems really arbitrary. I guess they're trying to make out Proudhon to be a social anarchist, in order to claim Proudhon to the collectivist tradition. RJII 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is largely a methodological one. Terms like "socialism" have changed their meanings rather drastically since the 1820s and 1830s, and individual anarchists have not used them with the sort of precision that we would like. "Socialism" at one point designated a very broad current, united primarily by conjoined concerns with social problems, social justice and the possibilities of social science. But not everyone who shared those concerns was willing to wear the label, and some were at some times and not at others. William B. Greene talks at one point about socialism as "the only political system which presents no good points." (Equality, 1849) In another essay in the same work, he speaks of mutualism as the sythesis of communism, socialism, and capitalism. And then, in a letter to Orestes Brownson, he says, "my conscience suggested to me, when I was reading your description of socialism as the ne plus ultra of heresy, that I belonged to the most abandoned wing of the socialist faction." [12]Proudhon and Pierre Leroux, who was a major influence on Greene, both change their usage of these terms depending on time and context. In any event, mutualism is a social anarchism, whether or not it is a socialist one, because it is based in a theory of the individual which is inescapably social. Greene borrowed Leroux's formula that "human life is at once subjective and objective," meaning, among other things, that the "holy principle" of individualism couldn't be pursued without some attention to those others "in whom" the individual lives. (The syntax is weird, but captures the sense of the Leroux-Greene mutualism.) Proudhon speaks of synthesizing individual and collective notions. Warren, whose "cooperation without combination" doesn't necessarily have this social character, may not really be a mutualism in the same way as Greene and Proudhon. (I reserve judgment on that for the moment.)

Kevin Carson, the authors of the Anarchist FAQ, and I (Shawn P. Wilbur) were all researching the history of mutualism concurrently and cooperatively as the FAQ sections were written. The claims about individualists such as Tucker considering themselves "socialists" are well documented, both in the FAQ and various places by Kevin Carson. The Preface to Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy includes reference to the historical account that developed, and to the fact that "some self-described individualist anarchists still embrace the socialist aspect of Tucker's thought." [13]The "neither-fish-nor-fowl" character of mutualism, from the perspectives of those who don't find individualism vs. collectivism to be something of a false problem, has, of course, been the subject of commentary within mutualist circles. [14][15]Libertatia 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia> "In any event, mutualism is a social anarchism, whether or not it is a socialist one, because it is based in a theory of the individual which is inescapably social."

Thanks for giving us your insight, Libertatia. I can't agree with your classification of mutualism as social instead of individual, though. First, your reason "because it is based in a theory of the individual which is inescapably social" doesn't seem to fly. Mutualists allow individual possession of produced goods, and possession by informal self-selected groups; the social(ist) anarchists don't want to allow this. They want communal ownership - the whole "community" possessing it.

The Infoshop FAQ says, "In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and have a more individualistic vision of the good society." Specifically regarding mutual banks, InfoshopFAQ says, "The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune) instead of being independent co-operatives." But none of us here could find a single citation of a mutualist saying he opposed independent cooperatives. Our conclusion is: the claim that mutualist anarchists are "social" is bogus. They are individualist.

As for the word "socialism," you are quite right that its meaning has changed over time. Originally it meant simply someone who considered sociology to be prescriptive, i.e. anyone who thought social theory could improve mankind. That's pretty vague - even anarcho-capitalists are socialists by this definition. Later, in Benjamin Tucker's time, socialism meant against usary, i.e. against income not accrued from one's own labor. That is also a totally outdated meaning. Nowadays socialism means favoring collective ownership in the means of production. Usary isn't a part of the modern definition. Thus, by the modern definition, mutualists are not socialist. That's what confuses a lot of people - Tucker and Greene and those guys call themselves "socialists" when they are definitely not (by the modern definition.)

I intend to check out your blog. I've seen Kevin's, and it is quite interesting. Pardon me, but I must say that Kevin's mutualist blog seems to me to be closet anarcho-capitalist. He seems to agree with all anarcho-capitalist principles, yet put on a rather superficial facade of anti-capitalism. E.g. He'll give a pro-capitalist quote, call it "vulgar capitalism," and then proceed to agree with the quote in all significant ways (while writing in anti-capitalist jargon.) I find it rather mysterious. I'm a hard-core anarcho-capitalist and find myself agreeing with Kevin in everything except his bizarre interpretation of what the target "vulgar" quotes say. Since he seems to be a wonderful promoter of anarcho-capitalism (even if he's "tricking" people into it by feigning anti-capitalism) I've been reluctant to critique his columns. - Hogeye

Hogeye, a couple of further thoughts. I absolutely don't claim that mutualism is "social instead of individual." I claim that, for mutualists, this absolute distinction has generally been considered a false problem. I made an explicit distinction between "social" and "socialist," because it's really impossible to make sense of what folks like Proudhon and Greene believed if you insist on lumping the two together. I don't disagree with your argument about who is or is not "socialist" by the definition your provide, but 1) as a number of mutualists have noted, that definition isn't accepted by everyone, just as the common definition of "anarchy" with chaos and disorder is rejected by a significant minority; and 2) definitions, particularly presentist ones, serve in this case to obscure the organizational connections of the mutualists with the broad socialist movement. Greene, like a number of other contemporary mutualists, was a member of the First International. Greene and Tucker found common cause with communists, drew inspiration from the revolutions of 1848, were sympathetic to the Commune (if not to all of its actions), etc. In these terms, they definitely were "socialists" by the standards of their time. To obscure that fact is to falsify the history a bit. The key issue is that the mutualists remained mutualists, neither simply individualist nor social in their approach to anarchism, whatever other connections they made or labels they assumed.

As for the issue of "a theory of the individual which is inescapably social," it seems like a bit of a no-brainer that the "mutual" in "mutualism" indicates something of the sort. I think the evidence that Greene and Proudhon considered a strict opposition between individualism and collectivism a false problem is pretty clear. I posted some quotes to the Talk:Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon page about his dialectical method and the "third form of society," and talked above about his definition of mutualism as a synthesis of "property and communism." Greene is equally clear in the second part of Equality(1849) that he is synthesizing, or harmonizing, capitalism, socialism and communism in his "mutualism." This stuff "flies" because it's right there, in the original texts of mutualism, and continues to be present in at least some current mutualist writing. We shouldn't let Swartz' What Is Mutualism? loom too large in our picture. It comes from one of the real low ebbs of mutualism, and there are lots of indications that the Mutualist Associates actually rejected or ignore a good deal of "classical mutualism." The current trend, at least among the mutualists I know, seems to be towards reincorporating some of what was lost during the years where mutualism was largely reduced to agitation for the mutual bank. James J. Martin has been the filter for many folks getting introduced to mutualism in the last 50 years, and we know that he wasn't particularly interested in its banking and currency ideas. He was even less interested in its social psychology and such.

The Anarchist FAQ is not a production of Infoshop, and it would be a shame to attribute the particular attitudes of the Infoshop crowd to its authors, who have taken the questions of mutualist and individualist anarchism very seriously. I agree that the FAQ is incorrect in the statement about mutual banks, but disagree about the nature and importance of the error. The FAQ toes the same line about anarchisms being either individualist or social, and, while it makes for simpler categorizing, that simply doesn't reflect the sort of system Proudhon lays out—and that seems borne out by the fact that Proudhon is the source for both supposed forms of mutualism. To follow the model of the FAQ, but to choose the other side of a false dichotomy, isn't an advance. Libertatia 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would change the question at the top of the chart to say "Private ownership?" instead, because even individualist allow for collective ownership if anyone wants it, but in communism private property is abolished. Communist anarchism is more negative --it's AGAINST private property, AGAINST trade, AGAINST money, AGAINST markets, whereas individualist anarchism is positive, in that it's FOR private property --they don't rally against collective property. See what I'm saying? RJII 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC) It's looking good, by the way. I like this chart. And, it's even got a venerated leftist anarchist FAQ to back up the division. RJII 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. All it needs now is to use a dotted line to show anarcho-capitalism is widely disupted, and to remove the geoanarchists who don't actually exist. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fully supportive of the geoanarchism either. I need more indications that it's notable. I always understood the single-taxers were minarchists. Geoanarchism may be really new --i'm not sure. RJII 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so new, if you consider Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov to be anarchist rather than minarchist. But I'm not that adamant about geoanarchism. I agree that there are not that many self-described adherents of geoanarchism. There are two reasons to keep it:

1. Completeness - The other notable property systems are recognized and "intersected" with anarchism. There's something logically unaesthetic about leaving a gap.
2. Influence on other anarchist schools. Even if not notable in itself, the ideas of geoism permeate the environmental movement and green anarchist thought. E.g. Bookchin's municipalism is basically a knock-off of geoism. So I think geoanarchism is notable indirectly due to its (admittedly unacknowledged) influence on eco-anarchism.

Hogeye 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I see your point, but it is a permutation of ancap. Within the label "anarcho-communist" you have a vast array of permutations - the more rural types of Kropotkin, the urban-centered ones of Goldman, the different sizes of communes, etc. The socialist schools take up these permuatutions within them, the capitalist ones can as well. --Marinus 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, geoanarchism is a permutation of ancap in the same sense that communist anarchism is a permutation of collectivist anarchism. In the former, one has commonly owned land and the other doesn't. In the latter, one uses money and the other doesn't. Aren't both of these rather significant economic distinctions? Hogeye 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1. That's a bit much. --Marinus 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch about Bookchin, but: He wants municipal (common local) ownership of land and natural resources. That's straight geoism. Bookchin would (presumably) use the proceeds to provide community/municipal services. That's one form of geoism (the other being a citizen's dividend.) OTOH Bookchin doesn't write anything about ground rent that I've read; he's mainly concerned with local control for environmental reasons. But there's definitely some George in there. And isn't "bio-regionalism" an anarcho-green buzzword? Does that not mean communally owned watersheds? Hogeye 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. This is the same terminology issue we've seen before in the Property Systems chart in the IA article. There I did prefer formulating in terms of private ownership, but some socialist type kept on changing it to the collective ownership formulation.

The problem, as usual, is with terminology. As soon as we change to "Private property?", someone will quote Proudhon that the mutualists are against private property, that they want "possession", not property. While you and I see "possession" as one type of property (e.g. allodial, freehold, possession...), anarcho-socialists define property as (what we would call) neo-Lockean property. Put another way, we see "possession" as a type of private property, with neo-Lockean another type of private property. They reject this terminology, which makes it very hard to communicate. If we try to speak in their lingo, we lack a word for "property" in our sense. Can anyone think of an alternative term for the relationships of people pertaining to goods and their use that socialists may not object to? Hogeye 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Individualized ownership?" RJII 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good. Some may claim "ownership" implies private property. Maybe a tweak: "Individual ownership/possession?"

Hogeye 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the distinction between the two is clear and important, since therein lies capitalism - if I possess some means of production (like working a piece of land) then its produce is mine, but if it is my property (like owning a factory) then its produce belongs to me no matter who works it. The first is socialist, the second capitalist. For terminology, I think we must turn to Proudhon where this question and its answer is at its clearest (in a major theorist) - he called the former 'possession' and the latter 'property'. An insistence on the abolition of 'property' in favour of 'possession' (as in Proudhon) is a socialist stance - contemporary to Proudhon it was the socialist stance. Collectivisation is not communal property - that is overcoding a socialist position with capitalist values - it is communal possession.

In short, the first question should be "Is it socialist?" and further ones determine the degree of socialisation (least in mutualism, most in anarcho-communism). And anarcho-capitalism and its various strains (geo-anarchism et al) shown in its fundamental split from the anarchist tradition, one that we can all agree on. --Marinus 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism is not a "split" from the anarchist tradition. It is the original anarchism --communist anarchism came later. RJII 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about IA, I'm talking about ancap. The earliest IAs were socialists (like Proudhon - yes, he was, it does anarchism of any form no good to follow Marxist classifications, which were partially made to kick anarchists - and other non-Marxists - out of the movement). And that's nonsense anyway --Marinus 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But, Benjamin Tucker called himself a socialist as well. They are not socialists in the sense of abolition of private ownership of the means of production, as it is defined today. They support private ownership of the means of production, as long as it is man made (the product of labor). Of course, land itself is not man made. So, to call them socialists is to use an anachronistic meaning of the term. RJII 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"They are not socialists in the sense of abolition of private ownership of the means of production" - Yes, they are. The distinction between possession and ownership is a real and important one - Tucker made it as well, where he defined rightful property as "occupancy and use". As long as you work your own forge even Kropotkin and Malatesta will support your "property". The (significant) definition of capitalist is that one owns the means to production despite who works on it. Show me where Tucker supported such an economy and only then will I call him a capitalist. This discussion (as to what is and isn't socialism) has a lot of muddy water thrown up by Marx, who wanted to marginalise any non-Marxist socialism. There are older and more significant definitions of socialism than complete collectivisation, and such a collectivisation is not by necessity socialist (see all the booha about "state capitalism" in analyses of the USSR). --Marinus 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker did NOT "define rightful property as "occupancy and use"." For individualists, NO ONE owns land, including the person occupying and using it --it is not property, period. For Tucker, rightful property is the product of labor. THAT is property -an individual has rightful absolute dominion over the product of his labor. Since land itself is not the product of labor, it remains unowned. Individualists anarchists SUPPORT private ownership of the means of production, AS LONG AS, it is the product of labor --that means machines, factories, etc. (also they support private ownership of capital in the form of money) RJII 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Marinus> "Well, the distinction between the two is clear and important..."

That's a good concise explanation of possession vs. property, Marinus. You can see the terminology problem I mentioned earlier. I'm aware of the distinction - see this table.

The other important distinction is between possession and collective jurisdiction over goods. The social anarchists want to have collective (communal) jurisdiction over the means of production. The mutualists allow individual jurisdiction over means of production (i.e. possession). That is what makes mutualists individualist rather than social(ist).

But it's not just "possession" for MAN-MADE means of production (machines, etc.) --it's actual property. RJII 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Marinus> "In short, the first question should be "Is it socialist?"

LOL! No, in defining anarchism, the first (and only) question is "Do you believe the State is an unnecessary evil that should be abolished?" Please, no more of this, A dildo is defined as what has traditionally been considered a dildo.

Hogeye 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only question. Or do you always only read half of your beloved dictionary entries? Did you go to college, or did you just read Webster's? --AaronS 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I just noticed an ambiguity. You were talking about the goods produced, and RC and I were talking about the means of production. Hogeye 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutalism shuold have social and individual arrows pointing to it. Infinity0 ^talk 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism is an individualist economic system; it's not the system of "social anarchists." RJII 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a social anarchist, and I dispute the chart. And "social anarchism" sounds like a neologism, anyway. --AaronS 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, all these attempts to impose our own ideas of what Anarchism is/isn't onto those with a different view strikes me as distinctly anti-anarchic. Why not just let those who adhere to one form or another of anarchism describe what that form is, without interference from others who adhere to a different form? Why quibble over terminology, as long as the meanings of the terms for a given context are being described? Words mean different things in different contexts, we aren't going to get anywhere trying to insist that every time a word is used it means the same thing. Nobody's going to *make* anyone else bend (I hope!), but if enough of us bend of our own volition, just a little, we can make this open community work despite its differences. Please? TTK 02:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't so much about the POVs of the editors. It's one thing to reach a position that everyone can accept personally, but the point is to represent anarchism fairly. We're trying to compromise as representatives, and it makes the subject more touchy. Personally I would be hesitant to accept an addition to the page I considered a breach of NPOV, even if I were convinced to accept it myself. I'm sure RJII feels the same way, but there's a disagreement as to just what is fair. It's a waste of time to try to bend editor's opinions, because we're not here as anarchists, but as representatives to anarchism. Sarge Baldy 06:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

dildos

A dildo is defined as what has traditionally been considered a dildo.

Actually, that's almost right. Or at least, almost the way contemporary philosophy of language might see things: our understanding of meaning and definition have in fact moved on from Plato and Aristotle. I think if anything fits Wittgenstein's theory that meaning comes from use (in 'language games'), and that bearers of a name may share family resemblance rather than be susceptible to an axiomatic definition, then a term like 'anarchism' is it.

Philosophical Investigations 43: For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language. And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer.

PI 67. And for instance the kinds of number form a family in the same way. Why do we call something a "number"? Well, perhaps because it has a-direct-relationship with several things that have hitherto been called number; and this can be said to give it an indirect relationship to other things we call the same name. And we extend our concept of number as in spinning a thread we twist fibre on fibre. And the strength of the thread does not reside in the fact that some one fibre runs through its whole length, but in the overlapping of many fibres.Bengalski 10:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And in PI 69 (with one slight amendment) he even suggests how we could write the encyclopedia article: How should we explain to someone what anarchism is? I imagine that we should describe anarchists to him, and we might add: "This and similar things are called 'anarchists'".Bengalski 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing where meaning comes from and what is a good definition. Circular self-referential statements are, of course, unsatisfactory definitions. Hogeye 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - to define something is just to explain its meaning. See the last passage cited above. You really could do with moving on from Aristotle - though I think you would have felt very much at home as a scholastic, adding geoism because it aesthetically completes your categorical schema is just the kind of thing those monks were into. Wittgenstein´s point was that your method just doesn´t work except in very limited cases - this isn´t one of them. However it may sometimes serve us to introduce a restricted definition in order to serve a ´special purpose´ - (though I would think that this in fact generally changes meaning). Let´s continue that last quote from Wittgenstein: ´´...we can draw a boundary - for a special purpose. Does it take that to make the concept usable? Not at all! (Except for that special purpose.)´´ Unfortunately your special purpose in defining anarchism in the way you like is not to help explain what anarchism means, but to push a POV.Bengalski 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can do that much harm to have a chart. Anarchism is confusing and it helps to relate the various sections in some way. Currently the chart puts a dotted line connecting ancap to individualist anarchism, which I am fond of. I think another way of solving this dispute would be to replace the dotted line with a solid one, and also adding American Libertarian Party, or some other non-libertarian socialist organization, at the top as a secondary influence on ancap. I would then define mutualism as "Socialist Market" "Rather than "Market Distribution" and add the question "Profit?" as a question separating mutalism and ancap. Geoism would be best included as a subcategory of ancap just as communist is a subcategory of social. It may also help to draw a line from social to mutualist, although only if sources are found indicating a connection between worker associations and collective ownership. CJames745 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The dotted line does make the chart much more reasonable to me. In fact, I'd probably be willing to include this chart in its current arrangement. Just as long as the chart makes clear that it's referring to economic systems as they're used in anarchism. I don't want it to imply a reduction of anarchism to economic positions. Perhaps it would be better placed in anarchist economics. Also I'm not exactly sure I like the wording "Collective ownership of the means of production", possibly because "means of production" hits me as "factory" and I would think it more reasonable to backtrack to a pre-industrial stage. But on the whole I'd put my support behind this chart in its present state. The theorist "tree" (below) is out of the question, though. Sarge Baldy 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism should have links to both social and individual. - FrancisTyers 13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

eco-anarchism: Murray Bookchin

of course there should be a paragraph or two about Murray Bookchin in the section on ecological anarchism --Vindheim 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

People and zines

File:AnarchismTree07.gif

People:
Noam Chomsky Murray Bookchin Howard Zinn	Kevin Carson Joe Peacott Larry Gambone	Fred Foldvary Harold Kyriazi Debbie Clark	David Friedman Wendy McElroy Hans-Hermann Hoppe Jeremy Sapienza Anthony de Jasay
Info:
An Anarchist FAQ Anarcho-syndicalism 101	Individualist Anarchism What is Mutualism?	What Is Geolibertarianism?	Anarchist Theory FAQ
Zines:
indymedia.org Infoshop.org & Forum	Mutualist Blog	Thomas Paine Network	LewRockwell.com Strike the Root Anti-War.com
Misc:
Anarchy Archives Spunk Library Anarchism Web Site	The Memory Hole Mutualist.org Individualist Anarchist]	Geonomy Society School of Living HenryGeorge.org	Anti-State.com & Forum Against Politics Molinari Institute

Back to this trash, eh? Sarge Baldy 08:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any more notable anarcho-socialist people I should add? I was hoping someone would suggest additional people and links to include. Is that closet statist Chomsky the best you've got? Hogeye 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Post-left anarchists & primitivists

Out of curiosity, where exactly would you suggest that post-left anarchists and green anarchists/primitivists belong? For example, John Zerzan, Peter Lamborn Wilson, Bob Black and publications like Green Anarchy and Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed? They are anti-capitalist yet individualistic in nature and hostile towards left-anarchism; however, none of them identify as mutualists. IMO, the chart above seems ill equipped to deal with many contemporary anarchist thinkers of this nature. - N1h1l 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, post-lefties are generally socialist, so they belong in that category. The socialist greenies should go under socialism; the mutualist greenies under mutualism, and the geoist and capitalist free-market environmentalism greenies under capitalism. All we need to know is their de-facto economic position; we don't care if they're so confused/anti-intellectual that they themselves can't say where they stand. Hogeye 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And in the case of primitivists, where there is no articulated "economic system", then what? If they desire an end to industrial production, I assume they intend to have no formalized economy. - N1h1l 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I think it is a pretty major flaw in the chart. Some anarcho-primitivists might believe in a subsistence economy, but I think most believe in nomadic hunting and gathering rather than a more complex agricultural-based system. You might even say they believe in a pre-economic social organization. And judging from Hogeye's comments, he has no idea what he's talking about. Sarge Baldy 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they generally intend primitive tribal communalism - that would be socialist. 70.178.103.141 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was similiar to Sarge Baldy's - hunter/gather societies would not seem to have any formalized economy at all (perhaps only informal trade and barter networks?); thus it would be rather odd to categorize primitivists on the basis of economic theory as the chart above attempts. - N1h1l 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us move on

I am getting very fed up with the current situation whereby we have various people using this page as a chatroom while the anarchism page is frozen. An number of people have offered reasons why they do not think any chart is acceptable, questions which have basically been ignored by those who seem to insist on going through 101 permutations of their ideas, each as unacceptable as the next.

I agree with the remark that if we want to have anarchist schools then we should concentrate on Francis Ferrer, Summerhill and the International Modern School. The remarks about Ludwig Wittgenstein are very appropriate and I would throw Bakhtin into the discussion as well. The problem is that the whole approach of producing hierachical charts merely produces an aristotelian POV.

In consequence, I repeat the suggestion made sometime ago that those who want to make a wonderful chart do so on another site and provide a link to it. Meanwhile let's unprotect the page. Harrypotter 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll on the chart is pro: 5; against 5; don't know 3. So lets unprotect and continue the edit war! I like the chart above in "People and Zines," but I'd settle for the "Anarchism schools". By alternating I can do 6 pseudo-reverts instead of 3! Don't worry, Harry, I do use some of these things on my own pages. They won't go to waste. Hogeye 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I´m fed up with this too. I am not happy with going back to edit warring. If this page gets opened up again with these bloody trees in it the only thing I can think to do is to see if arbitration can help us where mediation failed.Bengalski 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration so we can continue arguing in front of an arbitrator? What's the point. This page is destined for eternal edit warring. There's nothing to can prevent it. Without meaning offense to you, I question the sanity of people who expect to have a stable article. This is Wikipedia. It's meant to be unstable. The more controversial the subject, the more unstable the article. There is no material that you, I, or anyone else that can write in the article that won't be gone in a short time. Look at this for what it is ..a mere exercise. Either enjoy the the Sysphian process knowing that whatever you produce will be destroyed, or find something better to do. RJII 20:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I think that topics this controversial and subjective will never reach a finished state, and protecting it is pointless. Just as long as we keep a POV tag to show there is no consensus, I don't mind so much. Even if the article never comes near stabilization, it will probably still improve in some respects. Sarge Baldy 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much about achieving a finished state - I agree that is impossible, and indeed undesirable. I tend to think though that instability would stay within reasonable bounds if editors acted in good faith and according to the basic principles we agree to when we collaborate as members of what is grandiosely called the 'wikipedia community'. One of these is not to use wikipedia as our personal webpage or publishing medium. I have my own research, writing, and indeed practical politics independently of wikipedia, as do other people, but I keep these quite separate. I think Hogeye is crossing a line when he tries to import his original research from his own website to this collaborative space, and I would have no problem arguing this in wikicourt. (I'm not a wiki 'anomista'.) On the other hand if everyone else is happy to go on edit warring over trees as before then, as RJ says, I've got plenty of better things to do.Bengalski 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is. I could do my own research regarding anarchism, but I'm not so blatantly in disregard of Wikipedia policy to shove my thoughts on everyone else. I agree though, we are just wasting time. I say Hogeye can include his tree when, or if, both sides can come to a general agreement with it. Which is to say, probably never. Sarge Baldy 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clearly if consensus emerges over a tree it'll go in. But until then what do we do? As Hogeye has said, it'll just be an edit war with him reverting between versions of his trees.Bengalski 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists of any kind shouldn't be calling for arbitration IMO. You either come to a consesus or you don't. I think that the tree is getting much more reasonable though. There is no mistaking that anarchism is divided into individual and social, that syndicalist, communist, and collectivist are social, and that mutualism has its origins in the individualist branch. I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I think most anarcho-capitalists would agree with me, a libertarian socialist, that they have influences from outside the anarchist tradition. I think that this tree would be reasonably close to consensus by adding another box up top called lasseiz fair (sp?) capitalism and drawing an arrow from that to ancap, while still preserving the line from individualist to ancap.CJames745 06:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And what do you do with individuals who have no desire, and make no effort, to achieve consensus? Voluntary associations have to have the right to sanction, which ultimately means kick out, individuals who are constantly disruptive.Bengalski 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Disruptive" as in saying something you don't like? As in a democracy which jails individuals if what they say violates community standards? Maybe with collectivist anarchists, but not individualist anarchists. Individualists don't believe in the "social contract" which subordinates the individual to the "general will." RJII 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought by any understanding of a 'voluntary association', for individualists or otherwise, the voluntary nature of the arrangement goes both ways. That is - you can choose to join or leave a labour-note exchange or say a PDA, but the other members of the time bank or PDA can also decide they don't want to have you. A genuine voluntary contract which you sign up to in full consciousness of the terms is quite different from the fictitious 'social contract' used to justify the state, which not one of us ever agreed to.Bengalski 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You would have the right to free speech and no one can ethically kick you out of the community for saying something the others don't like --contract or not, if you're a natural law individualist. The community doesn't own the land --the individual has exclusive right to use and occupy it regardless of what the community says; they can't kick him out of the community unless he initiates physical force or fraud against others in the community. In Josiah Warren's anarchist communities, if there was someone they'd rather not have around, people would boycott him --stop doing business with him and hope that he would leave the colony. But they couldn't force him out. RJII 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said anything against free speech. What you're talking about here is a geographical community which has rules against the use of force or fraud, and will apply sanctions - ultimately expulsion - to people who break these. What I've been talking about is a virtual membership club or association (with no land) which has rules against vandalism, original research etc. Actually I agree land might introduce other issues (though probably not for the same reasons as you). But what about individualist anarchist institutions like PDAs or timebanks etc. that are supposed to involve no land - eg. might Warren and the rest have stopped trading labour notes with someone who broke the rules of the labur note scheme?Bengalski 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure they would. But, you would be wrong to think that in an individualist anarchist society "voluntary associations have to have the right to sanction, which ultimately means kick out, individuals who are constantly disruptive" if the disruption doesn't involved initiating physical force and fraud on others, UNLESS the individual has contracted with everyone else otherwise to sacrifice some of his natural liberties. But, again this contract has to be real --not the implicit "social contract" that can say anything that people want to assume it to say. RJII 16:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just to let my opinion be known. I don't think that the tree should be included unless there is consensus among editors to do so. Its obviously a contentious issue and so, whilst not being entirely against a tree in principle, I will in practice remove it from the article until consensus is reached. - FrancisTyers 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a suggestion. Hogeye will you agree not to insert any tree until/unless a consensus is reached? I'm against any tree at all, but other people seem to be coming round. We could set up a sub-page of this talk page just for people who to tinker with trees; if they can reach a consensus tree there we can have another poll here and see if there is a general consensus to include it; meanwhile we can get on with editing the article.Bengalski 14:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! No. Will you agree not to delete the tree unless consensus is reached? Why do you sectarians believe that the default is getting your way? Duh. Hogeye 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the burden of proof is on you.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

- FrancisTyers 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not presenting a new theory; we are both stating a claim. I claim the tree should be included in the article; you claim it shouldn't. I don't see that either side has a burden of proof. As I recall from Wiki policy, protection of a certain version is not an endorsement of that version. As I see it, we're split 5-5 (last I looked). Why does one five have a burden of proof and not the other? Hogeye 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is deliberate but I feel Hogeye is insulting our intelligence. The tree is his theory which he is arguing for insertion. Sarge Baldy has resolved the tree issue in a nutshell. I am starting to think that it may be necessary to go for arbitration. RJII has indicated that he regards thie as "..a mere exercise", which leads me to question their good faith. (Check User talk:RJII for other disputes this user is involved in.) CJames745 thinks that only anarchists should edit the page, hardly an open and fairminded attitude, but I suppose they are new to wikipedia . . . . unless they are a dreaded sockpuppet. Myself and others have argued against any tree as we feel it simplifies complex relationships, and all the attempts to produce "something" meaningful have , I feel served to prove this point. (I was updating the Theodor Reuss page with some information from The Slow Burning Fuse where I read an extract from David Nicholl where as a communist he spoke of free cooperative associations of workingmen owning capital . . .) As for issue of free speech, this is a red herring. In no way is anyone suggesting that - for excamople Hogeye's website should be shut down, indeed people have argued that a link to whatever try Hogeye comes up with could be linked to as a POV source. The issue is that a certain political current has been trying to make this wikipedia page a mouthpiece for the ideology and imagine that everyone else is so liberal that they will put up with this offensive behaviour. I do not think we should. I think these business has gone on far too long already.Harrypotter 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, where on earth did I say that only anarchists should edit this page? I suppose you may be talking about the part where I said "I don't think anarchists of any kind should be arguing for arbitration." I didn't intend that to mean that only anarchists should edit the page. It was merely my impression that the person I was referring to was an anarchist. Sorry about the confusion. CJames745 21:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism Schools tree - finalists

Per CJames' suggestion, I've added a Laissez Faire box and arrow. There are two versions, the only difference is whether the sectarian disputes are noted. In the second, the IndA objection to antipropertarian types being considered anarchists, plus the anti-propertarian objection to capitalists being considered anarchists. To maintain neutrality, we need to note both disputes of course - both being well-documented.

Version 1 (w/o disputes)

File:AnarchismSchools.gif

Version 2 (with disputes)

File:AnarchismSchools-d.gif

Hogeye 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Laissez-faire only points to capitalists. Mutualists are laissez-faire as well. They come from the same classical liberal origins. "The Manchester men were accused of being inconsistent. The believed in liberty to compete with the laborer in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury. Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital." -Tucker "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism..." -Tucker RJII 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Do you think the Laissez-faire arrow should go to the Individualist box? The laissez-faire economists did influence many/most IndAs, Proudhon being a notable exception.

Then again, this is a concept tree, not an influence tree. There's something to be said for keeping it simple. We don't want to be adding, e.g. early socialism influencing social(ist) anarchism, Marx influencing commie anarchism, etc. If we're going to start noting influences, we should go back to the Anarchism Tree chart with persons rather than schools, i.e. the one above where I'm asking people to add links. Hogeye 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right ..if this is a concept tree rather than an influence tree, then there's really no limit to concepts you can attach to them. Maybe the tree should just stick to pointing out the kinds of anarchism. RJII 17:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right; the cleanest would be one of the finalists with the laissez-faire box (and arrow) deleted. I was just trying to accomodate CJames. But then I realized that his approach seems to endorse taking Molinari to be an anarchist, so I thought, "Why not?"

Version 3

File:AnarchismSchools-p.gif

Sorry to nitpick again, but mutualists are propertarian too, aren't they? Is there an official definition of propertarian where it only applies to land? Property is that which someone has absolute dominion over --meaning they can keep it to themselves or sell it. Mutualists are definitely propetarians when it comes to the product of labor. RJII 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. No need to apologise; to paraphrase Mr. Natural, "Keep on pickin'!" So, we can either try to think of a better word, or be satisfied with an approximate but technically inaccurate term (laissez-faire or propertarian). In defense of "propertarian": both Ursula la Guin who coined it (in the "duel" to Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," a book named "The Dispossessed") and L. Neil Smith who adopted it used it to mean full-fledged for-profit capitalism. But if you can think of a better word, I'm all ears. Hogeye 18:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A better term might by "property in land," but, why single out anarcho-capitalism for additional explanations? You can connect a box for each type of anarchism. RJII 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Since (as you taught me) some mutualists supported private property in land, even that is technically incorrect. The key difference between traditional anarchism and the laissez-faire propertarian economista anti-statist liberal anarchism is support for profit. So maybe the laissez-faire box should read "Pro-profit Anarchism" or even (coining our own word) "Profitarian Anarchism." Hogeye 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true --forgot that some support land titles. Maybe "subjective theory of value"? I don't want to lead the reader to think that mutualists won't allow contracts for profit. Look at Proudhon, even: "I protest than when I criticized property, or more precisely the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to attack the rights of the individual as they were recognized by existing laws, nor to contest the legitimacy of acquired possessions, nor to cause goods to be shared out arbitrarily, nor to prevent property from being freely and regularly acquired through sale and exchange, nor to forbid or supress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all." (Solution of the Social Problem, 1848-49) RJII 18:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutalism needs an arrow from social, even if the arrow is grey. The infoshop FAQ says it, why are you disputing it? Just as a-capitalism's links are disputed, so you dispute mutalism's links with social. Also, if "propertarian" is an extra box, then "anti-exploitative" should be a box on the left side. Infinity0 ^talk 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to realize that "exploitation" is a POV term. It's a ethical judgement on something. Anarcho-capitalists are also opposed to exploitation. Exploitation: 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness> 2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>" -Merriam-Webster Dictioanary RJII 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, you need to realise that "laissez faire" and "propertarian" are also POV terms. "laissez faire" is non-interference, which is disputed; and "property" is also disputed. Infinity0 ^talk 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Who disputes that anarcho-capitalism is laissez-faire? And who disputes that anarcho-capitalists support property? These are not ethical descriptions but factual ones. To say that anarcho-capitalists support exploitation is to make an ethical claim. RJII 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Every anti-capitalist disputes this, since they argue that capitalism is coercive. Anti-capitalists dispute the legitimacy of their property. And adding "exploitation theory" only says that that view influenced the left side of anarchism; just like adding "laissez faire" only says that that view influenced the right side of anarchism. Infinity0 ^talk 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Infinity> "Mutalism needs an arrow from social, even if the arrow is grey. The infoshop FAQ says it, why are you disputing it?"

We dispute it because whoever wrote the Infoshop FAQ was apparently wrong. Let's recap.

• The Infoshop FAQ claims, "The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune) instead of being independent co-operatives."

• RJII asked what mutualist says mutual banks shouldn't be individually owned?"

• No one could cite a single mutualist saying mutual banks should not be run by independent co-operatives.

So we concluded that the InforshopFAQ claim was unsubstantiated and probably bullshit slung for ideological reasons. Everybody wants Pierre.

Mutualism is clearly on the individualist branch. Remember, This is not a map of influences; it is a categorization of anarchist schools of thought. You are welcome to take a shot at finding a citation on the matter. Hogeye 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Who's we? Anarcho-capitalists? You obviously didn't look hard enough. [16] was the first thing I typed into my browse, look at this:

It emphasizes the importance of peaceful activity in building alternative social institutions within the existing society, and strengthening those institutions until they finally replace the existing statist system.

Also, that page doesn't even contain the phrase "indivi*". Instead, it says this:

Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use.

So, they are part social, part individual. There. Infinity0 ^talk 12:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing yet more evidence that Mutualism is individualist, not social. The quotes, "do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself," and, "We believe in private property," pretty much nail it down. Hogeye 17:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV interpretation. The text does not mention "individual"; and it also explicitly says "we favor democratic control when collective action is required". Infinity0 ^talk 19:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep it simple

File:AnarchistEconFlowchart.gif

I have a problem with "Profit okay?" People get the impression that profit is not allowed by individualist anarchists, but it is. "okay" is not clear. Maybe "LTV" with a * and a note what it stands for? That is, if you can't fit the full phrase in. Also, I have a problem with it saying pure laissez-faire under capitalism but not under mutualism. Mutualism is just as laissez-faire. RJII 14:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A simple tree is better. I've constructed a much more minimalist one that is far less POV:

What do people think? Sarge Baldy 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! - FrancisTyers 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Include You've got my vote. - N1h1l 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be a tree, I vote for this one.Bengalski 22:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I don't think "Profit okay" implies anything more than that the IndAs were against it. It says nothing about how they would handle it should it occur. (They would permit the damned vice.) Keep in mind, this is a chart, a distilled summary - all the asterisks and details should be in the text. Regarding IndAs and profit, our own Wiki Individualist anarchism says:

"Proudhon ... advocated an economic system that included private property as possession and exchange market but without profit, which he called mutualism."

"Most of the individualist anarchists in the 19th and 18th centuries adhered to a labor theory of value, and hence, saw profit as subverting natural law."

"However, according to Benjamin Tucker, that profiting by violating the labor theory of value is exploitative "was Proudhon's position before it was Marx's, and Josiah Warren's before it was Proudhon's" (Liberty or Authority)."

"In the area of employment, this would obviate the possibility of an employer profiting from the labor of an employee, which they opposed as being exploitative, since the employee must receive the "full produce" of his labor."

"Profiting from lending money for interest is generally seen as usurious as an income is seen as being derived without labor."

"To the individualists, profit from interest, profit from wages, and rental of land is only made possible by government-backed "monopoly" and "privilege" that restricts competition in the marketplace and concentrates wealth in the hands of a few."

"Is profit from labor, land and loans exploitative? ... Yes; but should not be prohibited." from chart (LrxInd) Hogeye 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to push it. I just know that people get the wrong idea when they hear the mutualists oppose profit. It's really not understood until you know that it's government intervention that they really oppose, believing that that intervention is what makes profit possible --that intervention prevents the operation of the natural law of labor-value. Profit is a side effect of state intervention. (which is why the chart should maybe be even simpler --with no comments) RJII 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

When making a list of anarchist links, I noticed that there was no anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Sure, there's a wonderful Anarchist Theory FAQ by Bryan Caplan, but that's about anarchism in general. So, drawing upon my Wikipedia experience, I created one. Please make comments or suggestions on my Talk page. Behold! I give you ...

The Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

Hogeye 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical political propaganda espousing that its own theory is "freedom" and other theories are wrong. Read like a religious text. Infinity0 ^talk 12:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is partisan, but not nearly so as much as e.g. the Infoshop FAQ. It's nice to be able to use standard jargon rather than, like here on Wiki, cater to the lowest common denominator. Hogeye 17:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By "standard jargon" you mean "ignorance of how words are really used by scholars." It's a fantasy land. --AaronS 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean that on Wiki, you can't use various terms accepted by scholars, such as: "collectivism," "individualism," "socialist anarchist;" nor can you use "socialism" except in the antiquated 19th century sense. (E.g. "Individualist anarchists are generally not socialist," is true, but wouldn't fly here on Wiki.) Hogeye 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Editable Table

Socialism	Anarchism						Capitalism
	Social Anarchism public ownership of means of production				Individual Anarchism private ownership of means of production
Anarcho-communism money not used		Anarcho-syndicalism labour centered	Collective anarchism money used	Mutalist anarchism public institutions, market distribution		Anarcho-capitalism unregulated market, profit allowed
Anti-capitalist Capitalism is coercive/exploitative						Capitalist Capitalism is freedom

Infinity0 ^talk 16:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is there any good reason that socialists use the longwinded "means of production" rather than simply "capital?" Hogeye 17:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because most people think "capital" means money, and the use of "capital" to mean "any resource" is a neologism. Infinity0 ^talk 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought you meant why I was using that phrase. Infinity0 ^talk 19:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey you should try this really good website called wikipedia which has pages which explain what is meant by such terms means of production.Harrypotter 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the best one so far. The anarcho-capitalists may have a problem with calling mutualism anti-capitalist, even though it is anti-property and follows the labor theory of value, there are different definitions of capitalism. Maybe it would be better to label it socialist rather than anti-capitalist, or even more specifically just say labor theory of value/subjective theory of value CJames745 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Socialism	Anarchism						Capitalism
	Social Anarchism public ownership of means of production				Individual Anarchism private ownership of means of production
Anarcho-communism money not used		Anarcho-syndicalism labour centered	Collective anarchism money used	Mutalist anarchism public institutions, market distribution		Anarcho-capitalism unregulated market, profit allowed
Labor Theory of Value Value determined by amount of labor Profit is exploitation						Marginalism Supply and demand determines value Profit is freedom

How about it? CJames745 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to change the background color of cells? I was thinking, to make it more clear, we could color the LTV and its various adherents red, and color anarcho-capitalism and mutualism blue. Or the other way around. Or different colors, depending on whether anybody thinks the colors demonstrate a bias. CJames745 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist communists don't buy into LTV. They reject value entirely in place of a need-based gift economy. Sarge Baldy 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true...

Socialism	Anarchism						Capitalism
	Social Anarchism public ownership of means of production				Individual Anarchism private ownership of means of production
Anarcho-communism money not used		Anarcho-syndicalism labour centered	Collective anarchism money used	Mutalist anarchism public institutions, market distribution		Anarcho-capitalism unregulated market, profit allowed
Gift Economy From each according to their ability, to each according to their need		Labor Theory of Value Value determined by amount of labor Profit is exploitation				Marginalism Supply and demand determines value Profit is freedom

Better? CJames745 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

my attempt (RJII)

Anarchism
Social Anarchism				Individualist Anarchism
Anarcho-communism		Anarcho-syndicalism		Mutualist anarchism		Anarcho-capitalism
No exchange value				Labor theory of value		Subjective theory of value
Profit is exploitative				Profit is exploitative and would not be possible in laissez-faire due to abundance of competition		Profit is not exploitative and would still exist in laissez-faire
Collective possession of the product of labor. No payment for labor. Goods shared according to need.				Individual ownership of the product of labor. Monetary payment for labor. Goods bought and sold.
Collective possession of man-made means of production				Individual ownership of man-made means of production
Collective possession of land				Most say no community nor individual transferable title in land (right to exclusive individual use only). If use is discontinued, it is unethical to defend it against others. (Some grant defendable title to land)		An individual may hold transferable title to land as long as it's been mixed with labor by that individual or a seller. If use is discontinued, it is not unethical to defend it against others.

Unfortunately, the land section is not short and simple. It's complicated, so it can't be explained in a simple phrase. The criteria for anarcho-syndicalism probably needs to be adjusted --I'm not familiar enough with it to be trusted on that. Also, I'm pretty sure the Bukuninist anarchism (Collectivists) entries are right, but it may need to be verified (Bakunin didn't have a very coherent economic philosophy according to some commentators, and I agree). I'm very confident with anarcho-communism, mutualism, and anarcho-capitalism. RJII 07:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the land section is too large and too disputeable. I think that a general statement about property is good enough for the table that land shouldn't be included. Remember, the purpose of a table is simplifying things. As far as I know, collectivists do not believe in individual ownership. They do believe in posession or use right. Syndicalists don't really prefer a gift economy and are more prone to adhere to the labor theory of value, although in reality they are an action oriented group, not a theory driven one. Let me see if I can simplify this...

Socialism	Anarchism						Capitalism
	Social Anarchism public ownership of means of production				Individual Anarchism private ownership of means of production
Anarcho-communism money not used		Anarcho-syndicalism labour centered	Collective anarchism money used	Mutalist anarchism public institutions, market distribution		Anarcho-capitalism unregulated market, profit allowed
Gift Economy From each according to their ability, to each according to their need		Labor Theory of Value Value determined by amount of labor Profit is exploitation				Marginalism Supply and demand determines value Profit is freedom
Collective ownership		Possession Right to use, not own, for oneself			Individual Ownership

Maybe we're getting somewhere. I wasn't entirely sure where to put the line on individual ownership. Mutualists do believe in individual ownership, but only of the products of their own labor. Otherwise they believe in possession, use-right. So I put it down the middle of mutualism. CJames745 08:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it that's still too complicated. Maybe something more like this:

Anarchy Organized by Economic Ideals
Sector:	Anarcho-communism	Collective anarchism	Mutalist anarchism	Anarcho-capitalism
Private Ownership:	No	No	According to Labor	By Supply and Demand
Money:	No	Labor Notes	Labor Notes	Traditional Currency
Profit:	Not Allowed	Not Allowed	Not Endorsed	Endorsed
Classification:	Social	Social	Social/Individual	Individual

CJames745 09:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This one doesn't show the overlaps, though. I like the previous one better, I've moved it to {{Anarchism table}}. It's probably better to discuss related stuff there from now on. Infinity0 ^talk 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That last one by CJames is very good. The others are way to complex - an unsophisicated user looking at them for the first time would have no idea what to make of them. But CJames' is simple and clean. I have a couple of minor changes.

Anarchy Organized by Economic Ideals
Sector:	Anarcho-communism	Collective anarchism	Mutalist anarchism	Anarcho-capitalism
Private Ownership:	No	No	If Labor-based	Yes
Money:	No	Labor Notes	Labor Notes	Free market
Profit:	Not Allowed	Not Allowed	Not Endorsed	Endorsed
Classification:	Social	Social	Social/Individual	Individual

Hogeye 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism should say "if labor based" as well. For anarcho-capitalists and mutualists, labor creates property. RJII 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But for mutalists, property is based on occupancy/use as well as labor. For capitaists, there are no such restrictions; it's just contract. --AaronS 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's what you guys are not getting. Occupance and use doesn't create property either. Occupany and use is just that --occupancy and use. Use of what? Use of that which owned by no one, including the occupant and user. Property can only be created by labor. The mutualists say land can never be property, because it was not created by the labor of man. For anarcho-capitalists land can become property if labor is mixed with it --if it's transformed somehow (as opposed to simply building a fence around land). RJII 22:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Webster's definition of to own: "1 a : to have or hold as property : POSSESS b : to have power over : CONTROL <wanted to own his own life>." The same for to possess: "to take into one's possession b : to enter into and control firmly : DOMINATE <was possessed by demons> c : to bring or cause to fall under the influence, possession , or control of some emotional or intellectual reaction." To dominate: "RULE, CONTROL" etc. etc. --AaronS 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. So one can own either possession property or private property. The mutualist "possession" is a type of ownership system. There are three parts to ownership: how things originally become owned, and what is a legitimate exchange of things, and how things can become unowned. I think mutualists and capitalists roughly agree on #1, with "mixing labor" gaining ownership. Also, they agree on #2: free trade. On #3 they do differ: mutualists (in general) believe you lose ownership by stopping possession (at least for land), while anarcho-capitalists believe you lose ownership by consent. Hogeye 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just for land, for all types of property. --AaronS 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of a thing means rightful absolute dominion over a thing. Included in absolute dominion is the rightful liberty to dispose of it as one wishes --which includes, among other things, the rightful liberty to sell it and the right to prevent others from using it (whether one is using it or not). There is no such thing as "possession property" --it's not property at all. "Possession," as Proudhon originally called it is simply the right to use a thing that is not property. That's the distinction between property and "possession" (or "occupancy and use"). Now, where the mutualists and anarcho-capitalists DO believe in property (absolute dominion) is when something is the product of labor. For example, you grow some corn. That corn is your property --you have absolute dominion over it. You can keep it to yourself, store it and defend it against others and let it go to waste, or sell it in the market. The distinction between mutualists and anarcho-capitalists on land is that land ITSELF is not the product of labor. The anarcho-capitalists look at labor improvements of the land as creating property in land ITSELF. Mutualists don't see working the land as being the production of land so they won't grant property rights to land itself. So, that's where the dispute is between the two. Does tilling the soil create property in that soil surface area itself? Mutualists say no. Anarcho-capitalists say yes. I'm sure where you can see where the stances taken by both mutualists and anarcho-capitalists on this issue are philosophically problematic. RJII 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the dictionary definition, RJII -- I know that you love dictionary definitions. It says nothing about "absolute" dominion. Moreover, the definition of dominion says nothing about a "rightful liberty" to dispose of what is being dominated. --AaronS 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's even worth conversing with you. From my experiences with you and observations of you I don't think you operate in good faith, but here goes. RJII 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your fail-safe tactic: question character first! --AaronS 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rightful liberty" is another way of saying "rights." If you have a ethical "right" to do something, it means the liberty to do it is rightful liberty (or ethical liberty). Duh.RJII 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --AaronS 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, property, is an ethical concept. Property is a right over a thing.RJII 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The dictionary says that property is "something that is owned or possessed." Property as a right is only one consideration among many. --AaronS 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Property, as mutualists and anarcho-capitalists define it is the right of absolute dominion over a thing --OWNERSHIP. Do you note realize what the world "ownership" entails? Of course you don't. Lest there be any doubt how they defined property, let's ask Mr. Spooner what property is. "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." RJII 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we ask the dictionary, which you love so much? Like I said, it says nothing about "absolute" dominion. If you're going to use "Mr. Spooner's" definition of property, then I'm sure that you'll have no problem with me using Bakunin's definition of anarchism, right? Something tells me that you might... --AaronS 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You have no clue do you? RJII 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the dictionary purists in here don't shy away from adding some free interpretation to definitions that happens to fit their own point of view. Sarge Baldy 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. What "free interpretations" are you talking about? And, what kind of POV is supposedly being pushed by me on this? RJII 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see the dictionary as signifying absolute dominion over a thing, I don't know what to tell you. Regardless, since we're talking about mutualists, I use their definition of course. RJII 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see the dictionary as signifying anarchism as being opposed to the authority of the capitalist property owner, I don't know what to tell you. Blah, blah, blah, and so on. --AaronS 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a clue. If something is property, it means you rightfully (or legally) can buy and sell it. If you can't, then it's not property. This is in accordance with any ordinary understanding of property. Mutualists don't think land should be property. Rather, they believe in a right to "occupancy and use" ("possession" for Proudhon). RJII 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that for mutualists, so I don't know why you think I'm the one that needs a clue. --AaronS 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And, labor creates property, for both mutualists and anarcho-capitalists. That is, it entails the creation of a set of rights including the right to buy and sell that which your labor produced. RJII 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that for mutualists, so I don't know why you think I'm the one that needs a clue. --AaronS 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realized Aaron didn't even give the definition of "property" but of "own." How shady. Let's look at the definition of property in Merriam-Webster: "the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing." [17] Now, let's look at the definition of "dispose of": "to transfer to the control of another <disposing of personal property to a total stranger" [18] So, you can clearly see, according the Merriam-Webster definition (as well as the mutualists' definition) that for mutualists, land is NOT property. Only, the product of labor is (for mutualists AND anarcho-capitalists, while differening on whether or not is is proper to regard land itself as the product of labor after being transformed by labor). RJII 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did mention the definition of "property." Perhaps you should scroll up a bit and put on your reading glasses. But, anyway, why do you keep on asserting something that everybody agrees on as if there were any contention about it? The actual question is whether or not mutualists consider things that are being occupied/used to be possessions/owned. They do. And that includes land. And to possess/own is to control as property, per Merriam-Webster. --AaronS 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you do have a contention with it. You're insisting that mutualists believe that land can rightfully be property. They don't. They oppose property in things unless those things are the product of labor. Property entails a right to dispose of a thing as one wishes --meaning a right to transfer ownership --meaning the individual holds ethical or legal TITLE to a thing. There is no title to land itself in mutualism. Ownership cannot be transferred. It's not property. There is no ownership in the first place --there is USE. Only labor can create ownership (property rights). RJII 04:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RJ> "Ownership of a thing means rightful absolute dominion over a thing."

To own is "to have and hold as property." (Merriam-Webster) There's nothing there about being "absolute," whatever that means. RJ, you don't have to accept Proudhon's illogical and contradictory definitions. What he calls "possession" is a type of property system - one where the abandonment period is short. Otherwise, it's just like sticky (neo-Lockean, private) property. People who own possession property do have a right to dispose of their property. They can sell it, give it away, or abandon it, just like someone who owns private property. Possession property and private property are almost the same. The only difference is that the abandonment period is shorter.

No ..in mutualism there is no title to land. There is occupation and use only. It's not property. One can't sell or give away land --one doesn't have title in the first place. The product of labor, on the other hand, IS property --meaning the individual has ethical or legal TITLE over it. That is, it's transferable by gift or sale. RJII 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RJ> "DO believe in property (absolute dominion) is when something is the product of labor."

I think even for man-made goods, if you don't keep them in possession they're deemed abandoned (to a mutualist.) In other words, they use the possession property system for both man-made things and land. At least, that's my understanding. Can a mutualist rent a house to someone? A bicycle? A widget-making machine? My understanding is no. Hogeye 06:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, man-made goods are not abandoned if they're not in use. They're still the property of the producer. That is, the producer holds TITLE. And, yes a mutualist can rent a house to someone, but the rent does not profit the renter. It pays for the wear and tear on the house by the renter, plus insurance, etc. And, it's certainly not "prohibited" as the table below indicates. Even Proudhon says "I protest than when I criticized property, or more precisely the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to attack the rights of the individual as they were recognized by existing laws, nor to contest the legitimacy of acquired possessions, nor to cause goods to be shared out arbitrarily, nor to prevent property from being freely and regularly acquired through sale and exchange, nor to forbid or supress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all." (Solution of the Social Problem, 1848-49) RJII 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism table

{{Anarchism table}}

Infinity0 ^talk 14:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This table has been proposed for deletion. Your discussion is going nowhere and indeed it it is hard to see that it ever will get anywhere. Some anarcho-communists are also individualists, as are some anarcho-syndicalists (some of whom are also anarcho-communists.

'we invent ideologies and theories which rationalize our beliefs into neat and orderly systems that are capable of explaining anything, because they omit everything which their premises cannot explain.' Herbert V. Guenther

This template talks about the ideologies, not the people. But meh, why should I care? I'm only trying to find a way for everyone to help, instead of just RJII and Hogeye, who had been monopolising the editing of the chart. Infinity0 ^talk 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to CJames' clean chart, with minor changes. Hogeye 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you edit this one? (It wrongly indicates that mutualists don't believe in private property). "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property. -Clarence Swartz constrasting these with mutualism in What is Mutualism.RJII 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out how to change it. Thanks for the help. RJII 04:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The structure is insufficent because it doesn't allow for the mutualists position on property. They believe in private property in the produce of labor, but believe in individual possession for land. RJII 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Made some changes. Added new sections separating product of labor and land. RJII 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a real problem with the Collectivist section. I'm not comfortable at all with that, without sources. That's a relatively obscure type of anarchism. The Collectivsts were the followers of Bakunin, but I haven't really seen any authoritative sources detailing what the economic philosophy was. I believe Bakunin was originally a Proudhonist but split from him over land --Bakunin thought land should be possessed collectively by the community. And, I think he adhered to Proudon's support of a market economy, but I could be wrong --I just don't know. I'm not sure what is position on money was. Then the actual Collectivists --the followers split against Bakunin on some issues, I believe. I say we just take the section out, unless someone can find some info. RJII 05:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Here, then, was the difference between Bakunin and Proudhon, a division marked by the Revolution of 1848 itself. Proudhon was religious, Bakunin was atheistic; Proudhon advocated peaceful evolution, Bakunin appealed for immediate violent insurrection; Proudhon relied upon the middle class, Bakunin tried to rely upon sections of the workers; Proudhon preached producers' co-operative and mutual harmony of all propertied interests, Bakunin spoke against private property and for Communist collectivism; Proudhon calculated on using the State for his Bank, Bakunin demanded the State's immediate abolition; while Proudhon denied the value of any organizational discipline whatsoever, Bakunin organized a tightly disciplined conspiratorial clique for the seizure of power...It was then that Bakunin averred in his letters that he had become a Marxist, but a Marxist in "economics" and not in "politics."" [19] RJII 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Bulletin de la Fédération Jurasienne was an organ of Collectivist Anarchism. At bottom there is no difference between “Collectivist” and “Communist” Anarchism." [20] RJII 05:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Anarchism of Stirner and of Proudhon was completely individualist. Bakounine did not want individualism, or to speak more correctly, one particular phase of individualism. He was the inventor of “Collectivist-Anarchism.” And the invention cost him little. He completed the “liberty” Utopia, by the “equality” Utopia. As these two Utopias would not agree, as they cried out at being yoked together, he threw both into the furnace of the “permanent revolution” where they were both at last forced to hold their tongues, for the simple reason that they both evaporated, the one as completely as the other." [21] RJII 05:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from the most informative source I've found: "Collectivism, unlike Proudhon's Mutualism or Marxism, was not a well developed theory, the product of a single mind... collectivism often was so sketchy in details, and some of its advocates disagreed among themselves over various points." [22] RJII 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 134.121.255.222 17:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to have syndicalism instead of collectivism. I dropped syndicalism because it and collectivism seem to have pretty much the same set of beliefs, but since collectivism is also the older and less practiced of the two it might make sense to put syndicalism instead. For sure one of them needs to be there, there is more to social anarchism then anarcho-communism. I think that the table is starting to look pretty good by the way, not really sure why all this insistence that we drop the issue. For an (anarchist) list of red flags to look for that indicate consensus is being co-opted, visit this site [23] I see signs that both "sides" are doing so, not to mention the lack of anybody but anarchists here. However I do think this is getting somewhere and instead of complaining about how long this is taking we should keep working at it. 134.121.255.222 17:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, wasn't logged in. Anyway, I removed some of your "citation needed"s because the link you provided [24] answered them. CJames745 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)