Talk:Anarchism/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Christan Anarchism

I don't think that the line "most christian anarchists are vegan or vegetarian" should be included, certainly not without some sort of explanation. If veganism or vegetarianism is to be included, I wouldn't say that Christian Anarchists are any more likely to be vegan than other anarchists. Appletross 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, many anarchists are vegan/vegetarian regardless of being Christians. I think it may be more common amongst pacifist anarchists, and that overlaps somewhat with Christian anarchism, but it's a bit vague. Sarge Baldy 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism table template

{{Anarchism table}}

Could somebody move this ridiculous chart to an archive page. At best this chart represents original research, but it's more of a fantasy than anything else because it normalizes anarcho-capitalism as part of anarchism, which it simply isn't. Chuck0 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I left it here in case anyone wants to work in it / discuss it. I changed the inclusion to just a link now. -- infinity0 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is how I comment but the above tables are very flawed in that anarcho capitalism is not a widely know variant of anarchism. It's almost unknown outside North America and even there would seem to amount to only a handful of individuals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.43.144.237 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. I know for a fact that it's big in Italy. RJII 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done a speaking tour of Italy and know many Italian anarchists, I've never even heard them mention any anarcho capitalist organisation or even individual there. Anyway the point is that this table suggest 4 majoor anarchist divisions with this so called anarchist capitalism as one of them. But anarchist capitalism isn't any sort of major division - its almost unknown. It would be like a table or world religions that consisted of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and 7th day adventism. The purpose of such a table would clearly be to suggest that 7th day adventism was something it is not - a major religious division.

Big in Italy? Sure. The actual anarchist movement in Italy is extremely large, with functioning federations, weekly newspaper and so on. I've never heard of "anarcho"-capitalists outside of the US and a handful of people in the UK. Maybe it's big in comparison to the UK, i.e. two Handfuls of people?

As it stands, I have to object to the notion that anarcho-communists aim to "prohibit" wage labor. read kropotkin's conquest of bread, for example, when he discusses why an anarchist society has nothing to fear from a capitalist trying to set up shop there. And I should also note that the same work also indicates that anarcho-communism has no problem with workers and farmers owning and using their own tools and land.

A handful in the UK? I LIVE in the UK, and have never heard of it until I came on wikipedia. Heh. As for your thoughts, the reason why the chart is full of inaccuracies is because all I did was patch the various information from this article, since I'm not an expert on this. And you have pointed out it's inaccurate, so please could you help improve it? Thanks ^^ The chart can be edited here: Template:Anarchism table Infinity0 ^talk 23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of "anarcho"-capitalism, either before I went on-line. They really do not exist within the anarchist movement. Outside of America (or on-line), there are hardly any. Whenever I mention them to other anarchists, they have no idea how anyone could call themselves an anarchist and a capitalist. I've never meet an anarchist who could consider them as anarchists. Anyway, I've made the changes to the table -- I replaced prohibited by "abolished" as this reflects the real situation better. Hope that helps. [[User: BlackFlag] 08:55, February 24/02/2006

But why fiddle with a table whose whole design seems intended to misrepresent the various schools of anarchism. It doesn't belong on this page (I guess it could go on the anarcho capitalism one

Bad Intro

The intro says "Anarchism originated as a term of abuse first used against early working class radicals including the Diggers of the English Revolution and the sans-culottes of the French Revolution.[1]" But note 1 says absolutely nothing about the first use of "anarchism." It's a erroneous note, so I'll delete it again.A citation has been requested but not supplied since (Revision as of 22:05, 18 February 2006) if not longer.

http://www.anarchistcommunitarian.net/refonanok.html is the reference. The site is currently down, but this is the Google cached version. -- infinity0 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your source says "anarchist" - not "anarchism" - was first used in the 1790s French revolution. Secondly, I've seen a citation of "anarchist" being used much earlier in England. If I provide the sourse for this, will you quit reverting?

It's not my source, I had nothing to do with that section. I was actually more concerned with the peripheral edits below. But certainly, I'd like to see an earlier source. Sarge Baldy 20:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

80.x.x.x, Are you using a proxy? It's destroying all the line breaks. -- infinity0 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There it is! (Duh.) Later in the article! "In the modern era, the first to use the term to mean something other than chaos was Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan in his Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale, (1703), where he described the indigenous American society, which had no state, laws, prisons, priests, or private property, as being in anarchy[9]." That's nearly a hundred years before the sans-culottes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.201.212 (talk • contribs).

That is a rather interesting piece of information. But was the word anarchism used, or just anarchy? Sarge Baldy 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point above is very germain. Lahontan is basically describing a society where no state has emerged, as opposed to apolitical movement which seeks to abolish the state using the evidence of non-state societies as evidence of the practicality of this.Harrypotter 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This user even pointed out (in a comment reverted due to page pollution) that Webster dates the word "anarchism" to 1642. This appears consistent with saying it was developed in retaliation to the Diggers (who formed in 1639). However, I'm unsure if saying "first used against early working class radicals including the Diggers of the English Revolution and the sans-culottes of the French Revolution" is a good idea as we're talking 150 years of difference as if its irrelevant. Maybe we should say it was first used against the Diggers and then mention the sans-culottes as a resurgence of the term? Sarge Baldy 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The two uses may have developed separately. Maybe it's better to say "earliest use of the term to describe a political movement" or somesuch. -- infinity0 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing Webster's citation. On the Diggers page it says they were founded in 1649. I've checked on line and found nothing supporting this notion, although 1642 does seem to play a role in an-cap hagiography! So I would like to see the 1642 quote, before changing anything. (I have studied some of the pamphlets of the civil war collected in both the British library and the Guildhall Library (London), but never came across such a citation.Harrypotter 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica dates the Diggers from 1649-50 [1]. VoluntarySlave 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see that the English Civil War began in 1642. Perhaps the term was used against individuals similar to the Diggers before that group was formally organized? Or perhaps the date is just messed up or sloppy. Also, I noticed that Britannica says that during the French Revolution, the Enragés were criticized as being "advocates of anarchy" [2]. Sarge Baldy 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the Diggers were not organised before 1649. However check the interchange between Thomas Rainsborough at the Putney Debates (1647): "Rainborough: I know that some particular men we debate with believe we are for anarchy." in response to Oliver Cromwell. Edward Sexby also talks of this. However these people were levellers, and were certainly not a working class movement in that were more concerned with defending the position of artisans and it is not even clear that they wanted to extend the vote to landless labourers. I wish to check the Oxford English Dictionary when I get a chance, as this cites first written references and respond at greater depth after that and content myself to minor changes just now.Harrypotter 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's not a period of history I know anything about, but it's something that needs to be clarified. BTW, my (1994) Pocket Oxford Dictionary states it came from French for "related to anarchy". I don't think this is correct. Sarge Baldy 20:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The voluminous full edition cites first recorded written use of the word and I only have access to it in the public library. I feel that the pocket version might well be correct, but lets see. ACtually, I am drawn to setting up different pages for anarchy, anarchist and anarchism, but it would be good to know what others think. I am mindful of the political use of the term anarchy to describe unregulated markets by socialists and also W.E.B. DuBois use of the term to describe the British Empire in relation to the Hitler's Neuropa. Also I am not keen on the switch in the opening paragraphs, as I feel anarchism emerged from practical political discussions rather than greek speaking intellectuals!Harrypotter 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mutual Aid

I checked what Kropotkin says here and it is that mutual aid is natural to both animals and humans, rather than suggesting that there is an application of abstract principles. This is teh basis of the changes I have made here, Harrypotter 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mutual aid article needs wikifying and clarification. -- infinity0 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

IFD

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_March_9 - lised Image:Ac chart.png for deletion for POV, OR, and AB. -- infinity0 16:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Zach de la Rocha

[3] suggests he has worked with Noam Chomsky on "Zapatista: A Big Noise Film DVD". Not sure if this means he's an anarchist, though. -- infinity0 21:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard Rage Against the Machine referred to as anarchist, but I wouldn't call them overall notable as a cultural aspect of anarchism. Also I'd kind of rather we avoided listing musicians here, since we already talk about anarchism and music later on. I think it's also best to only list people whose work is clearly influenced by anarchist beliefs, rather than just mentioning celebrities who happen to be anarchists. Sarge Baldy 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page for anarchist celebrities? If not, that might be a good page to start. The Ungovernable Force 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

List of anarchists already exists. It's FAR too long atm, though. :( -- infinity0 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not "too long" since it aims to be a comprehensive list. Sarge Baldy 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. well, why is there so many red entries? Zach isn't in there, should he be added? -- infinity0 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Best if you can find a source showing it, but not necessary. At this point the list is rather "loose" (too loose, I'd say). Sarge Baldy 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Situationists, autonomists etc

I removed these groups as they are not anarchists, even if they are anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian.Harrypotter 11:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

They have had a lot of influence on anarchism though, especially the situationists, so I think they should be put back in. The situationist page mentions anarchism quite a bit, so I think they especially should be mentioned. And heck, if we can put anarcho-capitalism in the page, we can definitely put the SI. The autonomist marxism page also mentions anarchists as being important in some areas, especially in the Autonomist movements (w/o the further Marxist distinction). Therefore I am readding them in, but will mention that they weren't explicitly anarchist. The Ungovernable Force 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The influences should definitely be mentioned, but there should be no special section on Situationism. That movement was really more Marxist and ultra-leftist. Chuck0 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Both groups are libertarian socialists (of the Marxist school). They are not anarchists, but close to anarchism. There is significant overlap in ideas (and Lenin called the council communists anarchists). They should be mentioned, particularly as the situationists have had a major impact in post-war anarchist thinking. I would say they have more right to be mentioned in an anarchist entry than "anarcho"-capitalism. BlackFlag 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New criticism

Infoshop just published a new article criticizing "anarcho-capitalism": An Anarchist critique of Anarcho-Statism Chuck0 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho is Iain McKay, right? Cool! -- infinity0 22:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't reveal the person behind this pseudonymn, but "Anarcho" is a respected anarchist under their real name. Chuck0 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is Iain McKay, that's not a misspelling of the guy from Minor Threat/Fugazi right? And it's not like the new article will matter, people will just say "oh, it's from social anarchists, of course they say anarchism can't be capitalist". It won't change a thing. Thanks anyway though. The Ungovernable Force 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Main contributor to Anarchist FAQ. -- infinity0 23:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks. The Ungovernable Force 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You think someone'd hit on the most obvious point eventually. Government and state aren't the same thing. Government essentially means the administrative body of an organization, regardless of whether that organization is a state, a corporation, or whatever. The typical definition of anarchism as opposing "all forms of government" makes it clear that it's not just talking about the state, but about creation and enforcement of rules in general, which all anarcho-capitalists believe in. They want to kill the state but leave the rules, the government, intact. Anarcho-capitalists seem to treat the terms state and government as the same thing, and so take the definition of anarchism as given by most sources to mean an opposition to the state. But they're very clearly wrong. Most definitions of government don't even mention the word "state" in passing. Sarge Baldy 00:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

By that argument, anarcho-syndicalism is an oxymoron. Likewise autonomism. Check autonomy.Harrypotter 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.. I suppose I have some issues with anarcho-syndicalism, even if I consider it well-intentioned. But to be honest, I consider the typical dictionary definition of anarchism a little bland and imprecise. I just find it interesting the way that anarcho-capitalists bend it around. Sarge Baldy 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism, Racism and Nationalism" section

How does this section relate to anarchism as a philosophy? Meaning how do nationalism and racism fit into anarchist theory? At present, it only describes anarchists that have expressed support for racism or nationalism. However, this page is (or rather, should be) about anarchism, rather than anarchists. Sarge Baldy 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Fine to have some mention of this in the criticisms section, which can then link to the criticisms page which needs to get started. But a section like this over-represents the role of nationalism in anarchism as a philosophy and a movement. Harry, wouldn't you accept that:

a) anarchism intersects with nationalism and racism (in the sense that particular anarchists have been nationalists) no more than any other political tendency - socialism, liberalism, whatever you like ... Devoting a section to anarchism and nationalism suggests there is a particular and strong link.

b) in fact anarchists have been amongst the most outspoken critics of nationalism. If we were to have this section NPOV would mean emphasising the stronger internationalist position of most anarchists.Bengalski 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. I had these same criticisms, but I'd much rather talk them through. Sarge Baldy 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I wanted to fix it earlier (I saw the edit about 15 minutes after it was made) but I was in school and didn't have time to really do a good job. And it should be discussed. The Ungovernable Force 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, upon further inspection I am just going to blank that section. There is already an area in the criticism section for hypocricy, so this stuff should go there (and some of it is). Furthermore, I would like to see sources of some of those things before putting them back in (especially the one on John Zerzan). Hakim Bey doesn't surprise me, I knew about Proudhon, the Zapatistas aren't anarchists per se (though they have many anarchist tendencies) so the criticism doesn't matter that much. I will add some stuff about national "anarchism" to the hypocricy section now though, because that is all well known. The Ungovernable Force 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The page National anarchism is up for deletion, please contribute here. - FrancisTyers 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism in anarchism isn't necessarily hypocritical. Eg. Proudhon, I don't think he ever claimed to have universalist or internationalist ideas, so it wasn't hypocritical of him to be a racist. As for these so-called 'national anarchists', they're not hypocrites, they're just not anarchists.Bengalski 17:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

then they shouldn't be in the criticism section, they should have (no god help me for saying this) their own small section, much like anarcho-cap with clear info that they aren't real anarchists (which makes me not want them to have their own section). The Ungovernable Force 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The criticism, if I understand it, is that nationalism/racism is some kind of latent tendency or at least readily compatible with anarchism. Do I understand it? Ask Harrypotter.Bengalski 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether of not one regards pointing out the nationalism which has long been espoused alongside anarchism is a criticism or not, the political scientists will note that it is a phenomena worthy of note, all the more so to the extent it runs in contradiction to the commonly understood meanings of either anarchism or nationalism. A clearer understanding of this relationship might help us in the rocky days to come.Harrypotter 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the academic writings (mainly encyclopedia sections) I've seen on anarchism have ever mentioned nationalism. I am not saying it doens't exist, I know it did, especially among some of the earlier theorists (like Proudhon, which is partially why I don't read a lot of the early theorists). I like the idea of creating a page on anarchism and nationalism so that the issue can be discussed fully from both sides. The Ungovernable Force 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to put in my two cents, I wouldn't consider nationalism and anarchism incompatible necessarily, although I would racism and anarchism. How I see it, government, state, and nation are all clearly distinct. Government refers to policymaking processes, nation refers to national identity, and state refers to a fixed system of borders. Just the idea of anarchist societies say, waving a different flag from one another doesn't seem necessarily incompatible with anarchism. However, "racism" as a term means categorizing people into groups based on perceived physical appearance and ranking them hierarchically, and the idea of segregating people based on this perception seems terribly counterintuitive to the ideals of anarchism. Sarge Baldy 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but all too often nationalism is nothing more than a guise for jinogism, racism and divisive thinking, so it should be undermined. Plus most people think of it in terms of the nation-state which is definetely something we shouldn't want (btw, I've never heard your definition of state, but I could be wrong). The Ungovernable Force 20:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well sure, a lot of ugly things are attached to it rather effortless. And actually, that was a sloppy definition of state. I guess I mean it's more of a legal jurisdiction in which a powerful body "successfully claims the monopoly of the use of force". I was only trying to say it doesn't necessarily coincide with a nation. For instance, in the old German model, the nation and the state didn't overlap. The state was merely a legal border and the "nation" extended out past this border into Austro-Hungary, etc. Today almost all states are nationstates, so people tend to see the two terms as interrelated. Nor does it coincide with government, because a state doesn't necessarily need to create policy. Sarge Baldy 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC this diff

[4] - 27 to 8? Could someone verify this please? -- infinity0 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I did read in a book called The Anarchists that Proudhon was sexist and anti-semetic, so it wouldn't surprise me. I don't have a cite for that actual essay though. The Ungovernable Force 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Same, but the "27 to 8" ratio struck me as very strange. -- infinity0 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He definately said something along those lines. He said that men and women were equal, but one was 6/7ths good at X and the other was 6/7ths good at Y or something like that. E.g. a defense of traditional rôles in the home, which of course has some basis in biology but is unusual to hear from modern anarchists. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and animal rights

I just created this page and it needs expansion and work, see the talk page. Also, we should maybe incorperate some info from it into this page too. The Ungovernable Force 08:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so is anyone going to help this page out? It's kinda sub-par in my opinion and could do with some major expansion. Please....somebody....anybody.... The Ungovernable Force 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist Communism

Robgraham, why did you remove my sentence? The quotes are:

"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145]

"every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [Peter Kropotkin, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223]

Kropotkin advocates a system of possession, but your edit doesn't mention this. "Abolition of private property" suggests he wants collective ownership of everything. -- infinity0 20:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I cannot find a source from Kropotkin arguing "distribution of wealth on the basis of need". Could you supply one? -- infinity0 20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not adept with this editing system. I meant to revise your reference because the General Idea of the Revolution is by Proudhon, not Kropotkin, and the passages you cite, other than the one from the Conquest of Bread, are by Proudhon, who was not an anarchist communist. Unfortunately, when I tried editing your citations I messed everything up, including the correct citation to The Conquest of Bread. My apologies.

As for texts where Kropotkin advocates distribution of wealth according to need, they are numerous. This is the overriding theme of The Conquest of Bread, and also Kropotkin's pamphlet, "Anarchist Communism" (1887). Kropotkin advocated the abolition of capitalism and individual ownership of property, hence my reference to abolition of private property, which comes to the same thing and does not imply collective ownership, in contrast to the previous passage which referred, incorrectly, to Kropotkin advocating workers' control and ownership of the means of production.

Oops. My mistake. I misread my source. "Words of a Rebel" is by Kropotkin, though, right? What about the version now, where it says "worker control and possession" as opposed to ownership? -- infinity0 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have now reinserted your incorrect citations to the General Idea of the Revolution, still incorrectly referring to this work as something by Kropotkin. That is just wrong. In my view, the citation must be removed because it sets forth Proudhon's mutualist ideas, not Kropotkin's anarchist communist ideas. Lastly, Kropotkin did not advocate "workers" control and possession of the means of production. He advocated voluntary association and was concerned that the syndicalist approach would create a syndicalist government under the guise of "workers' control." See in particular, "Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal," and Modern Science and Anarchism, as well as his introduction to the syndicalist utopia, How We Shall Bring About the Revolution, by Pataud and Pouget.

What about the bread quote, where Kropotkin says "possess the instruments of labour"? -- infinity0 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the false reference. Whilst it's true that Kropotkin wanted abolition of private property, it's misleading not to include the property system which he did advocate, which is possession (system of use). -- infinity0 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "worker controlled MOP", since you know more about this than I do. But could you explain why Kropotkin says "possess the instruments of labour" and also a quote from him showing he advocates need-based distribution? -- infinity0

Here are some Kropotkin quotes on distribution according to need:

From The Conquest of Bread (Cambridge UP 1995 edition):

"We must take possession, in the name of the people, of the granaries, the shops full of clothing, and the dwelling houses... We must organize without delay to feed the hungry, to satisfy all wants, to meet all needs, to produce not for the special benefit of this one or that one, but so as to ensure to society as a whole its life and further development." (p. 29)

"... the rural township still struggles to preserve the last traces of this communism and it succeeds--except when the state throws its heavy sword into the balance. Meanwhile new organizations, based on the same principle--to every man according to his needs--spring up under a thousand different forms; for without a certain leaven of communism the present societies could not exist. In spite of the narrowly egoistic turn given to men's minds by the commercial system, the tendency towards communism is constantly appearing, and it influences our activities in a variety of ways." (p. 33)

"In a word, the system is this: no stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those commodities which are scarce or apt to run short." (p. 62)

"The question of clothing will of course demand consideration... The only possible solution will be to take possession, in the name of the people, of all the shops and warehouses where clothing is sold or stored, and to throw open the doors to all, so that each can take what he needs. The communalization of clothing--the right of each to take what he needs from the communal stores, or to have it made for him at the tailors and outfitters--is a necessary corollary of the communalization of houses and food." (p. 84)

"Thus, after having denied communism, after having laughed at their ease at the formula--'to each according to his needs'--these great economists discover that they have forgotten something, the needs of the producers..." (p. 156)

"... if the needs of the individual are taken as the starting-point of our political economy, we cannot fail to reach communism, an organization which enables us to satisfy all needs in the most thorough and economic way." (p. 163)

From Anarchist Communism (Revolutionary Pamphlets, Dover edition, 1970):

"Common possession of the necessaries for production implies the common enjoyment of the fruits of the common production... when everybody, contributing for the common wellbeing to the full extent of his capacities shall enjoy also from the common stock of society to the fullest possible extent of his needs." (p. 59)

On the role of voluntary association, Kropotkin's article from the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th ed, 1905) says this:

In an anarchist society, "the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international--temporary or more or less permanent--for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on..."

When Kropotkin talks about the people taking possession of the existing means of production he is referring to this process of voluntary associations replacing both government functions and private control of the means of production. However, the voluntary associations "possess" the various means of production for the purpose of producing sufficient goods so that each person may freely satisfy his or her needs from the fruits of that production. This is different from Proudhon's concept of possession, by which he meant everyone should be entitled to the fruits of his or her own labour, to retain either for personal consumption or to exchange with others for other commodities.

Whoops, sorry, I missed your reply yesterday. Anyways, thanks a lot! It's good to have an expert explain everything clearly, for a change. :) -- infinity0 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Told ya

Quote from the Wall Street Journal [5]: "But there were also ardently capitalist anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner, who started his own profit-making postal service to compete with the U.S. government's lazy monopoly." That's a mainstream source showing that under *current* word usage, Spooner supported capitalism, even if he opposed it when it meant something different during his time. So what's the bias problem now? Does this anarchism opponent have a special stake in whether Spooner counts as an anarchist? Well, good luck arguing that one. Or holding a coherent position. MrVoluntarist 04:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism is not the same thing as free market. Spooner vehemently opposed the class distinction between employers and labourers in capitalism, and wished to create a society where no person in their right mind would agree to work for someone else. -- infinity0 11:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So did he deliver all the letters himself personally, or did he go against his supposed ideology by hiring workers to operate his postal service? *Dan T.* 13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Spooner said: "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another.". He supports the freedom to hire workers, but wishes a system where it would be minimised. -- infinity0 13:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So, he supported capitalism, and believed/hoped it would lead to different results than present ancaps predict. MrVoluntarist 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he supported free market, not capitalism. -- infinity0 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The free market *is* capitalism, under present usage, as shown from the WSJ link. MrVoluntarist 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm ancap and believe that firms would generally be smaller in a free market, because regulation adds to transaction costs and thus creates economies of scale. Did Spooner distinguish between employees and contractors? —Tamfang 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes - see above quote. -- infinity0 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote says nothing, not even anything from which inferences could be made, about the difference between "contractors" and "employees". Please stop misrepresenting sources to fit your beliefs. MrVoluntarist 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"few or no persons... would consent to labour for wages for another." - seems pretty specific to me. Deny it as you wish. -- infinity0 22:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. Like I said, he's claiming that an emergent result of the system he proposes would result in more independent modes of production. He still advocates the same system. Honest question: do you have the slightest idea what the difference is between advocating a system, and believing certain things would result in that system? So far, it seems you don't. MrVoluntarist 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You're choosing to make capitalism and free market the same thing. They're not. -- infinity0 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And we're back to square one. Wake me when you have something relevant to say. MrVoluntarist 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. Capitalism involves private MOP and employment, even under present usage. That article mentions the word once, and not as a specific definition. -- infinity0 20:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Under current usage, "employment" is not a defining aspect of capitalism to anyone but maybe Marxists. But again, don't take my word for it -- see the WSJ article. And why bring up private MOP? Spooner supported that. MrVoluntarist 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is, though. They just use the term "labour market" instead, but it's still employment. -- infinity0 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No ... it isn't. We've been over this a hundred times, and you've never made a case for that. Please stop re-asserting it as fact, please. MrVoluntarist 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You use dictionary definitions to back your claim that capitalism doesn't include employment of labour. Dictionary definitions miss out much. Capitalism doesn't exist without employment - it's what makes it unique from other free market systems, such as mutualism. -- infinity0 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries aggregate lots of actual use of the word, and none of those uses involve "employment" as a defining aspect. Do you know any capitalism proponent who hinges his support of it on there being "employment"? I can't. MrVoluntarist 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't support it if employment was banned. Where else would they get their labour? "Employment" is part of capitalism as a social system. Dictionaries define it as an economic system. -- infinity0 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Right... they wouldn't support any system where a type of nominally consensual contract is categorically banned. And as for where they get their labor? Um, how about contractors? And again, dictionaries do define it as an economic system, but do not list , well, whatever employment relationship you're talking about, as being a defining aspect. You have no ground to stand on. Please, end this futile battle to get your POV in. MrVoluntarist 22:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And finally, you've hit the nail on the coffin. For anti-capitalists, employment is NOT a consensual contract. -- infinity0 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

False. For anti-capitalists, employment is usually non-consensual, but not necessarily (e.g., if full value of labor is paid, system non-coercive, etc.). Ancaps would "oppose" a specific instance of "employment" too if they were given specific evidence that it were based on specific coercive acts; they just don't throw a blanket ban on all cases. Even Kevin Carson holds that employment can be voluntary. All of this of course is irrelevant to whether employment is a defining aspect of capitalism. MrVoluntarist 22:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said specifically the capitalist system of employment, to make it absolutely clear. -- infinity0 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet it would still be precisely as irrelevant as the rest of your comment. MrVoluntarist 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish we had a different word; I'm told that Marx coined the word capitalism and meant by it the regulated economy with all its distortions in favor of incumbents, not the free-market ideal (not that I'd count on Marx to know the difference). —Tamfang 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And a hundred years ago, people still used it that way. Things have changed since then. To show thiis, I linked the above WSJ article, which says that Spooner supported capitalism, even though in the terminology of his time, he didn't. MrVoluntarist 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not an "article", it's an opinion piece. And Wall Street Journal openly acknowledges an economic libertarian bias in its editorial section. Sarge Baldy 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are also called "articles", kid. And what does that particular bias have to do with anything? So they favor laissez faire (sometimes, to some extent, in some cases). How does that influence their ability to properly ascribe the term "capitalism" to various persons' ideologies? MrVoluntarist 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

All I'm wondering is what makes you think this guy has a clue what he's talking about. Do you think an opinion automatically becomes "credible" because it's published in a mainstream conservative newspaper? Sarge Baldy 22:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable in what way? I'm pointing out a typical, everyday usage of the word "capitalism" in the context of anarchism. Under modern, typical, everyday usage, an anarchist like Spooner supports capitalism. Unless you can come up with a reason why this author or this paper is biased on the specific issue of whether anarchism can be capitalist (keeping in mind they oppose anarchism), you have no reason to reject this as proof of the usage of a word. MrVoluntarist 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly think someone has to be biased to be wrong? Sarge Baldy 22:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay... so you agree he's not biased then. Fine. What are you now proposing is your basis for denying that the link I provided gives evidence that moder usage deems Spooner a capitalism proponent? MrVoluntarist 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. He's obviously biased. I'm biased, you're biased. Everyone is biased. What are opinions but biases? I might, however, state that he has no personal stake in the matter. But that does not by any means give his opinion any more weight. I would rather ask you why you think this guy's opinion is any more credible than mine, or yours, or that of the Taco Bell dog. Sarge Baldy 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, let's try to stay on topic here if we could: is the author of that article biased on the particular issue of whether the system Spooner supported counts as a form of capitalism? Yes or no. As for "this guy's opinion", I'm not citing him for his "opinion". I'm citing him as an example of the modern usage of the term "capitalism" which in fact, ensares Spooner. MrVoluntarist 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same question. It absolutely doesn't matter to me in the least whether the author of that article is biased as to whether Spooner is a capitalist. Some people will hold that opinion, others won't. So you've located someone that agrees with you, in print. Good for you. What's the point of this discussion? Sarge Baldy 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, I'm not saying this as an insult. I'm saying this because discussing anything with you is extremely frustrating. You really need to work on your attention span. The response I'm about to give to your question, I've already given several times already. The response goes as follows and begins now: The modern usage of the term "capitalism" diverges sharply from that of late 19th century. All dictionaries confirm this. The WSJ link is special in that it shows a mainstream source using the mainstream definition of capitalism, and specfically, unambiguously mentioning that Spooner meets it. This is solid evidence of actual usage of a term. If the term "capitalism" were used incorrectly, it would not have made it past one of the most widely respected editorial boards in English-language daily publications. I'm not quoting him because "he agrees with me". Because he doesn't -- he opposes anarcho-capitalism, etc. I'm quoting him to show you how normal, well-adjusted people use the term "capitalism", as a final confirmation of the unambiguous declaration of multiple dictionaries. Please, for once, take this seriously, don't make me repeat myself three more times. MrVoluntarist 01:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually rather proud of my short attention span. But you're still assuming that a) the editors of Wall Street Journal have actually read Lysander Spooner and have a good sense of his economic theory b) they consider it a detail important enough to criticize in a commentary piece attributed to a third party rather than the newspaper itself. A lot of newspapers don't even bother to analyze editorial pieces at all, and edit them only out of space concerns. Sarge Baldy 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel no obligation to remember anything from a few responses up in the same conversation, but choose merely to repeat what has already been responded to. When you're ready to take this topic seriously, let me know. Otherwise, this will go into the "capitalism" and probably "anarchism" articles, and any sensible admin will support this. MrVoluntarist 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you just contact me when you're ready to take up a serious discussion. You're making up potential complaints for me (which I don't hold) and expecting me to justify them, rather than responding to my own. Sarge Baldy 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This topic wasn't specifically directed at you. You entered it on your own, and I refuted (several times) what you said (several times repeatedly). I have provided a link showing how actualy modern usage by real, mainstream human beings calls Spooner a capitalist. Your response is to argue in circles. Who's failing to take whom seriously? MrVoluntarist 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've successfully proven than one Todd Seavey considers Lysander Spooner a capitalist. And that's it. And as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't hold a lot of weight. Sarge Baldy 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting, based on ONE article, that that is the "modern usage"? -- infinity0 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No; the dictionaries suffice for that. This link is a final coup de grace showing not only usage of a word, but usage of a word applied to the very person you claim it does not apply to in modern conversation. Those are going to be rare, but when they appear, they support precisely what I and the dictionaries have been saying all along -- Spooner is a capitalist by moder usage of the term. MrVoluntarist 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, man. I can't be bothered arguing with you. Just read this. -- infinity0 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can't be bothered with arguing with those who can see through your attempts to make circular claims. The article is irrelevant. At issue is the modern use of "capitalism" and whether Spooner's system meets that. The link I gave demonstrates the mainstream use of "capitalism" and shows that it does. MrVoluntarist 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense. So someone in a paper called Spooner a capitalist? I read someone in a newspaper call Ayn Rand an "anarcho-capitalist." Doesn't make it so, though. I loved this, though: "The free market *is* capitalism, under present usage." The present usage is that our current economic system is capitalism. Does that mean that "anarcho"-capitalists are now in favour of "actually existing" capitalism? Logically, they must be if we apply the "present usage" argument... As for Spooner, he repeatedly argued that he thought his system would end wage labour -- nearly everyone would be their own boss. Any socialist will tell you such a system is not capitalist, it is pre-capitalist as the free market does not equal capitalism. But, then again, the actual opinions of people like Spooner seem not to matter to "anarcho"-capitalists. Which is strange, given how much they try and appropriate their legacy. BlackFlag 10.32 20, March 2006 (UTC)

First, kid, it was not "someone in a paper", it was an essay in a mainstream publication that uses the normal, common, everyday usages of words. It doesn't matter what Spooner thinks would emerge. Even if he were right, the *mainstream" description of such a system would be "capitalism". Fringe socialists do not define common usage. MrVoluntarist 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"kid"? Always nice to start with an insult -- always shows the weakness of an argument. Okay, so the "normal", "common", "everyday" usage of words is what we are using? Okay, then "anarchy" stands for chaos and disorder. Capitalism means the current economic system. This means, by common usage, "anarcho"-capitalists are supporters of the current corporate system who want disorder and chaos. I'm happy to see that added to the definition of "anarcho"-capitalism. Are you? If not, why not? Common usage must be applied in all cases, surely? As for it not mattering what Spooner thought, but, sorry, you are joking? Spooner's own ideas of what he wanted are irrelevant? I suppose this says it all about "anarcho"-capitalism. BlackFlag 09:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a keyboard, MrVoluntarist? -- infinity0 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, screw that. Investopedia.com illustrates the point I was going to make rather nicely:

[6]

What does it Mean?

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

Investopedia Says...

In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system.

See it yet? Definitions are not always complete, and do not tell you everything. -- infinity0 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OR those sources, like every dictionary, don't consider "employment" a defining aspect of capitalism. MrVoluntarist 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear comrades, Todd Seavey and MrVoluntarist are trolls, no more no less. Why feed'em?Bengalski 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it. BlackFlag 10.32 20, March 2006 (UTC)

SARGE BALDY, I think there's an important lesson to take out of this. Note that User:Bengalski, while viewing my arguments as "trolling", is actually quite mature. As you can see, he didn't unilaterally delete the topic after unsuccessfully attempting to refute the arguments. Let that be a lesson to you. And Beng/Black Flag -- this "trolling" allegation is really, really lame. Arguments you disagree with are not "trolling". MrVoluntarist 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you refrain from personal attacks. Wikipedia has a policy against it. Thank you :) Sarge Baldy 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please learn what a personal attack is, and find it in the above post. Thank you :) (Or I'll save you some time -- there ain't on there, unless you consider stating things you actually did to be a personal attack.) MrVoluntarist 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That statement is ironically also an admission of guilt that you're yourself a troll, since you repeated the action several times afterward claiming it was justified because I did it earlier [7] [8] [9]. Sarge Baldy 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is an admission you violated Wikipedia policy several times and hold others to different standards. Thanks. MrVoluntarist 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But of course it's not. Because there is no policy restricting it, and nor did I claim there to be. Nor did I say I held you to different standards, or even condemn your reversions. I was merely noting your own hypocrisy. Sarge Baldy 20:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Defining aspect" only means a characteristic that the editors think it's important to add. Economics editors don't think the social relationship of wage labour is important, so they don't use it. Sociology papers almost always acknowledge the employer-employee relationship in capitalism. -- infinity0 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The WSJ article contains errors of fact significant enough to disqualify it as a reputable source on anarchist history. The comments about "the killing of eight Chicago police officers by anarchists in the 1886 Haymarket Riot," for example, show a very sloppy, biased understanding of the actual events. The identity of the bomber is still unknown, and the men executed were not, in fact, tried for the murders, but for their beliefs. It seems more than a bit naive to think that a movie review that dabbles rather unsuccessfully in history provides some authoritative statement about Spooner and capitalism. Spooner's American Letter Mail Company has been subject to specific historical work. If it could be shown that it operated in a way that was entirely compatible with modern definitions of "capitalism," perhaps we would need to open this debate once again. Lacking that, Spooner's economic thought seems to have been pretty well analyzed. Libertatia 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. It is extremely inaccurate on the Haymarket events, not to mention Sacco and Vanzetti (presumably we must now reference this article to show that they were guility after all?). The idea that Marxists praised Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin is a joke. As for capitalism equalling the "free market", well, Tucker would disagree for a start. But I suppose he was a "fringe socialist" and does not count. What about Marx? He also indicated a difference between a free market and capitalism, noting that the former can exist without the latter. Perhaps he is too "fringe" as well? But I always get the impression that "anarcho"-capitalists analyse words rather than concepts -- when it suits them, of course. BlackFlag 02:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Sacco and Vanzetti joke made me gag a little. The lawyer said they never told him they did anything, but he somehow "knew" it nevertheless. The fact that someone else confessed to the crime and actually had the money nonwithstanding. Sarge Baldy 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What ways to run a business are not "entirely compatible with modern definitions of 'capitalism'"? —Tamfang 20:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Or to pose the question in another way - how are "modern" definitions of capitalism entirely compatible with all the varied ways practically carried out by people running a business???Harrypotter 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist wikitopia

I came across these:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarcho-capitalism&curid=1024&diff=45154032&oldid=45130949

He is referring to these:

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Wikitopia
• http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion#Wikitopia
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitopia

Any thoughts? I just thought some of you may be interested. -- infinity0 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)