Talk:Individualist anarchism/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Individualist anarchism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
H.D. Thoreau
I want to add H.D. Thoreau to the list of Individual anarchists. As far as I know, he didn't socialize with other anarchists and he didn't call himself an anarchist, but in "Civil Disobedience" he clearly expressed anarchist opinions. I would also like to include a link to Civil Disobedience. It is difficult to include Thoreau in the article due to the way that it is arranged. Perhaps we should make a list of influential individualist anarchists, similar to the the list on the biology page.
-adam
Removed errors
I have removed the sentence linking Max Stirner to the International Workingmen's Association, not only was this organization formed after his death, but also Stirner did nothing but ridicule and despise the socialist movement:
- a member of the International Workingmen's Association,
For the same reason, some blather about European IA:s being different from american IA:s was removed:
- This illustrates the disinction between European individualists anarchists and the Americans. American individualist anarchists opposed collectivist philosophies of property.
who on earth can possibly link Max Stirner with collectivism? His book is nothing but a long attack on collectivism. Nixdorf 21:01, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
Removed Sentence
I removed the following from the page:
- Modern individualist anarchists tend to tell both libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists to stop arguing and just leave each other be, for in a free society, each and every one would live under the system one prefers, and experience would teach every individual which system he personally prefers to live in. It doesn't matter which system is chosen by the majority, as long as each individual's freedom to choose is respected.
If someone would like to make it read more like something that should be in a 'pedia, and less like someone trying to make a personal statement, I'll gladly let it go back into the article. millerc 01:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How about this revision:
- Modern individualist anarchists believe both libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists should stop arguing over capitalism and socialism. They believe in a completely free society, each person can live under the system one prefers. It doesn't matter to individualist anarchists which system is chosen by the majority, as long as each individual's freedom to choose is respected.
Q0 09:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) ; Q0 18:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article needs expansion
I'd really like to understand the difference between the different veins of anarchism, and this one is the one I know least about. This article is really vague, and most of all it doesn't do a very good job of describing what individualist anarchism is. What is the fundamental difference between them and libertarian socialist or anarcho-capitalists?
Thanks to anyone who updates this article. I've added an expansion template to the page.
Article needs a rewrite
This article was obviously written by the totalitarian so-called "anarchists" as more of a response to true anarchy (anarcho-capitalism, or individualist anarchism). Notice how they try to claim the term 'individualist anarchism' as their own, despite the fact 'individualism' and 'socialism' as used by normal people are diametrically opposed to one another. --Anonymous via Tor
- Indeed, how could it be that socialists anarchists claim individualism as their own when Tucker called himself a socialist and Spooner denounced capitalism? You could try learning a little bit about the history of anarchism before you posted comments like this, but what would be the fun in making educated claims? Kev 16:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Individualist Anarchist Symbol
I've seen a very very limited group of people, including myself use the following symbol to represent Invidiualist Anarchism, if anyone's interested (i don't think it should be included in the article, really. maybe if it spreads in the future, but i thought i'd at least archive it):
Lockeownzj00 04:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Lock, This is interesting because we in the Adempiere bazaar, have been looking for the succint philosophy to govern our Open Source movement and now find an 'A' symbol to coincide marvelously to our name! I was thinking that we are Marxist, but the tail leads me to Proudhon and then Mutualism and finally this. I m thinking that perhaps such theory should also now be brought up to date as part of the defining governance in the Web. Also, can u explain why is this 'A' shaped slightly different? I wont mind using either. But i reckon this 'A' will automatically distinguish itself from the 'Peace'-like sign of the main logo. Its middle double cross bar signifies to me the communal support and spirit of sharing/enriching each other by been individualistic and thus naturally creative.
Slight Clean-Up
Page looked as though it had been edited in a hurry. Corrected errors, elaborated slightly on some parts, etc. Would be appreciated if somebody could perhaps add more external sources, esp. primary source documents. -Virgin Molotov Cocktail
Kev deleting sourced research
Kev is wholesale deleting large sections of sourced research that show that some individual anarchists don't oppose private property and that all are not collectivists (individualist who believes in collective ownership of property? go figure). RJII 21:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Lysander Spooner obviously believes in a right to private property. Even, popular Scottish left anarchist, Iain MacSaorsa acknowledges this. [1] I also provided a quote from Spooner on it.
- And, Tucker did not believe in common ownership of land. He says this explicitly and I provided a quote but Kev deleted it. Tucker said he was a socialist but did not define it as the common ownership of property. He had a different definition. I cited his paper where he defined how he was using "socialism."
Kev is attempting to censor material that doesn't accord with his POV. RJII 22:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am not removing any content at all, all of this material already exists on the pages relevant to the individuals in question. What I am removing is your attempt to take it out of context to imply something it does not, and your attempts to interpret the facts for the readers of wikipedia. Of course Tucker didn't believe in common ownership of land, none of the individualists did, but that does not support your interpretation that he endorsed private property entitlement (as he explicitly declared that he did not). I also love how you select from this since source you have provided only the parts that agree with your particular interpretation, leaving out for example the fact that the article explicitly refers to Spooner as an anti-capitalist, his rejection of wage labor as "sponging" of the fruit of labor, that his ideas where akin to mutualism and to Proudhon's (as all individualists were). And of course, you refer to the articles "Spooner makes frequent mention of the right of private property" without saying anything about the fact that this is not private property entitlement a la anarcho-capitalism, but private possession a la Proudhon. If you want to expand on Spooner's beliefs, and actually give a full account of them rather than only selecting those details that support your POV, then by all means, feel free. Please start with this direct quote from the article you just referanced yourself:
The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents -- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest -- stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments ... The question of making these loans is, with these lenders, a mere question of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be expended in robbing, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely because, on the whole, such loans pay better than any others.
or wait, how about this one:
Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and representatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war [i.e, the Civil War].
or lets take a bit of the article itself, shall we?
The following comment makes one wonder how Spooner would regard anarcho-capitalist protection firms:
Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will.
As always, the only way you can portray Spooner as remotely sympathetic to capitalism is to change its definition, along with the meanings of anarchism, socialism, and any other words that get in your way. Kev 22:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How does opposition to usury equate to opposition to private property? Get a clue. RJII 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Have to resort to insults now, do you? I didn't say that opposition to usury equates to opposition to private property entitlement as the capitalists uphold it, did I? What I have said, and what I will repeat, is that you have not a shred of evidence to suggest that Spooner supported private property entitlement instead of possession via Proudhon. Do you know why you don't have such evidence? Because it doesn't exist. Kev 22:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Kev, you're going to have to do better than that to prove your assertion that, when Spooner says property, he doesn't really mean property, especially when you insist on including the claim "Individualist anarchists do not posit a right to private property" without qualification. The above quotations sound like they could have been written by Murray Rothbard (who was, after all, an inveterate critic of the big banking interests). - Nat Krause 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Spooner, above, is upset about the collusion between banks and government (read closer). He is not against the charging of interest in a free-market banking system. He explicity supports market-driven interest rates in Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure..."If a man have not capital of his own, upon which to bestow his labor, it is necessary that he be allowed to obtain it on credit. And in order that he may be able to obtain it on credit, it is necessary that he be allowed to contract for such a rate of interest as will induce a man, having surplus capital, to loan it to him; for the capitalist cannot, consistently with natural law, be compelled to loan his capital against his will. All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore, nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor. And, of consequence, they are nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restrictions upon the exercise of his right to obtain all the fruits, that he honestly can obtain, from his labor." RJII 16:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A Note on POV
The content of many of the "explanations" of the quotes in this article are highly POV. I just want RJ and Nat to note I have no problem with them citing quotes (in fact this is what you guys should be doing). What I have a problem with is the interpretation of those quotes. If you guys are so certain about your interpretations, then you shouldn't have a problem with allowing people to interpret for themselves. Most of the quotes cites do not go against the libertarian socialist conception of socialism. You guys might want to look up some info. on anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism, and mondragon. All of these are socialist economic systems, and the direct point of all of them is to allow workers the right to work for themselves (rather than being subjugated to the will of some economic master).
Your personal conception of socialism is not the only, nor is it the "usual" conception of socialism. Also using words like "coercive monopoly" when refering to state institutions is highly POV. millerc 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the interpretation of quotes then you why don't you edit the interpretations to your satisfaction? If others don't agree they, and I, will modify your edits. That's how it works. I have no problem with others editing the interpretations. The problem is when someone comes along and deletes them in order to hide that these individuals support a right to private property. And, the common modern definition of socialism is in opposition to private property. Why was the link to the definitions of socialism article deleted? Obviously, by someone who doesn't want people to know about the conflict in definitions. If necessary, I'll just dig up something where someone says that the definitions conflict and use them as a source. It shouldn't be too hard to do, given something so obvious. RJII 20:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not hiding anything. The quotes and links are still there, but the added (and un-cited) notes tagged onto the end of the quotes are highly biased. If I changed them, you would just revert my edits, just as you tried to do when I erased them, and we would be in the same situation we are now.
- The quotes are definitly NPOV, by definition, but for you to add phrases like "not the typical definition of socialism" stinks of bias. If a person called himself a socialist, then its not up to you to as an encyclopedia author to reclassify them as suits your own personal dogma.
- The "definitions of socialism" links to a list of dicionary definitions and hardly constitutes a real analysis of what socialism means. Beyond that, I think your interpretation of those definitions only focuses on those aspects which fit your preconcieved notions.
- I'll make my point clear, I personally think that Ayn Rand was an egoist, but she also called herself an individualist. Its not up to me as an encylopedia editor to say to our readers that her definition of individualism isn't in line with what I think of as individualism. And I don't attempt to edit the article on her to match my own personal ideology. I would expect the same respect from other editors. millerc 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Look, what if there were no direct quotes? There would still be interpretations of these philosophers' positions. There has to be interpretation in an encyclopedia article. No one is saying you have to agree with someone else's interpretations. You can edit their interpretation to what you think is more correct. If someone reverts it, tough luck. That's the way Wikipedia works. But, don't just outright delete them. We don't want an article that is just quotes. There has to be some commentary. By the way, I wasn't talking about you. Someone else was censoring things. RJII 00:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll make my point clear, I personally think that Ayn Rand was an egoist, but she also called herself an individualist. Its not up to me as an encylopedia editor to say to our readers that her definition of individualism isn't in line with what I think of as individualism. And I don't attempt to edit the article on her to match my own personal ideology. I would expect the same respect from other editors. millerc 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sure but the commentary has to be NPOV. This requires representing all sides. I would really appreciate this article not being a "right wingers say...", "anarchists say..." type article.
- Look, I'm trying to work with you, but some of your comments are so biased there's really little I can do to correct them. The comments that I erased add no actual information about what the individualists believed. If you want to add a section about what anarcho-capitalists beleive the individualist believed that would be a much better article structure.
- Frankly, we don't have to have as many quotes, but you saying that someone wasn't a socialist when he called himself a socialist, and saying that you know what most socialists mean when they call themselves socialists is not only POV its arrogant. You can read what they wrote and I'm sure that even someone as biased as you can differentiate between the words that they use and the words your blatantly putting in their mouths. millerc 01:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no interest in stating what "anarcho-capitalists believe." My interest is describing these philosophies accurately. And, the quotes obviously are necessary. Before I put them in, this article claimed that the individualists opposed the existence of private property. Something this essential has to be made explicit for POV-inclined individuals who don't care to take a little time to find out what the posiitions of these people actually are. Without the quotes the article would be back to the same thing --people claiming that these guys opposed private property. By the way, I didn't say that I know what most socialists mean when they call themselves socialist, I said his definition differs in regard to how socialism is commonly defined. That's a fact. Socialism is most commonly defined as opposing private property in favor of collective ownership. RJII 12:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, we don't have to have as many quotes, but you saying that someone wasn't a socialist when he called himself a socialist, and saying that you know what most socialists mean when they call themselves socialists is not only POV its arrogant. You can read what they wrote and I'm sure that even someone as biased as you can differentiate between the words that they use and the words your blatantly putting in their mouths. millerc 01:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No interest in stating what anarcho-capitalists believe? That's all you've been doing. As far as "private property" is concerned the only quote you have that has the term "private property" in it is by Clarence L. Swartz, someone who I willfully will admit ignorance on (oops... I will add Tucker to that millerc 03:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)). This is what I mean by you putting words in other people's mouths, the only thing close to this in the other quotes is the word "property". However, you insist on your idological reinterpretation of their words. You have shown no proof that what these people mean by property is "private property" which is an idologically loaded term.
- Anyone who has basic knowledge of the individidualists anarchists knows that they support private property. It's because of people like you that the quotes need to be there. RJII 12:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Really now? So Stirner supported private property? Gee, I'd like to see your evidence for that. I'll even make you a deal, for every bit of highly interpreted evidence you can get to show that he just might have supported private property if you squint your eyes, I will give flat out clear statement that he rejected it. Kev 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone who has basic knowledge of the individidualists anarchists knows that they support private property. It's because of people like you that the quotes need to be there. RJII 12:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I also find your insistance on using the term "common", for your own narrow view of socialism extremely hypocritical considering your further instance that such a term not be used on the disambig in the anarchism article. The least you could do is edit articles consistantly... millerc 03:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, even looking at the page you linked to (and mostly created) on "common" definitions of socialism, I see the phrase "collective ownership of the means of production" much more often than I see opposition to "private property". The collective ownership of the means of production doesn't exclude people from having personal posessions. So again it seems appearent to me that you are incorrectly inserting your own bias (and using the word private property, precisely because of its misleading nature) even when you are supposedly relying on "common" (and niave) dictionary definitions. millerc 03:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that one can support some private property and not all, such as the means of production. Contrary to your claim, I make no such equivocation. But, again, if you had basic knowledge of this school of anarchists, you would know that the Americans don't support collective ownership of anything, hence the term "individualists" rather than "collectivists." That's why the Tucker quote is there explicitly opposing collective ownership. Individuals still If you knew anything about these guys, you would know that these individuals were highly opposed to "communism." Do you need a quote on that as well? Why don't you just do some research and learn about them for yourself instead of criticizing accurate objective information just because it upsets you that these individuals are not leftists. These individuals are not quite leftists and not quite capitalists --they are something in between. Get over it. RJII 12:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ? I wasn't defining socialism above, I was saying that the page you linked to, and created, gave that definition of socialism (your interpretation of that definition being misleading). Many socialists believe that there are certain things (like say land) that no one can own (collectively or individually). This still goes against that idea of "private property" while at the same time meaning that workers still have full rights to the fruits of their own labor, and still maintain their personal possesions. I wouldn't dispute the fact that the individualists weren't communists. If they were simply anarcho-communists we wouldn't call them something else. Communists believe in a gift economy, as far as I know most of the individualists still supported some sort of market. As far as "collectivism" is concerned, its a term like "left-anarchism" its used almost exclusively by people who want to attack another person's political ideology, which is the type of carelessness I'm starting expect from you. But none of this means that they supported fundamentalist capitalism. My point is that you carelessly attribute things to them that the quotes aren't making certain that its what they actually meant. millerc 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not using "collective" in a pejorative way. What are you talking about? It's a useful and legitimate word to use to disintuish between different kinds of ownership. You used it yourself in your above response. I think the state socialist Mussolini even referred to himself as a "collectivist." Nobody is asserting that these individualist anarchists were capitalists. Quite to the contrary --they definitely were not. But, also, the Americans, being individualists, did not support collective ownership. What is essential about these people is they opposed wage labor. I'll reword the definition of socialism thing if it bothers you so much. RJII 14:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Again with putting words in other people's mouths... Collective (as in a group of people, people who are still individuals) != "collectivism" (an -ism). Also worthy of mention is that individualism (the belief in empowering the individual) != egoism (the belief in self interest--usually interest in material wealth--as the greatest good). I'm glad you decided to reword your statements to make them a little factually more accurate, that's all I was asking for in the first place! millerc 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Did you just call mussolini a state socialist? Are you on crack?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I am. RJII 20:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- lol millerc 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Corporatism being a form of socialism? No, sorry, I think you've just proven as fact your definition of socialism is twisted.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on your definition of "socialism", of course. I'm certain that most people don't consider explicitly anti-left movements like fascism to be socialist, but it's not clear whether this is a consistent application of the common definition or an ad hoc exception. - Nat Krause 05:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Socialism is defined by the historical socialist movement (just as Christianity, or any other major social movement, can only possibly be defined in terms of its historical evolution), not any niave or anti-historical modern politically driven reinterpretation of it. You cannot possibly know what socialism is, without having some idea of its origins and history. millerc 17:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't ask a couple anarcho-capitalists to learn something about the origins and history of a social movment, its a lost cause. Kev 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Socialism is defined by the historical socialist movement (just as Christianity, or any other major social movement, can only possibly be defined in terms of its historical evolution), not any niave or anti-historical modern politically driven reinterpretation of it. You cannot possibly know what socialism is, without having some idea of its origins and history. millerc 17:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on your definition of "socialism", of course. I'm certain that most people don't consider explicitly anti-left movements like fascism to be socialist, but it's not clear whether this is a consistent application of the common definition or an ad hoc exception. - Nat Krause 05:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Corporatism being a form of socialism? No, sorry, I think you've just proven as fact your definition of socialism is twisted.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not using "collective" in a pejorative way. What are you talking about? It's a useful and legitimate word to use to disintuish between different kinds of ownership. You used it yourself in your above response. I think the state socialist Mussolini even referred to himself as a "collectivist." Nobody is asserting that these individualist anarchists were capitalists. Quite to the contrary --they definitely were not. But, also, the Americans, being individualists, did not support collective ownership. What is essential about these people is they opposed wage labor. I'll reword the definition of socialism thing if it bothers you so much. RJII 14:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ? I wasn't defining socialism above, I was saying that the page you linked to, and created, gave that definition of socialism (your interpretation of that definition being misleading). Many socialists believe that there are certain things (like say land) that no one can own (collectively or individually). This still goes against that idea of "private property" while at the same time meaning that workers still have full rights to the fruits of their own labor, and still maintain their personal possesions. I wouldn't dispute the fact that the individualists weren't communists. If they were simply anarcho-communists we wouldn't call them something else. Communists believe in a gift economy, as far as I know most of the individualists still supported some sort of market. As far as "collectivism" is concerned, its a term like "left-anarchism" its used almost exclusively by people who want to attack another person's political ideology, which is the type of carelessness I'm starting expect from you. But none of this means that they supported fundamentalist capitalism. My point is that you carelessly attribute things to them that the quotes aren't making certain that its what they actually meant. millerc 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that one can support some private property and not all, such as the means of production. Contrary to your claim, I make no such equivocation. But, again, if you had basic knowledge of this school of anarchists, you would know that the Americans don't support collective ownership of anything, hence the term "individualists" rather than "collectivists." That's why the Tucker quote is there explicitly opposing collective ownership. Individuals still If you knew anything about these guys, you would know that these individuals were highly opposed to "communism." Do you need a quote on that as well? Why don't you just do some research and learn about them for yourself instead of criticizing accurate objective information just because it upsets you that these individuals are not leftists. These individuals are not quite leftists and not quite capitalists --they are something in between. Get over it. RJII 12:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No interest in stating what anarcho-capitalists believe? That's all you've been doing. As far as "private property" is concerned the only quote you have that has the term "private property" in it is by Clarence L. Swartz, someone who I willfully will admit ignorance on (oops... I will add Tucker to that millerc 03:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)). This is what I mean by you putting words in other people's mouths, the only thing close to this in the other quotes is the word "property". However, you insist on your idological reinterpretation of their words. You have shown no proof that what these people mean by property is "private property" which is an idologically loaded term.
please explain this sentence
"However, most individualists rejected interest and all endorsed a form of private property stemming from Proudhon's conception of personal possession, which is distinct from the private property entitlement advocated by anarcho-capitalists." There has to be a better way of saying whatever this is trying to say. What is it trying to say exactly? .."Proudhon's conception of personal possession"? .."property entitlement"?? "rejected interest"? Proudhon doesn't reject interest, he rejects government enforced banking monopoly which he believes keeps rates unnaturally high [2] The whole sentence is bizarre ..it doesn't make much sense. RJII 03:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You really haven't ever read Proudhon have you RJ? Why the hell are you continuing to remove and edit articles about him and his ideas when you don't even have a passing familiarity with them? Kev 08:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have read Proudhon. Why won't you explain the sentence? Either you're a horrible writer or you have no clue what you're saying, or both. Which is it? RJII 13:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't already know what possession is, and you don't already know that Tucker advocated possession in the tradition of Proudhon, then you have not read Proudhon, or you have not read Tucker, or you have not read either. I'm guessing the latter. There is nothing at all bizarre about the sentence, all of the parts you questioned are standard terms for individualists. If you want to learn more about individualism, I suggest you make the effort to do so. Kev 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The sentence is long gone. RJII 20:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't already know what possession is, and you don't already know that Tucker advocated possession in the tradition of Proudhon, then you have not read Proudhon, or you have not read Tucker, or you have not read either. I'm guessing the latter. There is nothing at all bizarre about the sentence, all of the parts you questioned are standard terms for individualists. If you want to learn more about individualism, I suggest you make the effort to do so. Kev 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have read Proudhon. Why won't you explain the sentence? Either you're a horrible writer or you have no clue what you're saying, or both. Which is it? RJII 13:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kevehs wholesale reverting major info and orgnization
Kevehs, you are unjustified doing such wholesale reverts. I could have reverted everything you did, but chose to modify. Included in your wholesale revert you removed a whole new section from the article. And what is with your complaint :" RJ removed content with his edits, and biased what he left" ..biased toward what?? Your paranoia is ridiculous. RJII 18:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- lol, the "whole new section" was just a copy and paste of what I'd wrote, which you purposefully split up to skew the article. You gave the article its very own "individualism and capitalism" section which it most certainly does not merit. You can save the in-depth comparisons for where they belong, on the anarcho-capitalist page. You also put in comments about Wendy McElroy at an individualist anarchist, which is POV. There is no paranoia here, you have an evident bias that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualism, and more that collectivism and individualism are inherently hostile to one another. Worse, you are clearly ignorant of our history, you don't even know that Bakunin's work arose from that of Proudhon's, thus you continue to remove the sentence that collectivist anarchism arose, like individualism, from mutualism. Kev 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You're the one who wrote about the relation between 19th century individualists anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in this article. It makes no sense to cloud up most of the intro with talk of anarcho-capitalism. It should have its own section. Yes, I noted that the modern individualist anarchist Wendy McElroy regards ancap to be a form of individualist anarchism. But I also noted Joe Peacott, who is a contemporary individualist anarchists opposed to anarcho-capitalism, who regards ancap as a form of individualist anarchism. Who in their right mind would not regard it so? It's certainly not collectivist anarchism. As far as your claim that collectivist anarchism rose from mutualism, that's just absurd. Mutualism was a result of anarchist thought, not the root of it. Anarchism came first. RJII 18:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Did I say that mutualism was the root of anarchism? No, I said that Mutualism was the root of collectivism. If you don't believe me, please take a look at any of the writings of Bakunin. Further, it is quite disputable that Wendy McElroy is an individualit. As for what part of anarchism capitalism is properly to be considered a part of, well that is easy... none. Kev 20:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You said that collectivist anarchism arose from mutualism. That's not true. Collectivist anarchism came before it. RJII 21:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Okay RJ, when did collectivist anarchism first arise, and when did mutualism first arise? Back up your claims.
- You said that collectivist anarchism arose from mutualism. That's not true. Collectivist anarchism came before it. RJII 21:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Did I say that mutualism was the root of anarchism? No, I said that Mutualism was the root of collectivism. If you don't believe me, please take a look at any of the writings of Bakunin. Further, it is quite disputable that Wendy McElroy is an individualit. As for what part of anarchism capitalism is properly to be considered a part of, well that is easy... none. Kev 20:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You're the one who wrote about the relation between 19th century individualists anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in this article. It makes no sense to cloud up most of the intro with talk of anarcho-capitalism. It should have its own section. Yes, I noted that the modern individualist anarchist Wendy McElroy regards ancap to be a form of individualist anarchism. But I also noted Joe Peacott, who is a contemporary individualist anarchists opposed to anarcho-capitalism, who regards ancap as a form of individualist anarchism. Who in their right mind would not regard it so? It's certainly not collectivist anarchism. As far as your claim that collectivist anarchism rose from mutualism, that's just absurd. Mutualism was a result of anarchist thought, not the root of it. Anarchism came first. RJII 18:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm sure you are correct and all the historians are quite wrong when they say silly things like, "Proudhon was a solitary thinker who refused to admit that he had created a system and abhorred the idea of founding a party. There was thus something ironical about the breadth of influence that his ideas later developed. They were important in the First International and later became the basis of anarchist theory as developed by Bakunin (who once remarked that “Proudhon was the master of us all”) and the anarchist writer Peter Kropotkin."[3]
- Until you provide some counter evidence, I'm not goint to waste my time talking to you and will simply revert your plainly wrong edits. Kev 21:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My counter evidence is logic. Proudhon didn't come up with anarchism as a result of him envisioning mutualism. Mutualism is the application of his anarchist principles. You've got to find a better way to get whatever point you're trying to make across, because what you're saying is just not coherent. RJII 21:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why are you deleteting the note that anarcho-capitalism is regarded by contemporary individidualist anarchists as a form of individualist anarchism? You're the only contemporary individualist anarchist that thinks it's not and you're not noteable. You need to be more NPOV. RJII 03:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the only one? lol. RJ, your sources are arguably not significant enough for inclusion. You give me a few notable individualists to add to Peacott and we can put in a sentence that some individualists believe they are compatible. In fact, I will match your evidence with oppositional evidence so that we can balance the sentence by saying it goes both ways, which is probably closest to the truth. But one not-so-well-known individualist who rejects capitalism himself but has an odd opinion on the merit of its claims does not a significant source make. Kev 05:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You aren't able to provide even one contemporary individualist anarchist who thinks anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individidualist anarchism. You're being absurd. RJII 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What, is that all you want? Why, I can provide tons of evidence for that if you'd like. But lets start with the basics, how about if I contradict your claim that Joe Peacott accepts that anarcho-capitalists are part of the individualist tradition?
- These organizations and publications were 'rediscovered' in the 1960s and 1970s, with both capitalist and some non-capitalist anarchists tracing the origins of their modern movements to the old American libertarian individualists. The anarchist capitalists, however, reject a key part of the thought of the individualists, that wealth is created by individual labor and that rent, interest, and profit are ways to steal this wealth from its rightful owners. Their support for capitalist economic forms puts them outside the tradition of these staunchly anticapitalist anarchists. From An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought - Joe Peacott 2003
- Yes, that is Peacott's position. Anarcho-capitalalists are outside of the tradition of anticapitalist individual anarchists. But that doesn't mean they're not a form of individualist anarchism. They're not just traditional individualist anarchists. Peacott thinks anarcho-capitalists are a contemporary form of individualist anarchism.. "There are all sorts of people who label themselves individualist anarchists and we often disagree among ourselves both about what to do now, and what the future might look like. For instance, the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists. However, there are other individualists, like myself and the individualists of the past, such as Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, and John Henry Mackay, who reject capitalism as much as they reject communism." -Peacott. Get it through your head, dude. If you favor collective property, you're a collectivist anarchist. If you favor private property, you're an individualist anarchist. RJII 00:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You are misusing evidence. Peacott's standard here is that anyone who claims to be an individualist is. If you held that standard, you would have to eat the last sentence of your response and change several of your edits. You want things both ways? Regardless, you will note above that I did not claim that he considers capitalists not to be individualists, so this is an irrelevant tangent. Kev 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You know what is fun for me here RJ? Its that I already know that the evidence you need is out there, but I also know that you are too lame to actually try to find it. Kev 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- These organizations and publications were 'rediscovered' in the 1960s and 1970s, with both capitalist and some non-capitalist anarchists tracing the origins of their modern movements to the old American libertarian individualists. The anarchist capitalists, however, reject a key part of the thought of the individualists, that wealth is created by individual labor and that rent, interest, and profit are ways to steal this wealth from its rightful owners. Their support for capitalist economic forms puts them outside the tradition of these staunchly anticapitalist anarchists. From An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought - Joe Peacott 2003
By the way, I hate to interrupt, but I'm curious who the modern individualist anarchists are that Kev thinks are more prominent than Joel Peacott, or whatever his name is. - Nat Krause 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Would love to tell you, but I'd be doing RJs homework for him. If he can be a good little boy and back up his claims for once, given that there are at least two very prominent individualists waiting right beyond his google, I will happily modify his sentence to bring it in to context. Until then, he is just editing out of ignorance. Kev 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Google is for wimps. RJII 04:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nat, he won't tell you because he doesn't know. I've seen this kind of avoidance from him before. Very transparent. Maybe if he plays with his google long enough he'll come up with something. RJII 04:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Easy to refute that. Nat, you give me your email address and I will email you the two individuals. Until then, I really like watching RJ squirm due to his horrible fear of actually making an effort to inform himself. Kev 06:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You have no business changing the edit unless you present here any contemporary individidualist anarchist you may eventually find that disagrees that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, I can still maintain the claim that a single individual, one not particularly well known, is not a significant source. And I do. Kev 18:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One? I have two. The other one, McElroy, is very well known. You're the only self-described individualist anarchist that disagrees. And, you don't count. RJII 20:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not the only individualist anarchist who disagrees, you will find dozens on various forums such as flag.blackened.net, infoshop.org, crimethinc and others. McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist, of course she thinks your tradition is compatible with individualism, if she didn't your claims to the label anarchist would be false even at the surface. Again, RJ, I'm happy to accept your evidence when you are willing to provide it. Until then, your squirming and posturing is fun. Kev 22:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Are you blind? I've already provided evidence that Peacott and McElroy regard anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism. All you've done is blather a lot of nothing. RJII 23:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to only want to beat your chest and spin wheels on this issue. I've stated my reasons for rejecting the evidence you provided and set extremely low requirements for sufficient evidence. As such, I will now cease to respond to you until you provide that evidence. Kev 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Are you blind? I've already provided evidence that Peacott and McElroy regard anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism. All you've done is blather a lot of nothing. RJII 23:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not the only individualist anarchist who disagrees, you will find dozens on various forums such as flag.blackened.net, infoshop.org, crimethinc and others. McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist, of course she thinks your tradition is compatible with individualism, if she didn't your claims to the label anarchist would be false even at the surface. Again, RJ, I'm happy to accept your evidence when you are willing to provide it. Until then, your squirming and posturing is fun. Kev 22:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One? I have two. The other one, McElroy, is very well known. You're the only self-described individualist anarchist that disagrees. And, you don't count. RJII 20:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, I can still maintain the claim that a single individual, one not particularly well known, is not a significant source. And I do. Kev 18:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You have no business changing the edit unless you present here any contemporary individidualist anarchist you may eventually find that disagrees that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Easy to refute that. Nat, you give me your email address and I will email you the two individuals. Until then, I really like watching RJ squirm due to his horrible fear of actually making an effort to inform himself. Kev 06:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kev keeps deleting references to the American tradition
Kev, stop deleting references to the American tradition. That tradition is very noteable and uniquely American. What is now ..to be an anarchist one has to be anti-Americans? RJII 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are still referances throughout the article to the american tradition. What I am removing is your over the top continuous referances to america as though it is the only place where individualism has ever existed, or as though it is somehow anathema to collectivist anarchism. It is an overly simplistic dichotomy that is already in place in the article, it doesn't need you to hammer it in every other sentence. Kev 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't think individualism is anathema to collectivism then that tells me you have no clue. Individualism is the opposite of collectivism.
- I was refering to America, note the context. Kev 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- There is no reason to call it "individualist anarchism" if it is not distinctly different than collectivist anarchism. As far as the American dilineation, American individualist anarchism supports private property, unlike Euro-individualists such as Stirner. American individualists were influenced by individualistic liberalism in America. The staunch private property tradition in anarchism was not present outside America. Your objections are strange indeed. It leads me to believe that you're simply anti-American. Why else would you want to exclude such noteable and interesting information? RJII 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- How about, because it is already present in the article, and you are merely repeating it? Kev 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's only touched on in the intro and not very clearly at that. If it's in the intro then it should be talked about in the body. RJII 03:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is from the body as it stood before your edit and stands now: "The American tradition of individualist anarchists, which began with Josiah Warren, was heavily influenced by the American liberals of the time who stood staunchly in support of private property while opposing ownership rights to unused land. Other American individualists included Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Ezra Heywood."
- Now get over it and stop repeating your propaganda in every article. Kev 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the one who authored that and that's what you were deleting, hence this discussion. RJII 04:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, if pretending that this was about one statement, rather than half a dozen you put all over the article, makes it easier for you. Then gratz, conflict over. Kev 04:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Kev deleting info that indiv anarchism in the liberal tradition is called "liberal anarchism."
Kev is deleting this.. "(sometimes called "liberal-anarchism" [4] [5])" Kev, why are you deleting this information? You are becoming increasingly vandalistic for no apparent reason other than some bizarre anti-American or anti-anarcho-capitalism paranoia. RJII 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Its odd how you always find time to accuse others of personal attacks, yet you increasingly focus on my character rather than my edits. Is this becoming some kind of personal issue with you?
- I have explained why I deleted the information. First, it is not a widespread usage. Yes, it is one term used to identify individualists by a certain sub-set of people, one term amongst half a dozen. So there is no relevant reason to add it into the article at this particular point, or in the absence of all other possible referances. Other than, of course, that it serves your clear purpose of closer identification between AC and anarchist individualism. As for you calling me a vandal, I will take that as an attempt at humor by someone who has on multiple occasions advocated a never ending wikipedia edit war. Kev 06:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Again, you display paranoia as if I'm some kind of secret agent working to promote anarcho-capitalism. It's ridiculous. That they're called "liberal anarchists" is significant, and it takes a mere one or two inch space on the page to mention it. You're out of line. RJII 13:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know where you are coming from with this paranoia bit. But your motivations are a side-bar. The referance to this particular label for them is insignificant and the only relevant reasons I can think of putting it there are POV ones. Kev 13:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- What POV? The individualist anarchists were OPPOSED to capitalism. That's a given. No one is disputing that. All this POV stuff is only in your head. RJII 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- The POV that individualist anarchisma and anarcho-capitalism share the same tradition. And really RJ, anyone who has taken a close look at your edits would be hard pressed to deny that they are POV based, even people sympathetic to them have claimed as much in the past. Kev 14:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
When is the CIA, User:RJII and cohorts going to stop making POV articles like this one? Inapproriate?! -max rspct 12:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- What is POV about it? RJII 15:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Other than the fact that it includes NO new information that is not already present in the individualist anarchism, individualism and anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-capitalist article? How about the fact that it exists merely to put your own personal spin on the information already in all those articles? Kev 09:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- This guy is too funny. RJII 16:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Kev's nitpicking
Kev, why do you insist on deleting this sentence: "Warren initiated the American tradition, though Proudhon did have influence subsequently." Do you have some information that there was someone before Warren? According to historians, Warren was the first and he was working independently of Proudhon. Let me guess, you think this has something to do with an anarcho-capitalism conspiracy. LOL. RJII 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are clearly not attempting to engage in a dialogue. When you are able to restrain yourself I would be happy to explain why the claim that Warren "initiated" the "American tradition" of individualism is POV. Kev 09:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ok let's hear it. Who was the first American individualist anarchist? RJII 14:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
worldview
I put the worldview tag on the article. I feel it focuses too much on the Americans. Nothing is said of Godwin, little is said of Stirner, and nothing is said of Proudhon. While most of the individualists are Americans, the others are important as well. I'll try to add some stuff. RJII 05:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Just noting I'm doing a lot of editing. Trying to incorporate additional philosophers besides the Americans and re-arranging stuff as a result. RJII 21:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Stirner picture
Nixdorf, you deleted the Stirner picture in the article with another, and said that the former was a "bogus image." The one you put in was stick figure ..how much more bogus can you get? RJII 19:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- The "stick figure" (drawn by Friedrich Engels) is the only surviving portrait of Stirner. Any photos are very bogus since photography was not invented (well technically, but not in any sense in widespread use) when Stirner lived. Nixdorf 21:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Photography was in use while he was alive. He died in 1856. Anyway, if it's not a real photograph then it's drawing, right? Why would that drawing be more bogus than the stick figure drawing? RJII 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Further the image is taken from here [6] and if you read the text below it says "Kurt W. Fleming (l) und Max Stirner (r) irgendwann zwischen 1844 und heute" but Kurt W. Fleming is the director of the Max Stirner archive in Leipzig and is alive today. Is that image source not bogus? The "stick drawing" appears in several books on anarchism which you can find on the open market in case you want to check it I can give you references. I scanned it from a pamphlet from the early 1900s. Nixdorf 21:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I also think the original drawing by Engels is more accurate as it is the only drawing made by a person who has admittedly and undoubtedly seen the man and know his looks. Nixdorf 21:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Photography was in use while he was alive. He died in 1856. Anyway, if it's not a real photograph then it's drawing, right? Why would that drawing be more bogus than the stick figure drawing? RJII 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)