Talk:Left anarchism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Obscure term

This page is meant to lend credence to an obscure term, in order to imply that anarchism is divided along equal lines between left and right, which is non-factual.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is meant to provide an encyclopedic entry for a common term. A Google test brings up 3290 entries (and this is subtracting "post-left anarchism"). Also, the anarchism article as it stands now includes other types of anarchism that don't quite fit into left anarchism. RJII 03:45, 11 Apr 2005

This is a very uncommon term, used in a limited context, solely by those angered by the history of the anarchist movement which prevents them from being accepted into that movement. This article also has no possibility of ever becoming anything more than a dictionary definition, which would be difficult to do, since it doesn't exist in the general public. This article should either be deleted, or redirected towards anarchism, as the way ancaps use it (who are the only ones who do use it), that is what it means. The forms of anarchism which "don't quite fit left anarchism", that being "post-left" anarchism, are still anti-capitalist, but reject what they deem "the old left". So in the way this term is used by ancaps, even "post-left" anarchists would be considered "left anarchists".-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Other philosophies in the Anarchism article don't quite fit in Left Anarchism, such as "anarcha-feminism." Wendy Mcelroy is cited as an anarcha-feminist but she's pro-capitalist. RJII 03:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an error, as that article uses a definition that means her inclusion is incorrect. Fixed.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're playing at, but if you're going to post such a right view of anarchism as your link when the article isn't even an article yet, here's the anarchist FAQ.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy is an individual anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist. She even wrote a book about it: "19th Century Individualist Anarchism in America." RJII 04:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She can claim what she wants, but individualist anarchism is anti-capitalist, and we know she isn't. So that doesn't work.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy has said herself that if the individualist anarchists of the past were alive today they would all be anarcho-capitalists. In other words, by her own reasoning, she is an anarcho-capitalist. Further, all her positions are identical to those of anarcho-capitalists, but not identical to those of individualist anarchists, meaning that by any standard (even her own), she is an anarcho-capitalist. This isn't an isolated event with Wendy either. She also considers herself a feminist, and yet she spends most of her time decrying traditional feminism and touting her own personal brand of "feminism" as having a legitimate alternate tradition. Fine and dandy in its own right, but when someone claims to be an alien from Mars because now the word Mars means Texas that doesn't mean we should include them on the alien's from Mars wikipedia page. Kev 05:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

A majority governmental vote is sought to determine whether the article should stay? That's not a very anarchistic thing to do. RJII 04:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lol, RJ, you must really be getting desperate to have your voice unilaterally carried on wikipedia to resort to this kind of specious argument. Kev 05:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A note for Voters on the Vote for Deletion

This version was deleted by a POV-inclined individual:

"Left Anarchism' refers to any socialist or communist philosophy that opposes the existence of government and private ownership of property. This philosophy favors a society based on voluntary interaction between individuals, and group or public ownership of property, as opposed to private ownership as in capitalism.

"Left anarchists consider the private ownership of property, most noteably the means of production, as being a coercive institution. They believe that this arrangement of property can only be upheld by the existence of governmental authority that protects the interests of the capitalist class (those who own and control capital)."

- Defining anarchism from the anarchist faq, written by anarchists who oppose capitalism
- Anarchism: Two Kinds by Wendy McElroy, a self-described individualist anarchist who favors capitalism.

and replaced with an inferior version. The article has much potential and should not be deleted. Whether you are against left anarchism or not, it should be represented. Thanks. (Also, "left anarchism" comes up on Google 3920 times, after subtracting "post-left anarchism") RJII 05:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another note to voters. This has nothing to do with being "against left anarchism" or not. It has to do with RJ attempting to control all aspects of the anarchism articles on wikipedia, going so far as to redefine old words or create entirely new uses in order to grandstand. In this case he is taking a term never used by anarchists themselves and ascribing it a make-believe tradition in order to push the anarcho-capitalist POV that traditional anarchism is actually "left" anarchism. Kev 05:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: this comes from a self-avowed anarchist. (note the appeal to democratic rule). RJII 05:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: anarchism involves direct democracy.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't if a majority is able to rule over the minority. A true anarchist won't vote in this ..unless he chooses to sell-out just this time. RJII 05:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: anarchists believe in the majority stopping the rule of the minority, sometimes by force.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

So, anarchists set up a governmental system to prevent the minority from coercing the majority. Right. RJII 05:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: If we all use this resource together (you included), and you impose your bull on us, us stopping you isn't coercive. You imposing is.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Note: You don't own the drives Wikipedia is on. RJII 06:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: Your appeal to reality deflates your original points. Please return to theory and semantics, and pretend we are living out what can be anarchism if we so choose, as you were doing before.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

RJ, really, get over your silliness. No one is being imprisoned or even censored here, no houses are being invaded or political speech silenced. What you seem to think is resort to "rule of majority" vote is merely a deletion of the page, equivalent to the power of any individual user to blank it at any time. You don't like the deletion, recreate it, and the community will respond in kind as they should. On multiple occasions your stated preferance on wikipedia is an eternal war of editors. Some people, both anarchist and not, like to actually work with other people and build consensus rather than to constantly attack others. A non-binding democratic vote one method of building consensus, and that is all that would occur here. The page delete is not permanent, nor is it an effective power that is limited to only a few. Rather, it is a symbol that the community at large disagrees with its existence, and one of the reasons it is effective is that most people (yourself excepted I'm sure), are able to figure out that spending all their time railing against the rest of the editors is a waste of time that can be more productively spent elsewhere.

Now please, stop your trolling, or at least troll somewhere else for awhile. Kev 08:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, so-called anarchists are free to support majority democratic rule if they wish. I just thought it was funny. RJII 15:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either you didn't read what I just wrote, or you intentionally ignored it so that you could make that smug little comment. That means you are a troll. That means I can revert you now without any feelings of guilt. Thanks RJ. Kev 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Most of the current anarchism page should be moved to this page, w the disambig page being placed @ Anarchism. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kev deleting external links

Kev has been deleting the following external links, apparently because they don't coincide with his POV:

• Anarchist Theory FAQ lists and compares both anti- and pro-capitalist forms of anarchism
• Anarchism: Two Kinds by Wendy McElroy, a self-described individualist anarchist who favors capitalism.

First, your description of both links implies that they are neutral, which is anything but the case given that they are both anarcho-capitalists. Second, both of these individuals are already linked to several times throughout the anarchy related articles, and these specific urls are themselves linked to more than once. You are simply trying to flood wikipedia with propaganda by putting McElroy's links on every page that you can, which is unacceptable given that she is a barely notable figure who already has plenty of coverage. Kev 00:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the anarchist FAQ that you leave in there is neutral? It's written by "traditional" anarchists. Both FAQ's are POV. And since they are, there should be external links for both POV's --the POV that there are only socialist anarchisms and the POV that there are left anarchisms as well as other anarchisms. Stop trying to censor what conflicts with your POV. I, and others are perfectly willing to let both FAQ's stand. Why are you the only one that's not? It's because your POV is overwhelming your ability to be objective. RJII 00:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who objects to your POV mongering, but you already know that. Anarcho-capitalism is at best a fringe within anarchism, NPOV requires that wikipedia spend time on anarcho-capitalism because it is notable, it does not require that it spend the same amount of time on anarcho-capitalism. As such, one link to the highly biased Faq of brian caplan is enough, attempts to link it to several articles is just grandstanding. The same is true of McElroy. Kev 01:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting links kev. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 07:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will stop deleting links the moment RJ stops spamming the same ones all over the anarchism articles. Kev 09:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So that's how you think? Wow. Unbelievable. This article has nothing to do with what I or anyone else does in other articles. Don't screw up an article as a petty attempt to getting back at how an individual has edited other articles. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?" Don't be a baby. RJII 15:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "getting back" at anyone. It has to do with not allowing you to flood wikipedia with links of a fringe-fringe movement in an attempt to over-emphasize it. Of course, I explained this explicitly above, but like Sam you seem at this point to only be interested in smug sniping, rather than doing something productive. Kev 20:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be careful, disagreeing w kev displays a bias ;) Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Millerc, you reverted by edits says "rv, RJII is trying to hide the fact this term is used almost exclusively by opponents to anarchism" What are you talking about? Why would I want to hide that? All I did was move it to later in the paragraph. It's awkward to begin an article like that. I don't understand why you would think I'm trying to "hide" it. What would be the point? Morever, what s your point in bringing it up in the first place? I'm not sure where you're coming from. If you're trying to make it out as a pejorative term, you're wrong. It's not. RJII 17:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 11 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of no consensus. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Left anarchism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that we got the attempted censorship out of the way, let's see if we can get rid of the tag. How is this article factually disputed? RJII 13:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. Dave (talk)

By your attempts to insert Bill White as evidence for the existence of "left and right" anarchism, by your attempts to twist the definitions of private property, of socialism, and individualist anarchism, as well as anarchism itself.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I put in the Bill White link because he's decribing third positionism which tries to reconcile left and right anarchism. I'm not trying to twist anything. RJII 21:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

individualist anarchists

Che, please stop inserting that individualist anarchists oppose private property. I quote from individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker: ""Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist" RJII 12:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been putting in that they opposed Capitalism, not private property, you're the one who edited the sentence so that it says that.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

But I edited it to say that before you put in individualist anarchists. It's not descriptive enough just to say left anarchists oppose capitalism. You're trying to tailor the definition so you can include individual anarchists, when individual anarchists support some parts of capitalism and reject other parts. You have to keep in mind that those historical individuals were not defining capitalism as it is commonly defined now. Likewise, for how they use the term "socialism." They way you want the article edited only serves to deceive and misinform the reader. RJII 12:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They considered capitalism coercive. That clearly places then in the "left" you have invented. You are clearly tailoring this entire article to further justify a non-existant link between ancap websites and the anarchist movement. It is only in your mind that an ideology that defines itself as opposed to capitalism, and in some cases even as socialist, could be considered not to be "left".-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 13:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

They opposed everything about capitalism as they defined capitalism, but they didn't oppose everything about capitalism as it is commonly defined now. They certainly didn't think the private ownership of capital (essential to today's definition of capitalism) was "coercive." They supported private property including private ownership of capital; what they opposed was a state-backed "monopoly" on it. For Tucker, this was a monopoly on banking where government would not let anyone who wished to start a bank or print currency, and land where government enforcing rights to land not being used. Also, Tucker did not oppose trading labor for wages as long as employer and employee both received equal pay for equal time worked. And, even though they opposed this they didn't see it as coercive, and in fact, considered it to be coercive to use force to break up such a contractual relationship. Tucker called it "invasive." Instead of using coercion to "overthrow" such a situation, they wanted to set up their own mutualist business organizations and "compete." Just to outright say that individualists oppose capitalism is false. What is true is that they oppose some aspects of it, and support others. Let's be honest, it's not clear-cut enough to say that they're left anarchists. RJII 14:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not about anything

This article is not about anything. It is only about the term "left anarchism", which is rather pointless. Articles should be about things. — Helpful Dave 13:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left anarchism is a "thing." Would you say, for example, that an automobile is not a thing? There are several different vehicles that fall under "automobile" but that doesn't mean an automobile is not a thing. Likewise for left-anarchism. A few different types of anarchism fall under left anarchism. Left anarchism is a "thing." RJII 14:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Left] anarchism is a thing and is what the Anarchism article is about. That leaves this article not talking about anything in particular not covered in a more expansive article. So, it is just about the term "left anarchism" and not any actual thing (in this case the thing is a movement and a philosophy). — Helpful Dave 15:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Anarchism article is all over the place. It's a big mess and talks about more than left anarchism. It goes into anarcha-feminism and other such oddities. It even includes post-left anarchism. How could that possibly be left anarchism when it rejects left anarcism? The quality and logic of that article abysmal.RJII 19:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left anarchism is not a thing, it's a term used by opponents to refer to the negative of their own beliefs, creating an imaginary dichotomy that is rarely even conceived of. I've mostly seen it used by anarcho-capitalists in reference to anarchism. Post-leftists use "left" in a different context so their use of the term isn't really consequential. This really should be speedy deleted. --Tothebarricades 23:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are not serious, but it ain't funny, either. Rl 11:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite serious. --Tothebarricades 01:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Then I strongly recommend you read up on the criteria for speedy deletion. Rl 06:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

STOGIHWSIEGHOIHEI

ENOUGH! Why do you insist on reverting back to private property? It is clear that opposing capitalism would be considered "left", whether you oppose private property or not. Would you consider social democrats not ot be left wing then?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not clear at all that someone says he opposes capitalism but favors private property (including capital) is "left." He wouldn't be using the word "capitalism" in the normal way.

Once again, Social Democrats generally say they oppose capitalism in a vague manner, but do not oppose private property. They are still considered to be left-wing.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 12:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

If "they say they oppose capitalism in a vague manner" then what does that tell you? It tells you that labeling someone as a left-wing because the say they oppose capitalism doesn't really tell you anything. What exactly is it that they're opposing? If they're not opposing all of capitalism then they're not opposing capitalism, but some particular element(s) of capitalism. It makes sense to just spell them out. RJII 15:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not in the definition it doesn't. You make it sound like all you're doing is adding detail, when in reality, you're changing the meaning of the term. Or else you wouldn't remove individualist anarchism everytime you did it. Explain in broad terms, opposition to capitalism, then go into detail about how each opposes capitalism in the body if you want. But don't pretend you're just expanding on how they oppose capitalism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 16:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

If someone does not oppose the private ownership of capital then they do not oppose capitalism. Many individualist anarchists do not oppose it. If these historical figuressaid they opposed capitalism, then obviously they weren't referring to capitalism as it is defined today. Therefore, you're doing a disservice to the reader by telling them that individualist anarchists oppose capitalism. Almost everyone, if not everyone today, understands capitalism to mean, at least, private ownership of the means of production (capital). Social democrats do indeed oppose capitalism, since they favor a gradual move toward public ownership of the means of production. Most individual anarchists aspired to no such thing and explicitly opposed that. RJII 16:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Kev, your complaint is the article is misrepresenting traditional anarchism? what the hell is traditional anarchism? Anarchism is a set of movements. There is no monolithic "tradition" as you might romantically like to believe. Anyway, can you be specific so we can fix the article? Or edit the article to your liking ..let's start warring. RJII 05:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be as polite as possible, fuck you and your "eternal war" wikipedia philosophy. Now for the specific areas in which this article was a horrible loss from day one:

Personal attack overlooked. RJII 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are an idiot RJ, overlook that as well. Kev 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack overlooked. RJII 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"the philosophies under the rubric of left anarchism are sometimes called "collectivist anarchism" to distinguish from individualist anarchist philosophies." - This creates a false dichotomy, given that many individualist anarchists consider themselves leftists.

Whether this is a false dichotomy or not is not relevant. It's simply factual that this distinction is sometimes made. Sure, some or many individualists consider themselves leftists. But this covered, as it says whether they can be included is a matter of dispute. RJII 15:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

""Left anarchists" consider capitalism, most notably wage labour and often private ownership of the means of production, as being a coercive or exploitative institution. As an alternative to private ownership, they advocate collectivist ownership." Not true. SOME left anarchists advocate collective ownership, some do not.

It's a matter of dispute whether one can be a leftist and at the same time support privately owned means of production and free markets. RJII 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a matter of dispute, which is precisely why wikipedia should not be used to declare something about "left anarchists" that may or may not even be true". Kev 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "left anarchism" typically includes the three philosophies listed. There's not much dispute about that. What's disputable is whether individualist anarchism is included in that. I personally have never seen it listed under that rubric. If it were up to me, the article wouldn't even mention individualist anarchism, since I think it's irrelevant in this context. RJII 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good thing that the state if wikipedia articles is not up to you. Kev 16:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The position of individualist anarchism in this scheme is a matter of dispute since these anarchists have favored some aspects of capitalism but opposed others;" is worded wrong. By this wording, one could say that the traditional anarchists favor some aspects of capitalism, because the implication is that capitalism in entailed by some of the things individualists supported. But it isn't, thus, the wording gives the wrong impression. Kev 11:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here, but if you're denying that individualists anarchists support some practicies consistent with capitalism, nothing could be further from the truth. RJII 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Every human philosophy can be said to share "some practices consistent with capitalism" if you take a vague enough standard, this statement tells us nothing. What I am saying is that individualists do favor some aspects of markets that capitalists also favor, but that this does not mean they favor capitalism anymore than the fact that socialists favor some forms of social organization that capitalists also favor means that socialists support capitalism. Kev 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you're coming from here. No one is claiming that the individualist anarchists supported capitalism. Obviously, they opposed it, but they also opposed collective ownership of property. Left anarchists are typically understood to oppose private property. Being a left anarchist, isn't as simple as opposing capitalism. Left anarchists are collectivists, by typical understanding. RJII 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this any more clear. Saying that individualist anarchists supported aspects of capitalism is literally true, but it is misleading because almost every philosophy supports aspects of capitalism, it means nothing and is only worded as such to give the impression that there is more agreement between individualism and capitalism than there actually is. Kev 23:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is? I haven't noticed that. What do you suggest it should say about individualist anarchism then? RJII 23:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first half of the sentence covers the informative part, the second half can be dropped without losing any real content and would avoid the problem altogether. Kev 23:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. RJII 16:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then I suppose you have two choices, fix it yourself, or accept the new NPOV tag. Kev

You can dispute it all you want but you're wrong that it's not NPOV. RJII 17:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is demonstrating a particular POV, and that POV is disputed, that makes it an NPOV dispute. Kev 22:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Throwing phrases like "anarcho-capitalist polemic" around without any citations whatsoever is npov; I have restored the tag. Skomorokh ^incite 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

I don't think the recent changes to the intro are an improvement. I didn't see the need for condensing, but now I see the need to explain it again in a way that is easy to understand for people who are not familiar with the subject. Rl 17:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not say in one sentence and less words what was taking two sentences and more words? It makes for more efficient reading and saves hard drive space. RJII 17:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saves hard drive space? lol. Not that a few ascii chars take that much memory. Everytime someone changes the page, the old copy is stored; so I would think the act of saving a new version would take more hard drive space. millerc 02:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You must love the latest changes by Kevehs then, because it's even shorter now. — Anyhow, efficient reading is about how long it takes a reader to understand what's being said, and that is not measured by the number of characters in the leading paragraph. Rl 07:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

deletion

This page should be deleted. In fact i am going to post it up as such. Left anarchism dosen't exist - it is an invented term by anarcho-capitalists. -max rspct 09:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad idea. This page just recently came back alive from a VfD. Rl 10:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's probably no point in VfD'ing it again right away. Someday, in the far-flung, future, this page should be merged with most of what is at anarchism now. The thing that's disputed is mostly just where that merged article will be located. - Nat Krause 16:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collectivist vs Communist anarchists

You continue to refuse to educate yourself on this and expect others to do with work for you. But the evidence is right out there for you to grab at any time. Still, I will make you a deal RJ. If you agree to actually apologise for making edits out of ignorance, I will HAPPILY supply you with evidence that the collectivist and communist anarchists were once at odds over various issues. Agreed? Kev 05:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You've got to be kidding if you think I'm going to bow down to you. And, you know I won't. And you're happy that I won't. Because, you have no such evidence. As usual, you're very predictable and transparent. RJII 05:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Collectivist anarchism" is just another term for "communist anarchism." Where an Earth would you get the idea that they're two different schools of anarchism? RJII 05:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Its not bowing down to someone to admit a mistake. You are making a mistake, and you are only digging yourself deeper into it now. But I know that once I provide the evidence demonstrating your mistake you will bluster about and more on, and I will have spent the time educating you in vain once again. Still, it seems honorable enough to me for you to agree to apologise for making edits out of ignorance once I present evidence to demonstrate that there is a difference between collectivists and communists. Why do you refuse to do so? Is your ego that fragile? I'll make you another deal then. Refuse to apologise once more and I will post it anyway, just cause I like making you look like an ass. Kev 05:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It must suck to be you. RJII 05:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence on the historical distinction between communist and collectivist anarchists

The roots of the argument can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism (as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the New Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.

Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.

This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many anarchists to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over time, most anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state) rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate. As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work together as there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools, in our eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to variation in time and place, of the society of the future, which is too remote from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and possible combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and the individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them. [Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173] [1]

Now please RJ, don't disappoint me by showing a shred of dignity and admiting you were wrong. And, whatever you do, don't apologise for insulting me based on your own ignorance. I'd so much rather you continue to bluster about like an ass. Kev 06:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. You've got to be kidding. That was written by some guy who wrote a FAQ. He's wrong. RJII 14:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I provided evidence from a well-respected historian. RJII 14:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You think an essay written by a authoritarian Marxist won't have a negative skew? The essay is a polemic. I'm suprised... If Kev would have given a link written by a Marxist you would would have started blathering that everyone knows that Marxists can't get anything right, but I guess its ok if you give such a source.

Anyway, you didn't even bother looking over the "evidence" you posted. This is the portion of the essay about communist-anarchism [2].

You posted a link to the portion of the essay that describes the history leading up to anarcho-communism, which includes collectivist anarchism [3]. millerc 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, are you actually asserting that the collectivists and communists never had disagreements? That the two groups did not distinguish themselves from one another? That this is all some fantasy? Okay RJ, I'm through with you. Kev 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Communist anarchists ARE collectivist anarchists. RJII 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ulrike Heider controversy

Ulrike Heider has bee severly criticised by Murray Bookchin A Meditation on Anarchist Ethics and amongst others http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/error.htm Brian Caplan] Another, non-academic review - [4] Exceprt from that - several authors have criticized Heider's scholarship, claiming that her footnotes and citations are often incorrect and she occasionally misspells important names that she should know perfectly if she has done any research whatsoever. I have not checked her citations myself, but have little reason to doubt these accusations.

--max rspct leave a message 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)