Talk:Anarchism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Pic Change?

I think the splashed red bleeding-from-the-edges symbol should be used for the Anarcho-Punk page, and that the original crisp, black-on-white symbol be used for the original Anarchism page, since this is the symbol that represents Anarchism as a whole. Theslash 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Voluntary - What does it mean?

Okay, I'm trying to understand the ancap position here. Suppose we have a capitalist with a large amount of accumulated capital. He uses the bargaining power of his capital to negotiate a contract with a starving worker for a subsistence wage. What is the ancap position here? As I understand anarchism, anarchists deplore the idea of a society where such relationships can exist. However, ancaps deplore it only if the relationship is demonstrated to be 'enforced'. Is such a relationship (the contract) voluntary or enforced, or under what circumstances?

For example, can the degree of poverty of the worker have any bearing on whether the contract is voluntary - if the worker, or say a family member, would literally starve to death if he doesn't sign the contract, can it still be seen as voluntary?

Or can the means by which the capitalist has obtained his capital have a bearing? For example, if the capitalist has obtained capital by means of a state-sanctioned monopoly is that different from when he has achieved it by eg. stumbling upon a goldmine; or eg. saving from his earnings as a self-employed artisan for fifty years?

Conversely, is the reason for the poverty of the worker an issue? Eg - he gambled and drank away all his fortune; or eg. he was born in a drought and war-ridden sub-saharan country?Bengalski 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Bengalski> "Suppose we have a capitalist with a large amount of accumulated capital. He uses the bargaining power of his capital to negotiate a contract with a starving worker for a subsistence wage. What is the ancap position here? As I understand anarchism, anarchists deplore the idea of a society where such relationships can exist."

Anarcho-capitalists also deplore poverty. (Generally speaking, of course, like this whole paragraph. I can't claim to speak for all anarcho-capitalists.) Whether we condemn a whole society that has such unequal bargaining positions depends on whether we see it as a result of aggression (coercion, social hierarchy, exploitation, or whatever word your jargon uses) or not. E.g. We see Latin American societies today as oppressed, due to corporatization, state mercantilism, privilege, wealth redistribution, and political law (Cf: Liberty for Latin America : How to Undo Five Hundred Years of State Oppression by Alvaro Vargas Llosa.) On the other hand, if such raw deals come about through the natural evolution of the economy (the mode of production in Marxspeak), then, as much as we deplore poverty, we would not use aggression to force a better deal. So we see the industrial revolution and its bad (by modern developed-world standards) labor conditions as just a stage people had to go through, just like once they had to hunt with spears and live in caves.

Bengalski> "Can the degree of poverty of the worker have any bearing on whether the contract is voluntary - if the worker, or say a family member, would literally starve to death if he doesn't sign the contract, can it still be seen as voluntary?"

For the most part, anarcho-capitalists (and libertarians in general) have a simple moral principle which takes precedence over other moral considerations in a civilized environment: the non-aggression principle (NAP). Keep in mind, socialists, that "aggression" is interpreted using their sticky property rules, not your usufruct or communalist rules. I'm explaining all this because ancaps and ansocs speak past each other on your question. The word "voluntary" implies that there is a choice. Anarcho-capitalists point to the choice of doing nothing (accepting the status quo) or agreeing to employment. Without the employer, the worker would starve. The employer is offering an alternative. Offering an opportunity is not aggression. So it's voluntary, even in your hard case.

Note how libertarians define "voluntary" in terms of human conduct - if there's no aggression involved, then it's voluntary. OTOH anarcho-socialists define voluntary much more broadly - they consider not only social constraints like aggression, but also natural constraints, like the fact that if you don't eat, you die. That's reason #47 why we misunderstand each other - same word; significantly different meanings.

Many if not most extreme cases like that in the real world are the result of some sort of aggression, usually a long history of it. So, yes, aggression in the form of statist monopoly, subsidies, tariffs, or regulations inhibiting competition makes all the difference to libertarians.

I hope this answers your questions, Bengalski. Hogeye 00:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is all voluntary means it hardly seems a basis to build a political philosophy on. I don't have a problem with your definition but, maybe you'd agree, to have a substantive political philosophy you then also need a theory of justice of the existing allocations (the status quo).

Suppose: we have a negotiation between two individuals. One of them 'Rich' has accumulated a lot of economic power, the other 'Poor' has none. Rich and Poor now agree a 'voluntary' contract under which Poor ends up with a subsistence wage that will gradually lead him to die of malnutrition. We can cal it voluntary, but I don't like it, and I would never call myself an anarchist if anarchism meant no more than that.

So, one way to do it is to stick with your definition of voluntary and add in a theory of justice. The general claim can then be: I believe in a society where all contracts are a)voluntary, b) start from a just status quo. The theory of justice can differ, eg: 1) any status quo at all is okay; 2) it is okay if it is based on a system of private property rights, where status quo allocations have been acquired in every preceding stage by voluntary negitioations, never by theft or coercion; 3) the only status quo acceptable is where all the goods of the earth are treated as a common treasury for all.

In this formulation, communist anarchists would say something like number 3. But I'm confused as to where you stand between 1 and 2.Bengalski 13:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing so intelligently, and without rancor. I hope I can be as level-headed.

Bengalski> "Maybe you'd agree, to have a substantive political philosophy you then also need a theory of justice of the existing allocations (the status quo)."

I agree with you that one needs a theory of justice. I don't agree that you can look only at the status quo to determine whether a situation is just. What we are talking about here is distributive justice. There are two major types of theories about distributive justice. One type is called "entitlement theory," the other type is called "end-state theory." In an entitlement theory, you look at the history of the situation, and examine whether the result (status quo) came about through a sequence of just transactions. In an end-state theory, you ignore the past and look only at the distribution of goods in the current time-slice. Another way to put it is: fairness of procedure vs. fairness of result. I think it is fair to say that anarcho-capitalists tend to have an entitlement theory of justice, while anarcho-socialists tend to have an end-state theory of justice. (If you want to learn more about these theories, read "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Robert Nozick.)

Looking at your example: An entitlement theory would look at whether the rich guy got his wealth through a series of just transactions and whether the poor guy lacked wealth through just transactions. An end-state theory would look at the distribution of wealth at present and ignore the history.

Bengalski> "We can call it voluntary, but I don't like it, and I would never call myself an anarchist if anarchism meant no more than that."

But being an anarchist does mean more than that - a lot more. It means that we oppose any and all aggression which led up to that unfortunate situation. Whereas an end-state theorist may automatically blame the rich guy and look no further, the entitlement theorist would ask what events led up to such an awful result - and probably blame it on past coercion by the State and its agents, and perhaps also on some private criminality.

Bengalski> "In this formulation, communist anarchists would say something like number 3. But I'm confused as to where you stand between 1 and 2."

You are very perceptive in bringing up this critical point. I stand on a slightly modified 2.

2') An outcome is permissable if it is based on (a) just original acquisition and (b) every succeeding transaction has been just.

That's the standard formulation of the entitlement theory. But of course in real life, injustice in both original acquisition and transactions occur. E.g. You and I know that there is hardly any habitable land on earth that hasn't been stolen at some point in time. So to bring the theory down to earth so to speak, I add a notion of statute of limitations. So even though the Normans robbed the Saxons blind in 1100 A.D. (or whenever), if "the neighbors" have considered ownership to be legitimate for the most recent century we may ignore ancient conquests.

Anarcho-capitalists don't like solution (3), since it reduces to either (a) no one can do anything with material goods since it is impossible to get consent from everyone on earth, or (b) a elite few make the decisions "in the name of" the many, and are de-facto rulers. (Rothbard discusses this in chapter 8 of "The Ethics of Liberty".)

Bengalski> "I suggest you need to add something else into your political philosophy - maybe like a theory of exploitation. I think Tucker recognised this. Do ancaps?"

Yes - you are quite right. The entitlement theory of justice is our "exploitation theory." The entitlement theory, I might add, is more down-to-earth than the socialist exploitation theory since it relies on observable human conduct (past aggression) rather than abstract claims based on need or (labor theory of) value.

Benjamin Tucker was once asked if an agreement between a drowning man and his rescuer who would only rescue him if he agreed to give up everything he owned was a legitimate free market contract. Tucker's response was that it was a legitimate contract, but "there is no obligation upon outsiders to enforce any contract, even though it be just, and that, when individuals associate themselves for defensive purposes, they will decide at the start what classes of just contracts it is advisable to enforce." It would be a voluntary contract even though it is obviously exploitative --"exploitative" and "voluntary" are not antonyms; just because something is exploitative, it doesn't mean it's not voluntary. Since that situation would be obviously exploitative, I would be surprised if any jury would enforce it. I would imagine that a lot of anarcho-capitalists (as they are also individualists) would have similar a similar position. RJII 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Referring to my answer to Hogeye above: exactly, 'voluntary' is not enough, and even capitalist juries can see that. If your political principles are meaningful and consistent you shouldn't be able say 'well, voluntary is what it's all about, but in cases like this it goes out the window'. So what else do you need to decide which classes of contract should hold and which not? I suggest you need to add something else into your political philosophy - maybe like a theory of exploitation. I think Tucker recognised this. Do ancaps? Bengalski 13:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The employment agreement is something of a red herring. Taken out of context, it is voluntary. However, due to the property rules that the capitalist enforces (whether through the state or a private security agency), the worker is denied the means to be self-sufficient. He cannot simply go out and claim unused land, because all of it has already been claimed. Not only is it his only choice to work for the capitalist, he also is compelled to accept poorer terms of employment, due to the limits on competition that the capitalist property rules impose. The worker never agreed to the capitalist's property rules. Thus, any enforcement of those rules is coercive. Indirectly, the worker is being coerced into accepting the capitalist's terms of employment. Chris Acheson 19:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, just like I never agreed not to mooch off the product of any given workers' commune. I never agreed not to hit you. I never agreed not to enter your house and sleep on your bed. MrVoluntarist 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you did not. Are you presuming the existence of a "social contract", then? Or perhaps, "might makes right", in the absense of such agreements? Chris Acheson 20:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. My point is this -- on what basis you object to me mooching from your commune? Not what you'd do to stop me -- what your philosophical/moral basis for objecting is. Once you give it, you establish why "the fact that I didn't agree not to mooch off your commune" is no justifcation for me to so mooch, and therefore you reject the broader point that people should be allowed to do anything they haven't explicitly agreed not to do. I think you'd enjoy a class in philosophy, where they learn to form arguments like these. MrVoluntarist 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Were I to participate in a commune, I would object to your mooching on the basis of rational self-interest. In my objection, I would appeal to the self-interest of all of the participants, to get them to stop you from mooching. I wouldn't phrase it this way to them, as it would likely offend their aesthetic sensibilities, but you get the idea. Chris Acheson 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the question. If you did, your answer is saying that for me to mooch off your commune is bad because it's against your self-interest. If that's your position, you have no objection to property whatsoever, because it's against the self-interest of the proprietor, and you have to respect his moral claims as equal to yours. In case that's not what you mean, let me rephrase. I want you to explain why it is wrong for someone to mooch off of a commune to which he does not belong and which does not desire this to happen. Not "how you'd defuse the situation". Not "how you'd make that person go away". But rather, why that is morally wrong. If you deny that things can be "morally wrong" at all, then your critiques of capitalism wither away. MrVoluntarist 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the "anarcho"-capitalist position is not consistent. If you presume that your exception to non-coercive behavior (property) is a moral one, where does that moral authority come from? If it comes from a social contract, then you have no moral grounds for objecting to the state. Chris Acheson 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the "anarcho"-capitalist position is not consistent. And I'm pointing out that the argument you used to establish that is inconsistent. That's it. And I've done so. Next objection? MrVoluntarist 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you presume that your exception to non-coercive behavior (property) is a moral one, where does that moral authority come from? If it comes from a social contract, then you have no moral grounds for objecting to the state. Or are you just making up positions and calling them moral? Chris Acheson 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not here to talk about social contracts. You made an objection to a part of anarcho-capitalism. I showed that objection to be inconsistent and therefore invalid. That's all I wanted to show. Now find another way to attack anarcho-capitalism. MrVoluntarist 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sufficiently. My original assertion (essentially the non-aggression principle with no provision for property, merely that aggression is wrong) carries exactly as much moral weight as your own position. If you show that position to be inconsistent without providing some reason why yours actually does carry more moral weight, then you've shown your own position to be inconsistent as well. Chris Acheson 22:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

intro

Okay I just think this intro is getting more and more tortuous as people pick over it. Is there even a chance of getting a version agreed on the talk page before anyone edits it again? There is quite a lot of repetition as it stands - here is what I would propose as a simplified version that I think avoids some of the thorny issues. I'd even suggest maybe take out hierarchy (a term I like) until (I wish) we could resolve the social vs. enforced issue. I personally don't think Baron Lahontan belongs in teh intro - I'd put him with the other alleged native american antecedent references below.

Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of government. In place of centralized political structures and exploitative economic institutions, these movements advocate social relations based upon voluntary interaction and self-management, and aspire to a society characterised by autonomy and freedom. Historically, anarchism has been considered 'the left wing' of a broader socialist movement, although some anarchists now dissociate themselves from socialism.

Whilst anarchism is often defined by what it is against, anarchists also offer positive visions of what they believe to be a truly free society. However, these ideas of how an anarchist society might work vary considerably. Opinions differ in various areas, such as whether violence should be employed to foster anarchism, what type of economic system should exist, questions on the environment and industrialism, and anarchists' roles in other movements.

The terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals, and the idea that communities and individuals have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected by their outcomes.Bengalski 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job, Bengalski. I like your use of higher-level concepts to avoid the disagreements about the details, i.e. "exploitative" and "voluntary."

1. As you said, there is still some redundancy there, in the first and third paragraphs.
2. I wouldn't mind starting the intro with the Greek ... most general meaning sentence.
3. The sentence starting, "Historically, anarchism has been considered..." bothers me, since it equivocates "anarchism" the concept with "anarchism" the word.

If I may:

Anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. In place of centralized political structures and exploitative economic institutions, these movements advocate social relations based upon voluntary interaction and self-management, and aspire to a society characterised by autonomy and freedom. Historically, anarchism has been considered 'the left wing' of a broader socialist movement, although some anarchists now dissociate themselves from socialism.

Whilst anarchism is often defined by what it is against, anarchists also offer positive visions of what they believe to be a truly free society. The word "anarchy", as anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a harmonious stateless society. However, ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics. Also, there is disagreement about how a free society might be brought about.

Hogeye 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I did actually change is to something like the above. "Concise (two paragraph) NPOV version." 70.178.26.242 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get this: "Historically, the term "anarchism" referred to certain socialist movements, but..." It also historically referred to individualist anarchism. RJII 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think as you know RJ most historical individualists also referred to themselves as socialists. Hogeye I don't think the intro you changed to is NPOV - though the one above is more so. I'm proposing we leave as is and discuss it here before making any substantial change.Bengalski 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if "most" did, but I know a few did. But, they didn't define it the way it is commonly defined today --which is a system where property is owned by the community rather than privately. So, the statement definitely misleads the reader. There are individualists anarchists that did not use Tucker's term "Anarchistic Socialism." RJII 01:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that how socialism is defined today? Not sure eg. most european socialist party leaders - or even members - would agree with you. The point for me is that it is misleading to separate anarchism from a history which is intimately linked to a wider 'socialist' and working class movement, and which is still a tradition which the majority of anarchists worldwide identify with.Bengalski 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, anarcho-capitalism is also pro-working-class. RJII 02:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the latest "concise version" incorporating RJII's point:

Anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus anarchism, in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state, i.e. involuntary government. In place of centralized political structures and exploitative economic institutions, these movements advocate social relations based upon voluntary interaction and self-governance, and aspire to a society characterised by autonomy and freedom. Historically, some have used the term "anarchism" to refer only to socialist movements, but today the term is synonymous with anti-statism in most English dictionaries.

While anarchism is defined by what it is against, anarchists also offer positive visions of what they believe to be a truly free society. The word "anarchy," as anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a harmonious stateless society. However, ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics. Also, there is disagreement about how a free society might be brought about.

If someone thinks something here is POV, please explain. Hogeye 03:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean: involuntary government? --XaViER 11:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

When anarchists say "government," they mean "state." In common usage, most people use "state" and "government" to mean the same thing, most of the time. But sometimes "government" is used to mean 1) the particular individuals who run a state, and 2) any organization the engages in governance even in voluntary associations e.g. a chess club president and treasurer, or the governing body of a food coop. Also, some use government to refer to any legal/arbitration system, even if it is voluntary. With the phrasing used, I intended to (create a link to both state and government and to) specify the relevant meaning of "government." Hogeye 14:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for one of the sentences: "Throughought most of the 20th century, the most visible and popular forms of anarchism were communist or collectivist based, though "individualist anarchism" (as private property anarchism) continued to exist as a philosophical movement. Anti and pro-private property forms continue to exist today." I think it might be a good idea to say something like this, because what seems to be a problem again and again is new editors show up here with no clue that there is anything other than collectivist anarchism. RJII 03:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hogeye, stop putting biased version of bibliography. @capitalism is small disputed current, "not second leg of anarchism". You can put 1 or 2 @cpaitalist books with note "anarchocapitalist", but not whole new section! Maybe @communists, @collectivist, @feminists, poststructuralist anarchists, etc. sholud put here their own section of books. This will be the longest bibliography on the wikipedia, I think. --XaViER 12:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine - add more books if you wish. But don't delete books you consider non-politically-correct. That's about as POV as you can get! Hogeye 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Max_rspct's behavior

Max_rspct, you called me a "nazi sympathizer" in your edit summary for your censoring out national anarchism. Whether you think I'm a nazi symphathizer or not, that's no justification from removing a type of anarchism from the article. Also, you deleted the picture of Rothbard, saying that it was "biased" since some others forms of anarchism don't have a photo. Why did you leave other pictures then? Who is the fascist? I think the answer to that is clear. RJII 16:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of anarchism

I've created a definitions of anarchism article on Wikiquote for reference. This may be good to resolve disputes in the future. Please add any definitions you come across. RJII 18:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So far, out of all the dictionary, encyclopedia, and luminary definitions, only one (Bakunin's) is anti-capitalist. Hogeye 04:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

New articles (stubs) Leopold Kohr, Neo-imperialism

FYI I've created a slug for an article on Leopold Kohr. Any y'all into Kohr?

Also neo-imperialism.

Contemporary anarchism

I'm still not understanding the "contemporary anarchism" and "modern schools of thought" section. How new does something have to be to be "modern"? Isn't anarcho-communism, for example, modern? The dividing line gives the impression that the types above the line don't exist anymore, but it's not true. There must be a better way of doing things. Any suggestions? RJII 02:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, anarcho-communism isn't modern - it's old-timey stuff. Using a historical format may, as you say, leave the impression that types above the line are outdated. To some extent, they are. Hogeye 03:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Libertarian socialists are all anarcho-communists or syndicalists, and there seem to be plenty of those around. RJII 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I met some people from the Anarchist Federation the other day - so they are certainly contemporary - far more contemporary than the anarcho-primitivists, who all died out in pre-history. Harrypotter 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Imperialism

I'm thinking that the title Globalization of capitalism is too narrow, and that section should be renamed Neo-imperialism. (neo-mercantilism?) This would cover not only globalization, but also corporatocracy, World Bank loan sharking, etc. You know, all that stuff from Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. What do you think? Hogeye 03:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda by the deed

Anarchist terrorism should be merged into this. --AaronS 06:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Random fact about this article

I've got some friends doing a visualization of wikipedia revisions... and this article on Anarchism gets the prize for largest revisions... that is, the revisions for this article are upwards of 500MB in size... which means that it's not parseable by their software. Just thought some would be interested in this fact. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

not surprising, what with the fake anarchists who want to think they're anarchists always vandalising the article.

Bakunin is both an individualist and a libertarian communist

Capitalists are taking statists like Ayn Rand or Bastiat and trying to make them look like they have something to do with anarchism... it is quite a big leap... whereas on the other hand, Bakunin, like Malatesta, spoke about the need for individual freedom far more than any capitalist ever has, and for a far greater strata of human beings (individual freedom for workers, the unemployed, the propertyless, the poor, the slave)... it is obvious that Bakunin is the true individualist, and people like Rand or Rozik or friedman are in fact the authoritarians who don't even belong in the anarchism or libertarian sections. Also, When Bakunin opposed "individualism" he was opposing capitalist/authoritarian individualism and not Workers, or Universal individualism. Radical Mallard Fri Dec 16 14:16:02 EST 2005

While I do agree that Bakuninism was sort of an individualistic reaction to Marxism, I think it would be misleading to call him an individualist in the article. Chris Acheson 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Max_rspct put in the individualist anarchism section that Bakunin was an individualist, but he's not. Bakunin was a collectivist and a well known antagonist of individualist anarchism. This something from an essay by Bookchin: "Bakunin often expressed his opposition to the individualistic trend in liberalism and anarchism with considerable polemical emphasis. Although society is 'indebted to individuals,' he wrote in a relatively mild statement, the formation of the individual is social: Even the most wretched individual of our present society could not exist and develop without the cumulative social efforts of countless generations. Thus the individual, his freedom and reason, are the products of society, and not vice versa: society is not the product of individuals comprising it; and the higher, the more fully the individual is developed, the greater his freedom -- and the more he is the product of society, the more does he receive from society and the greater his debt to it."

As an aside, I just noticed this sounds very similar to August Comte's altruism which is antagonist to individualism: "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." RJII 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"With Bakunin appears the Anarchist of "the deed." "War against the State" became the battle-cry, and Bakunin and his fellow idealists waged a life-long struggle for the abolition of the State in order to establish a collectivist society." (Collectivist Anarchism by Weisbord) RJII 18:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Max, you need to come up with a source for your claim in the article that Bakunin is an individualist anarchist. The flies in the face of all reason. Bakunin is well-known to be a collectivist. Stop reverting and explain yourself here. RJII 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Bakunin was a collectivist but he support private property of products, but not for the means of production. That is the principal economic aspect of Collectivist Anarchism that have not the same sense that what the libertarinas call collectivism.

That's true. "[Bakunin] had modified Proudhonian teachings into a doctrine later known as collectivism." (Encyclopedia Britannica). But, is the sense that libertarians call collectivism, it's just that the collectivism doesn't extend into the produce of labor. It's doesn't reach the totally collectivist system of communism. RJII 18:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

the low level of quality found in this article because of the constant bickering

a sample paragraph from the last version by RJIII:

Most anarchists deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, included most of the individualist anarchists who deny that anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchism, arguing that authoritarian institutions are inevitable in any capitalist system. They also argue that anarcho-capitalism promove a form of Feudalism without State, and that they use the "dictionary definition" of anarchy: no goverment, when anarchy realy means: no authority (bosses included).

this article doesn't even make sense any more, in either version. it doesn't flow well. there are big, dense paragraphs that are difficult to parse and seem to lack points. typos and spelling errors are everywhere. your versions really aren't all that different. obviously anarcho capitalism is not anarchism in any way shape or form, but people use the word like that, and because of this constant arguing the article is becoming unreadable. IMO it would best for compromise on both sides or this article is useless to everyone. Please?

And if that won't work its probably time for an rfc or a moderator or something.

--Heah (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That was done just recently by a user 192.188.52.98. Apparently, he's a horrible writer and can't get his thoughts together. He's being disruptive on individualist anarchism today too. RJII 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he's still at it here. Apparently, English is not his native language. RJII 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

==mediation?== +

Heah is right, it's getting unreadable again. But I don't know what compromise can be found that hasn't already been tried.

I haven't had any time to work on this article for a little while - the last major revisions I did to it, as I remember, were actually to trim a lot of stuff out. (And not cutting anarchistcapitalism stuff but positions that actually I might sympathise with.) Looking at the page now, some sections have doubled or tripled in length with dense blocks of barely readable text. I think RJ you are the main culprit here - persistently it seems you go and find chunks from your favourite essays (never reading the original sources) and replicate them here to try and score points. Then begins an interminable cycle of changing, tinkering, adding, cutting and re-adding ad infinitum.

I have tried to work with the ancap editors, but I've ended up concluding it's just not possible. I am back at the position that there is only one solution: get 'anarchist capitalism' out of this article, with a header pointing to it as before. Let ancaps have their own sandpit to muck up, let it be clearly signposted, just don't let it interfere with this article.

Obviously there is not a hope in hell of consensus on that, or I think on any other compromise. I don't know much about how the mediation process works, but it seems to me to be the only option now. Does anyone agree with what I'm saying and know how to go about mediation? Bengalski 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Back off dude. This is Wikipedia. I can edit this article in any way I wish as long as I use sourceable information, be NPOV, and use proper english. And, you throw the term "ancap editors" around pretty losely. My focus is on labor-value individualist anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism. In my opinion, the article is looking much better now than it did a few months ago. The historical section is looking pretty decent and very informative. You're upset that there is "interminable cycle of changing, tinkering, adding, cutting and re-adding ad infinitum"?? That's the nature of Wikipedia, man! Anything you, I, or anyone puts in the article will be gone in time. If you want something static, write a book. RJII 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I want something readable. The comment above from Joseph Lorenzo Hall suggests this article has gone some way beyond the general level of instability on wikipedia.Bengalski 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Instability is a bad thing? I would think it's a good thing. It may not be comfortable for the editors, but I think it's good for the reader. The incessant clash of ideas and information is the best that can be hoped for in a Wikipedia article.I disagree that the article is unreadable. If it changes from one day to the next, great. Anarchy in action. RJII 17:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The more controversial the subject, the more unstable the article. That's the nature of Wiki. So long as some factions try to impose their non-standard definition of "anarchism" (i.e. claiming it's anti-capitalist), it will be unstable. Mediation won't help. Hogeye 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, that is crazy. WAY beyond the general level of instability. wholesale, massive deletions and additions between rivisions is not normal. having this happen every 30 seconds is also not normal. the problem is not the normal cycle of tinkering and changing, but the rapid fire, balls out, self defensive massive rewriting of this article that occurs every 30 seconds. in its current version, this article is 80 kb long, almost three times what an article should be due to browser limitations. at least half the stuff here should be moved. the instability here ISNT great- i haven't edited this article, but i have read it many times, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ANY MORE. that is BAD for the reader. it is also bad for editors, as i'm not about to start fixing unparsable sentences when it will all be deleted in thirty seconds, which in turn is also bad for readers.--Heah (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You picked out a sentence above that had just recently been written by a non-english speaking editor. Anyway, imagine what this is going to be like in the future when Wikipedia gets really popular. This is nothing compared to how its going to become. The turnover of information will be continuous. RJII 17:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've lost hope that there can be solution of this edit war. This is "bellum omnium contra omnes". There are no rules or good will. You can use censorship like here [1] and can put your version of defintions of anarchism, cutting down what you think is "wrong" version. Whoever is the strongest (have more time to edit) wins. Pure anarcho-capitalist "free" market. This is what anarchy looks like? Thank you very much. --XaViER 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

XaVIER> "This is what anarchy looks like?"

This is what anti-propertarian anarchy (aka anarcho-socialism) looks like - your basic tragedy of the commons. If there were an owner who exercised property rights, the article would almost certainly be more stable. Hogeye 19:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

thoughtless editing

RJ, this isn't even about your POV pushing - but could you not just stop and think a little before you add or make changes to the article? Eg. your work on the international section - a couple of weeks ago you were inserting stuff to show that Bakunin wasn't in the IWA at its founding, which is true but I think not really relevant to the issue as it can be framed in a short space. Now you've been sticking stuff in to say Bakunin was there at the start. Why? And your inaccurate posts about Marx in the international - before he was simply its 'leader', when there was no formal leadership role. Now you're reinserting this in a modified form. Why?

It seems to me time and again you see something written somewhere on the web - yes, any Marxist tract you find will tell you Marx was leader of the international, without giving any precise details - and decide to shove it in the article. I wish you would first stop, think about it, check it against another source, read the original sources it refers to, or post for discussion on the talk page to see if anyone else knows anything on the subject. Otherwise what happens is - even outside of the edit war on ancapism - you are creating a lot of work for other people just to go and check up after you. Are you doing this on purpose just to make everyone else so fed up of working on the article they give up and leave you to fashion it as you like?Bengalski 19:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

PDAs - Self-Defense without a State

And who would defend your "property rights" if there would be no state and there would be no common agreement on these "rights"? --XaViER 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Either I do it myself, or contract with a PDA. Please read the anarcho-capitalism article if you wish to learn the basics. Hogeye 19:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as I thought. The State (under the guise of PDA) would force YOUR definition of property rights. --XaViER 19:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

??? What is your definition of State? I use the Weberian definition - an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area. I have no idea how you construe a voluntary organization as a State. BTW, negotiation with other PDAs (rather than force) is a more likely outcome of differences in opinion regarding property rights. The brute force "solution" is characteristic of statism, not anarchism. Hogeye 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is not about property and free market (and this is not capitalism) but is because the ancaps like hierarchy, they like bosses, they like wage slavery, etc (this is capitalism)

If an two ancaps get together and agree to have an employee/employer relationship, is a "true anarchist" going to stop them? It seems to me that the most basic anarchist philosophy would be to allow anyone do what they want to do, as long as they don't force themselves on others. RJII 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, your PDA use brute force to force YOUR definition of property rights. This is not "voluntary organization" from my point of view. And what are you doing here is "brute force", not "negotiation". --XaViER 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. If you're a "true anarchist" you will allow someone to break in your home and take everything you have, lest your anarchist buddies find out that you acted as a State by defending your property? Or is it that if someone else does it for you (PDA) that it's a State? RJII 20:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First you have to reach an agreement in given community on "property rights". There is no "Natural" property rights. So first you have to decide together what is it, and next stick to it. There is no onther solution I think. But if you use your PDA to force your vision of property rights (i.e. capitalist property), then you act like the State. --XaViER 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then with the assumption that there are no "natural property rights," it follows then that all resources on earth are fair game for whoever wants them. You logically cannot steal from anyone in that case. Take what you want and defend what you want. Property comes from might, right? (Stiner's egoist individualist anarchism) RJII 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I can disagree over your definition of property rights (especially if you take too much from my point of view - i.e. you occupy only source of water). And there are two possibilities: either we make an agreement, or we start a war (class war, edit war, etc.? ;-). In most cases, agreement is better solution (especially for social stability) I think. --XaViER 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then if we make an agreement, then that's contract-based private property anarchism (anarcho-capitalism, Friedman style, or Tuckerite private property anarchism). RJII 21:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But who told you that I agree with capitalist definition of property? It leads to domination, so I'll never agree. We have to find something else, or there will be a war (the class war in particular). --XaViER 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, there will be a war then, and the anarchy will be disturbed. Look like you define anarchy in a utopian sense, where human nature changes and no person ever has the inclination to harm another person. RJII 16:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

But the employee/employer is not an anarchist relationship, you can do it, but you couldn't pretend call that anarchism

What the ancaps pretends is not anarchy, and not because of the property or the profits because there are many anarchists who supports that. The problem is that anarchism means without Hierarchy, and Capitalism is essentially hierarchical.

Other thing is that all anarchists questions the origins of property, if it is the product of the explotation or if it is the product of work and entepreneaur.

If the worker is his own boss it is anarchy, but if not definetly is not anarchy.

The ancaps are trying to make favorable to them Wikipedia's anarchism definition, and that's what they delete every line that could be disadvantage for them (each 30 seconds).

They want to make this page for their ancap

---

XaViER> "First you have to reach an agreement in given community on property rights."

Foul! You just moved the goal posts. Earlier you stipulated, "if there [were] no state and there [was] no common agreement on these rights."

In reality, not everyone agrees on the rules of property. I agree with you that there are no "natural" property rights. IMO the rules of property are more-or-less what the neighbors allow. I think we substantially agree here. Probably you agree that, within a community with a consensus on property rules, it is okay to enforce those property rules against thieves. You probably even agree that a PDA is a voluntary org in these circumstances - though you might call it DMAS - defensive mutual aid society.

The question you started with is (rephrased) What do you do when people disagree on the property rules, whether within a community or between nearby communities? Actually, I wrote something about this in the article - see Anarchism#Tolerance_vs._Expansionism.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your definition of State. Hogeye 21:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not here to make definition of State. I'm interested in power relations. State is emanation of these relations, but there are others. If given institution (ie property rights or State or PDA or something else) leads to domination then there always be (an antiauthoritarian) movement to overthrow this institution and there will be a war. To stop this we have to agree first TOGETHER what kind of property is right, And we cannot make it on "free market", but get togheter in some kind of council and decide. If we will see that this institution leads to domination, all people influenced by this institution can change this. --XaViER 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

XaViER, what is deemed "domination" (or aggression, or rights-violation) depends on your theory of property. I think the gist of our disagreement is twofold:

1) I don't believe everyone will agree on the same property system, whereas you (naively IMO) think they can and must. ("we have to agree first TOGETHER what kind of property is right...")

2) Thus I see an anarchist world as extremely pluralistic, with both sectarian enclaves and side-by-side intermingling of property systems. You seem to think, if I understand you correctly, that everyone must once and for all decide what system is best for humanity and (somehow) everyone will agree to the arrangement (forever?). This is the kind of thinking Bakunin warned us against.

As I understand it from your ancap page, what distinguishes a PDA from a state police / military authority is that payment to support the PDA is voluntary. Eg. the citizens of a village all contract to employ a number of people as policemen, say, to defend their property. Villagers may choose not to buy in, so that their houses will not be covered. Of course there are some externality issues - eg. thieves are less likely to come to the village if they know there is a PDA there, so even those who haven't bought in may be safer than they would be withou the PDA. But I'm not going to be picky about those - you'd have much the same issues, and more so, in a commune.

The problem for me is how this relates to (rather Weber's) definition of state as a monopoly of force. What happens if the villagers contract to give the PDA a monopoly of the use of force in the village? Then you have a state authority defending property rights, just like under any form of capitalism. Maybe you don't think they would do this, but:

1) If you want the PDA to be effective at protecting your property you will man, train and equip it to the extent that the PDA becomes a far more effective force than any individual homesteader, or any spontaneous coalition of individuals. Whatever you call it, it will then become a de facto near-monopoly of force. Yes you might write into the contracts that the PDA will only use its force to defend homestaeaders' property, and that homesteaders also maintain the right to use force on their own account. But I don't see how that would be different from the systems we have now - in most countries, I have a right to resist even the police with force in defence of my own property and person, unless they are acting to prevent me committing a crime (such as infringing on others' property rights). In the ac village I guess the list of crimes would be different, but otherwise wouldn't it be just the same?

2) Indeed, what if villagers go further and voluntarily contract not to use force themselves, thus explicitly contracting to give a monopoly of force to the PDA? How does anarcho-capitalism rule out such a contract, particularly as you seem to maintain there are no 'natural rights' but only free contracts? (Reading again, maybe that was just for property rights - perhaps you maintain it isn't possible to alienate your right to use force for yourself - but I'd like to see the argument for that.)

3)My biggest worry though is less to do with the consistency of an ancap legal system, and more with what would happen in practice. What safeguards are there that the PDF, given its force advantage, would stay within the bounds set by the original contracts? For example, suppose there is a villager who doesn't sign up. The other villagers get pissed off with him freeriding on the externality mentioned above. Maybe even though he agrees to pay in an amount measured to cover that, there is still a lingering resentment towards him. So the villagers decide they want him out of the village - they use the PDA to evict him and steal his property, which they (speciously) believe they are entitled to.

Another example. A group of villagers, who have become much richer than the others by their righteous hard work and shrewdness at trading on the free market, can afford to double the wages of the PDA if they agree to recognise their sole authority. Alternatively, they create a new PDA of their own. They then use the PDA to steal and cheat the other villagers.

Neither of these situations would happen if every villager lived righteously by the principles of ancapism. But for real humans, I think they would be almost certain to happen. History shows us again and again - when people gain power, and economic strength is a form of power, they use it over their fellow humans.

This is why anarchism has to be more than anti-statism. The state doesn't appear out of nowhere, handed to us by god or chance - it is part of a complex of evolving power relations. Ancapism in my view fetishises the state just as badly as traditional statist theories, because it only sees one side of the relationship between political and economic power. Ancapism, if it cares about the question at all, argues that the state causes and maintains economic hierarchy and inequality comes from the state. But where does the state come from?

You bring up many good points, Bengalski.

Bengalski> "As I understand it from your ancap page, what distinguishes a PDA from a state police / military authority is that payment to support the PDA is voluntary."

Right. Except it should read "a PDA" rather than "the PDA." This isn't a monopoly legal/police system like the State's, with it's one-size-fits-all system. Fundie Xtians may join one that stones adulterers; I may join one that allows public sex. The jurisdiction is the properties of the customers.

Bengalski> "Eg. the citizens of a village all contract to employ a number of people as policemen ..."

Again, it sounds like you are assuming a monopoly. It should read, "Each citizen of a village may, if he so chooses, contract with others to employ peace officers."

Bengalski> "What happens if the villagers contract to give the PDA a monopoly of the use of force in the village? Then you have a state authority defending property rights..."

You are entirely correct - that could happen. But as the saying goes, nirvana is not an option. I don't think it's reasonable to compare anarchism to utopia, and to reject it because it comes up short. You have to compare it to the statist quo (and other feasible alternatives to the status quo). Let's compare anarcho-capitalist society to the current statist system. In a free society, people generally consider security service to be pretty much like any other service on the market. If you don't like your current breakfast cereal or home insurance or security service, you switch! Compare that attitude to the sheeple in a statist society, that think the State is their protector and that switching is treasonous and unthinkable. One of my favorite essays, Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de la Boétie, attempts to explain why people are so subservient to the State.

Besides the unfair comparison to nirvana, your points 1-3 don't seem to consider that a balance of power among PDA's provides some protection against a PDA becoming a State. And it has several advantages over the statist quo:

1) no territorial monopoly, so weapons of mass destruction are infeasible (if the worst happens);

2) the costs of violence are bourne by the PDA engaging in it, and not passed to subjects via taxation and conscription (thus violent PDAs are at a competitive disadvantage to those that resolve issues peaceably);

3) people are endangered by violent PDA's, so those PDA's would tend to lose customers;

4) there's no "us" vs. "them" like there is in the statist paradigm. If you like corn flakes and a PDA that enforces a usufruct property system, and I like wheat chex and a PDA that enforces a sticky property system, that's cool. IMO 99% of the conflict between property systems is due to the statist winner-take-all system. I live in a privately owned house with a commonly owned street in front. Where's the conflict? I buy hemp-plus granola at a co-op and blank DVD's at Wal-Mart. Where's the conflict?

Your idea that a PDA may become a State is very apt - the philosopher Robert Nozick wrote nearly a whole book arguing just that (in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"). I disagree for the reasons given above, but as smart as we are, I don't think we're going settle the issue here! Thanks for your ideas. - Hogeye

The reality is there is a two-way relationship: people use force to impose their will on others for economic advantage; people use their economic advantage to buy force. That is where states have come from and developed historically, and that is where they'll come from again and again if we don't also find ways to destroy economic hierarchy.Bengalski 13:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that anarcho-capitalists, like most individualists, do not have a utopian conception of anarchism, that is, they don't picture it as a situation where human nature changes and no one has the inclination to harm others, and everyone behaves angelically. The define it as a situation where there no legal sanction for harm. In this non-utopian view of anarchism, it's accepted that there will always be criminal behavior. The anarcho-capitalist thinks the best way to minimize this apparently natural human propensity is to defend liberty (anarchy) via business (institutions that earn money rather than tax). Victor Yarros (not an anarcho-capitalist but a labor-value individualist) said in 1892:"The anarchists, as anarchists, work directly, not for a perfect social state, but for a perfect political system. A perfect social state is a state totally free from from sin or crime or folly; a perfect political system is merely a system in which justice is observed, in which nothing is punished but crime and nobody coerced but invaders." RJII 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism and Oppression

As it is clearly the case that anarchists like Proudhon advocated a particularly oppressive and sexist form of family life, then we should not say that anarchism necessarily is against exploitative social relations - unlees the whole article is to be put on a new page called anarchist fanatsies! It seems that some of the poeple posting here are so worried about there ideology that they feel it cannot withstand a NPOV article. Or perhaps they simply share Proudhon's sexism, and feel the fact that som early French femininsts took the trouble to write critiques of Proudhon is too much of an intrusion on their phallocratic world???Harrypotter 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, but not appropriate for this article, which needs to be shorter, not longer. Please put it in the Proudhon article, if you haven't already. It is tempting to overdo the clarifications and details, while forgetting that this is the general anarchism article. Hogeye 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well let's just get rid of Proudhon altogether then, and let people find him through list of anarchists. It seems that on the one hand people want to only include the views of the tiny fraction of people who call themselves anarchists on this page - in which case lest go for the anarchist fanatsies option. On the other hand, if you want something more balanced then it is necessary to have a balanced and critical view. Unless you are a raving sexist, why do you view, for instance the economical arguments with Bastiat as relevant but not the critque from feminists? we also need a lot more on the relationship of anarchism to fascism, it is not a matter limited to the Cercle Proudhon, but also people like the Nagoi Anarchists, and the contortions of the anarchist in Shanghai. Or perhaps it would be better to strip the page down so that it then provides lots of links rather than simply becoming a political football Harrypotter 20:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Harrypotter> "Why do you view, for instance, the economical arguments with Bastiat as relevant but not the critque from feminists?"

What is property directly relates to anarchism - it's perhaps the main dispute within anarchism. Proudhon's quirky beliefs about women have virtually nothing to do with anarchism. Those beliefs belong in the Proudhon article. Similarly, Einstein's political beliefs don't belong in an article about the Theory of Relativity, but are fully appropriate in the Einstein article. Get it?

Harrypotter> "We also need a lot more on the relationship of anarchism to fascism, it is not a matter limited to the Cercle Proudhon, but also people like the Nagoi Anarchists, and the contortions of the anarchist in Shanghai."

I would like to learn more about this. Google gives me nothing about "Nagoi Anarchists" - who were they? You seem to know a lot about this, Harry. Would you please write an article on Anarchism and Fascism? Hogeye 22:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

ANCAPS are not ANARCHIST

To impose violence upon people for any transgresion of property is an act of authority. How then, could "anarcho"-capitalism really exist?

You ancaps are a faction of Austrian School, dont confuse people to carry them for Libertarianism; this is an anarchist zone.

Dont use a dictionary definition af anarchy, in a school dictionary anarchy means disorder!!

You haven´t fighted against oppresion, you haven`t the right to put yourselfs like the "real" anarchists.

Anarchy ethimologicaly means: without hierarchy, and you ancaps loves hierarchy; you don`t want government but you want to be our bosses.

You are a marginal "kind of anarchism" like national-anarchists, you could have a little thing of anarchists but you couldn´t make the principals definitons of something that you are not.

If anarchy is only without State, so let`s go Rome to say to the Pope to rule us (without State). ¡A world without State, only with the Roman Church (or any other)!!

If anarchy is only a society without State, we could make women our slaves!! You propose a society without State... but with slavery, you support wage slavery.

You ancaps want to control (if you don´t already control) wikipedia anarchism definition. You are "Libertarians" (right-libertarians/republicans who takes drugs), so go to your zone that is Libertarianism, dont botter the definitions that anarchists make in wikipedia.

Go post to CATO Institute, Washington Institute or Atlas Economic Research Foundation and let us in peace, don´t confuse people. You are austrian a lot and anarchist a very little.

This could sound paranoic, but sometimes i believe that ancapitalism was invented and was spreaded for confuse anarchists, for make them weaker, for desarticulate the anarchists movement for the interests of Big Corporations, and for make Fascist or passive people to that ones that are interested in an alternative or in anarchism

ancapitalism=Mutltinational anarchism!! (A-C, A for austrian)

• • • excuse my english

Wow. That truly is paranoia --a conspiracy to "confuse anarchists." Too funny. RJII 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

it possible, there are many interests that want to destroy this movement, and ancaps are more asociated to Atlas Research Institute or Ludwing Von Mises Institute than to anarchism

The economic system is irrelevant. As long as it's voluntarily agreed to by all participants, it's anarchism. I'll leave you with a quote that looks like it pertains to you personally:

""It's an odd feature of the anarchist tradition over the years that it seems to have often bred highly authoritarian personality types, who legislate what the Doctrine IS, and with various degrees of fury (often great) denounce those who depart from what they have declared to be the True Principles. Odd form of anarchism." --Noam Chomsky RJII 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Democracy that we say we live is a voluntary Dictarorship, is voluntary and is not Doctarship, many peoples that is Church servant (is also a slavery) do it voluntary.

You could be forced by circunstances and mentaly forced, it could be voluntary but is not anarchy.

""anarchy is voluntary liberty not voluntary slavery"

I`m not saying that my anarchism is the truth, i tolerate all forms of anarchy; but ancapitalism is too suspect, was created in the places were the Neo Colonialism was planed.

All forms of anarchy says that anarchy is voluntary and non-hierarchical, and the absense of hierarchy is necessarily for liberty; there isn`t liberty were is authority. Don`t excuse yourself of be authoritarians saying that if something is voluntary is anarchy

I agree, the economic system is irrelevant, it should be voluntary... voluntary for liberty, and liberty is not compatible with hierarchy.

I agree with this: ""anarchy is voluntary liberty not voluntary slavery"

clearly many people have different ideas of what anarchism is, and some of them have an emotive attitude which makes them feel they have the right to impose their own point of view. From my experience, anarchism can be very oppressive, pretty much like any other movement which promises to create heaven on earth. What would be good would be an article that provided insight into how anarchism as a movement has developed, rather than something extolling a rather simplistic view of the world imposed with an authoritarianism which is quite anti-thetical to its stated intention. This is not an anarhcist zone, but an potential opportunity to create collaborative understanding from which the curious can go and find more detailed information about specific movements and events through a complex set of hyperlinks. That could be truly subversive, too subversive for those who wish to trumpet their own radicality for the spectacular consumption of a passive reader. Harrypotter 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it's really a shame that "some of them have an emotive attitude which makes them feel they have the right to impose their own point of view." Why can't they just use the dictionary definition of "anarchism" and stop trying to impose a sectarian anti-capitalist definition? I'm for anarchism without adjectives. Hogeye 20:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are. And that's why I cannot add that "there is no agreement". --XaViER 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But there is agreement that all anarchists oppose the State and favor voluntary relations. It's everything else that there's no agreement on. RJII 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So, maybe we should put here Marx and Lenin. They both opposed the State ("the State should disapear after the revolution"). It's not enough to be against the State, we need something more. And that's why I prefer version with "no agreement". --XaViER 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a cop-out. That's no way to start an encyclopedia article All that is saying to the reader is that we the editors are idiots and can't figure out what it means. You have to take a stand and provide a definition. RJII 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's almost imposibble to make a clear and short definition of anarchism. Especially if there are mutually exclusive currents like @capitalism and @communism. We have to point this out to a reader in the beginning. --XaViER 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to have a short definition. All agree that anarchism opposes the State and favors voluntary relations. And, it is already pointed out, after the definition, that they disagree about everything else ..such as economic systems. RJII 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You ancaps are the sectarians, you want to impose to the anarchist your definition of anarchy, and acuse to the other of what you do. You are sectarians who defends hierarchies, and explotation, and oposse expropiate those who destroy the humankind with their Corporations, because you belive do it to them is "bad".

Capitalism is another system, capitalism is the hierarchy between the propietarian and the worker, capitalism is not about property and you know it, you want to confuse others.

CAPITALISM AND FREE MARKET IS AN OXYMORON, LIKE CAPITALISM WITH ANARCHISM, anarchism without adjetives is between anarchists who want liberty and liberty is voluntary and non-hierarchical

RIGHT LIBERTARIANS CONTROLS ANARCHISM DEFINITION !!!!

This is nothing new. They still think that they have bigger guns. Hmm. Maybe we need support to make this more stable. --XaViER 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gorb Limey, I just popped out to get some chips and well! This page is getting hot. I took out the reference to evil as this is clearly a religious term wholly inappropriate. I took out the two dimensional cahrt from schools of anarchism; OK I know lots of anarchists are two dimensional, but it is just inaccurate. And as for the primitivists being like Luddites, well that's just ridiculous - are they really trying to preserve their jobs as artisan labourers from increasing induatrialisation. I though it would be much better to put in the Khmer Rouge, which fits in much better with their plans to reduce the world's population. Clearly mass murder should not be considered oppressive our authoritarian, as once people have been killed they cannot be oppressed . . .

I'll think I'll go back to sorting stuff out on ... something else!!!Harrypotter 20:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is better for all that anarchocapitalist/republicans/right-libertarians should go out from here, leave in peace to all anarchists: societarians, individualists, post-leftists, syndicalists, primitivists, communists, mmutualists, agorists, georgists, post-structuralists, ecoanarchists, anarcho punks, feminists.

wait, are agorists anti-cap? I deleted it from the anarchism template a second ago b/c it seemed like a form of "anarcho"-cap.

And go to your excentric definition of anarchism in anarcho capitalism or libertarianism section... 8you already have a definition and a section, i dont know why you continue with the intention of confuse people.

If you want to apropiatte (and you are doing it constantly) for you the term anarchism (that never had have it). I think it is better for all that you go out, for us the anarchists and for you the republicans... excuse me !! ancaps

Tit for Tat

"According to Axelrod, TIT FOR TAT is a successful ESS because it is 'nice', 'provokable' and 'forgiving'. A nice strategy is one which is never first to defect. In a match between two nice strategies, both do well. A provokable strategy responds by defecting at once in response to defection. A forgiving strategy is one which readily returns to co-operation if its opponent does so; unforgiving strategies are likely to produce isolation and end co-operative encounters. Since the appearance of TIT FOR TAT as a model for the evolution of co-operation, there have been many strategies derived from it: TIT FOR TWO TATS, SUSPICIOUS TIT FOR TAT and ALWAYS DEFECT to name just three. Under varying conditions all achieve some success but none demonstrate the robustness of TIT FOR TAT."[2]

At this writing, the Tit is showing ("nocommie version") in response to a Tat (nocappie version). I will now change it back to the good NPOV version (anarchism = anti-statism and doesn't exclude any economic system.) If someone changes to a POV version, then I suppose we'll see another tit-for-tat spree. That's my strategy, anyway, with occasional random forgiveness plays like this. Hogeye 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your tits are showing? Is it Mardi Gras time already? *Dan T.* 21:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

My strategy is I'm going to ask for mediation on this page. Probably won't work, but as it is this page is just becoming an ever deteriorating mess. (BTW Hogeye are you aware of the [criticisms of Axelrod]).Bengalski 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - that's very interesting stuff. I've known about tit-for-tat for a long time from my mathematics background. More recently, I read about the concept of ESS in Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene." Tit-for-tat seems to work pretty well on Wiki. Perhaps people intelligent enough to work on Wiki for any length of time are unlikely to be "mean machines" or use the GRIM strategy.

Strictly speaking, Wiki-editing is quite different from an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game since there is communication between players. The fact that I can publicly announce my tit-for-tat strategy makes it more likely to work than in the classic PDG, where players are held incommunicado. (Also, note that the equilibrium relating to evolutionary stable strategies refers to strategies of players, whereas on Wiki the only stability/equilibrium we care about is the text in the article.) Thanks again for the link - I might read some of the books mentioned. Hogeye 21:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would definitely recommend Binmore's book (Game Theory and the Social Contract, in the two volumes mentioned in the link) to anyone who's interested in the application of game theory to political philosophy. It's a lot to digest but certainly worth it if that is where your interests lie. His political position he describes as 'bourgeois whig reformer', or something like that, and I don't agree with his conclusions; but I think his approach is a step beyond most of the tit-for-tat style literature.Bengalski 01:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hogeye, I don\\\'t think your game-playing is constructive. And it is vandalism. So too is reverting more than 3 times - \\\'simple vandalism\\\' is explicitly defined not to include good faith edits that you feel are POV. I don\\\'t want to play games here, but I do want to get this page working, and if that involves using the wikipedia rulebook I\\\'ll do it.Bengalski 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I\\\'ve blocked Hogeye for excessive violation of the 3RR. I\\\'d have preferred not to do so, especially considering my own interests in the article, but I count a total of 6 reversions in a 24 hour period, and this clearly is a POV dispute rather than \\\"simple vandalism\\\". Frankly everyone needs to assume the good faith of the other involved editors, and assuming anyone else with a differing point of view is a vandal is not going to push the article forward in any way. Sarge Baldy 18:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

\\\"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.\\\" Isn\\\'t making up your own proprietary definition a deliberate attempt to compromise the article? I think so. You shouldn\\\'t have blocked Hogeye, Sarge. 64.111.105.28 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism, per Wikipedia policy, does not include NPOV violations. Nor does it include what could be considered "bullying" of one group by another. It refers to consensus-level edits used to deface the Wikipedia (i.e. "George W. Bush is a fucken idiot.") Sarge Baldy 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been here for a few months, and it seems Hogeye is still up to the same old tricks - why hasn't he been permanently banned? He's been one of the most disruptive users in the history of Wikipedia and shows no intention of ever changing his ways. --Tothebarricades 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Header revisited

We're still stuck on the definitional issue, and engaged in the 253rd bi-monthly edit war. After perusing the Wiki editing FAQ and its discussion on definitions, I propose the following header:

---

Anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus anarchism, in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulers are unnecessary and should be abolished. Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of the state, i.e. involuntary government. These philosophies advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals and self-governance. This lexical definition of "anarchism" refers to any philosophy that opposes the existence of a state, regardless of the proposed economic system.[3] There are many persuasive definitions of "anarchism" which generalize without rulers to something more than statelessness. E.g. Many anarchists define it in terms of (being against) aggression, authority, hierarchy, or exploitation.

While anarchism is defined by what it is against, anarchists also offer differing positive visions of what they believe to be a truly free society. The word "anarchy," as anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a harmonious stateless society. However, ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics. Also, there is disagreement about how a free society might be brought about.

---

Hogeye 23:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Are "American Heritage College Dictionary" or "The Ism Book" defintions persuasive? YOUR definition is "persuasive" (it tries to persuade that: there is agreement on this definition and that anarchism is solely "philosophy that opposes the existence of a state" which isn't true) --XaViER 11:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Both the dictionary definitions you mention are compatable with anarcho-capitalism, so what's your point? Note that only definition 1 of the American Heritage Dictionary is relevant.

But to answer your question: No, the American Heritage and Ism Book definitions are lexical definitions. They express the core anarchist belief - the belief that all anarchists hold - that the State is an unnecessary evil. Additional conditions are a good clue that a definition is partisan. Hogeye 14:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I have made one. Maybe a waste of time, but I'm still new enough at this game, and fed up enough with edit warring, to give it a try. You can see it Requests_for_mediation#Anarchism here.Bengalski 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From what you wrote on the request, you may have the same idea that I had when I started here: a neutral disambiguation page. But at that time, the ansoc cartel expected to "win," so nothing came of it. See the archives. Hogeye 05:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I support the dissociation header pointing to ancapism that revkat introduced. Does anyone else want to comment on the request for mediation? Even just to say you think it's a bad idea?Bengalski 14:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see revkat's proposal. Do you mean something like this?

This article surveys the lexical definition of anarchism - political philosophies that oppose the state. For usages that add an anti-capitalist condition, see anarchism (anti-capitalist).

That would be a reasonable disambiguation. Hogeye 17:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry Meulen

Is this guy really notable at all? Webcrawler hits total 76 including a paper that says ". Meulen's monetary economics was original though flawed" . Google get 199 hits... but past the first page (which is almost the same as the first webcrawler page) it diffuses into other H. Meulens. -max rspct 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Muelen is definitely notable. There isn't alot about him on the internet, as the internet hasn't caught up yet. What's on the internet is just one small slice of all the information that's out there in books, journals, etc. Stuff is constantly being transferred over. As a matter of fact, individualist/panarchist and researcher John Zube, who I recently talked to, is in the process now of digitizing his stuff. RJII 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The anarcho-capitalists (on this page and others being formed by POV pushers) refer to Larry Gambone - This guy is just an internet blogger; he has published 1 article. He seems to call himself a leftist but is supossed to be a champion of 'american individualist anarchism' -max rspct 14:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Gambone has been writing and publishing since the 1960's. Here's a partial archive: [4] And, yes he's an American individualist anarchist. RJII 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy

I would just like to suggest that editors please read Wikipedia's NPOV policy, rather than making their own inferrments on the policy. People seem to be under the mistaken understanding that a NPOV policy is one in which the article does not "play favorites". However, the policy is to accurately reflect topics, and equal representation of topics represents a POV if the topics are not equally represented in common discourse and in the common perception. Removing sourced information can be perfectly appropriate by means of this policy, and help to enforce a NPOV within an article, by providing the balance set forth by policy. Thus, while it can be said that some editors are attempting to "ostracize" anarcho-capitalism as an expression of their POV, or "censor" verifiable information, policy does not dictate one way or the other; it can be equally as POV to include information as to omit it. This I suggest editors consider before deciding that other editors are necessarily acting in poor faith, against a "NPOV" that happens to correspond directly to an editor's own. Sarge Baldy 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's how you want to do it, then anarcho-capitalism needs to take up over half the article as it's the most popular form of philosophical anarchism today. RJII 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

According to whom? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I know at least a dozen anarchists (not including myself) and not one is anarcho-capitalist. I've never heard of anarcho-capitalists mentioned on the news, only anti-capitalists at demos and riots. Now you try to say a/c is the most popular kind? You're full of it! And I'm american, that's where a/c is most popular, yet I've never met one or heard about them except on infoshop.org and anarchy faq (where they are labeled as 'fake anarchists'!), and on this talk page.

We don't hang out on the infoshop.org forum because the moderator routinely bans anarcho-capitalists. Try anti-state.com forum if you want to meet some anarcho-capitalists. You can speak your mind; we're tolerant of other points of view. Hogeye 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

maybe you're banned b/c you're NOT anarchists! I don't really support the high level of erased posts on infoshop, but I can understand why you're banned. And like I said, I have not met any anarcho-caps at demos, never seen them in the news, never even knew anyone who knew one. Just b/c you appropriate the term anarchist does not make you an anarchist. Like I said earlier, National Socialists aren't socialists, and anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. You are partially inspired by anarchism, but you do not fit with the common perception of anarchism.

The point isn't how popular it is, but how closely it is associated with the term anarchism. I'm not even convinced that anarcho-capitalists widely consider it as such. Like the user above, I'm extremely skeptical of your claim of its popularity, and would be interested in your source for it. I hardly think many people are even aware of its existence outside (and even within) the United States and Canada. Sarge Baldy 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people seem to have a problem understanding that there is a world outside their little US-dominated corner of the english speaking internet. I have mentioned this wiki dispute to several Spanish anarchists, for example - and these are not 'lifestylists' but committed and well-read activists, some of them active all their lives, some even second or third generation anarchists. When I mention anarcho-capitalism not only have they never heard of it, but I have a hard job convincing them it's not a wind-up. Living in Europe and being active politically for some years, I have never met in real life even one person - anarchist or not - who thought anarchism and capitalism were compatible. Maybe we are all hideously mistaken over here, and need to be shown the error of our ways. I'm happy to read about anarcho-capitalism on its own page, and debate with its proponents. But until we all see the light, to put it in the anarchism article, and moreover to shape the rest of the article so as to accomodate this philosophy's history and its particular definition of anarchism, is a misrepresentation of anarchists the world over.Bengalski 13:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's strange. How can an educated anarchist have never heard of anarcho-capitalism? There are a lot of notable anarcho-capitalist theorists in Italy, France, and England. Maybe we can mention them too. There's even the Anarkokapitalistisk Front in Northern Europe. And, here's as web site for Italian capitalist anarchists: Libertari.org] RJII 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me put to rest for you any doubt that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists: "We believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." -Murray Rothbard RJII 03:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think Rothbard can speak for all anarcho-capitalists. I don't know about most people, but I read philosophers to adapt some ideas to my own thinking, not fully mimic someone else's ideology. Also, he doesn't seem to be making the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, he's claiming it is the only pure form of anarchism, and that all other forms are invalid. In effect he's attempting to redefine anarchism, not establish a new approach to it. Sarge Baldy 03:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

All the anarcho-capitalist theorists I've encountered consider it anarchism. Think about how absurd the claim is that anarcho-capitalists don't consider ancap to be a form of anarchism when they call it "ANARCHO-capitalism," and "capitalist ANARCHISM, and "Private property ANARCHISM, and "individualist ANARCHISM." About Rothbard claiming true anarchism is anarcho-capitalism, this is typical of anarchists. Everybody thinks theirs is the "true anarchism" --why else would they choose a particular form? Also, like Rothbard, each anarchists has his own peculiar definition of anarchism. Take a look here: [[5]]. Rothbard defines anarchism likes this: "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." RJII 04:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah, just like national SOCIALISTS are totally socialist since they call themselves that.

I do think anarcho-capitalists consider themselves "anarchist", extending from the notion that as "anarchy" is a lack of government, anarchism is simply the philosophy advocating a lack of government. Thus they consider themselves the only "true" anarchists, because they are only concerned with government, whereas other forms add all sorts of unnecessary fluff. Rothbard's statement clearly doesn't fit with his own definition, being much more bold in claiming anarchism is capitalism than in holding a much more exclusive definition in the latter. As you've demonstrated Rothbard himself seemed divided as to whether anarcho-capitalism is simply compatible with anarchism or whether it is its only true representation. Everyone is going to define the term anarchism differently, but when someone claims a definition that renders all other previous thinking void, you're not simply positing your own personal definition, you're attempting to establish a brand new one. Sarge Baldy 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarge> "I do think anarcho-capitalists consider themselves "anarchist", extending from the notion that as "anarchy" is a lack of government, anarchism is simply the philosophy advocating a lack of government. Thus they consider themselves the only "true" anarchists, because they are only concerned with government, whereas other forms add all sorts of unnecessary fluff."

You are mistaken. Most anarcho-capitalists, including Rothbard, acknowledge the other schools of anarchism satisfy the definition of "anarchism" (qua opposition to State.) What he's saying in the quote is that other forms of anarchism in practice lead to a de-facto state. Here's his argument from "The Ethics of Liberty". Hogeye 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists, in general, define anarchism as opposition to initiatory coercion. Opposition to "government" or the "state" is just what follows from how they define it. Opposition to the state is definitely not how anarcho-capitalists define anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists don't have a substantial different definition that most other anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker. For anarcho-capitalists, anarchy is just voluntary society. RJII 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit of trimming

I have trimmed down quite a few of the sections. This page has been getting much too long and dense - I think we have to leave the complexities of issues like exactly what if any form of property Proudhon or Stirner supported for these thinkers' individual pages. (Answer for Proudhon - it varies which bit you read, so you have to be very careful how you use these quotes, as I've tried to show on a few occasions here and on the Proudhon page; answer for Stirner - it's a lot more complicated than the jumble of quotes before made out, and half the time he's writing rhetorically for a counter-position, and contradicting himself all over the place if you take quotes out of context).

Otherwise I think I didn't lose any of the sense of what was there - except in propaganda by deed where I took out the sectarian jibes that only communist anarchists are violent.

Max Rspct, I'm not sure why you moved the individualism section down. I think we need something on the individualists in the history section. Also not sure about calling Proudhon an individualist. Discuss?Bengalski 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think in the historical part anarcha-feminism and religious anarchism could do with some attention. Also anarcho-syndicalism could use a bit more trimming. I'll try and do some work on these later - if no one else wants to volunteer, and if I don't just despair at another edit war.Bengalski 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw you tried to fit Bakunin in the communism section, but like you said he wasn't a communist but he also wasn't an individualist. He was a Collectivist (large C). Maybe he needs his own section? Although, he did say that he was a Marxist in economics but not in politics. Maybe you're right and he does belong in that section. He doesn't seem, to me, to have a coherent philosophy. Also, you said you're not sure about calling Proudhon an individualist. It's very commonly accepted that he was an individualist. He supported individuals ownership the produce of their labor (as opposed to collective ownership), opposed collective ownership of land, and denounced altruism. RJII 17:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut the article down not lengthen it. Your approach RJ is to constantly add stuff in to back up your dogmas (that there is a big split between 'individualism' and 'collectivism'; that there are proto-an-cap ancestors within 19th century anarchism.) For me this individualism/collectivism thing isn't a big deal, and so I don't feel we need to make a section for everyone who has a different view on property relations under anarchism.

Actually I think trying to rigorously apply your distinction does harm to the article. Particularly in regards to Proudhon and Steiner (maybe the Americans too, but I know too little about them to tell): you downplay the complexity, and changes, in their work and use decontextualised quotes to make a simplified picture of them that snugly fits your 'individualist' category. In my view it wasn't only Bakunin who didn't have a 'coherent philosophy', if by that you mean an easily defined stance on property relations that stayed fixed over their lifetimes.Bengalski 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism split along individuals and collectivist lines. Every historian knows that. The individualists were marginalized with the advent of Collectivism and communism, but still continued. Today, individualism is popular again. RJII 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

RJ - 'Collectivism' is just not used past a few mentions for indentification purposes at the time of the international. You just cannot keep putting collectivist/ism in here as it is used in a POV fashion by you to describe a whole movement that is not notably called that! -max rspct 18:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is. It's simply mentioned that Bakuninism was called "Collectivism." And, of course all commmunist anarchists are collectivists. RJII 18:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"And, of course all communists are collectivists ..." Who uses these categories? Where do they come from? Anarchists just don't think like that in real life. Marxists, who profess to have a 'coherent philosophy, perhaps, but not any anarchists I know. I've never been to an anarchist gathering where I'm told: collectivists line up over here, individualists over there. I've never been asked to state my views on private property before being allowed to join an anarchist group or collaborate in a struggle. (Not even pretty dogmatic anarcho-syndicalsist confederations.)Bengalski 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Chances are, the anarchist gatherings you went to didn't include individualists. Given the behavior by so-called anarchists editing this article, I would suspect that they wouldn't allowed in the building in the first place. RJII 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I've certainly met individualist anarchists at events, and never seen any trouble between people on either side of this supposed great 'schism'. The reality is though there just aren't very many individualists about.Bengalski 20:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes the important part is that Individualist strand though Anarchism is part and parcel of anarchism - yes anarcho-communists too. To separate this out and say that individualist anarchism is just synomynous with 19th cent early american Libertarianism ..is just inaccurate and un-encyclopedic. The same goes for the use of statism/anti-statism and collectivist - these are NON-NOTABLE terms and RJII/hoyeyes article American individualist anarchism is just so much original research and speculation . If it were a non-political argument they just wouldn't get away from it.. As anyone can see Admins don't grace us much with their presence. - max rspct 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't hold that position at all. Individualist anarchism includes more than the American individualists. It includes Proudhon and Stirner, for example. The Americans however were the most instrumental in developing and formalizing it. And, if you think the American individualist anarchism article contains original research, then let's hear some specifics. Go to that article's talk page and detail what you think is not verifiable by sources? Put up or shut up. RJII 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of your sources are written by anarcho-capitalists and right-wing libertarians. -max rspct 21:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. Almost all the sources are the words of the historical labor-value individualist anarchists themselves. RJII 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No - they are actively trying to rename anarchism. -max rspct 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename anarchism? What the hell does that mean? RJII 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

collectivism

RJII claims that anarchists not of the sort that he esposes are anarcho-communists and 'collectivists'. However the term collectivists was used to distinguish anarchists from the authoritarian communists in Marx's camp:

"To distinguish themselves from the authoritarians and avoid confusion, the anti-authoritarians called themselves collectivists" [6]

User:RJII has used this term to highlight what he sees as a schism in Anarchism from the 19th cent all the way up to 21st cent. Actually 'collectivists' or 'collectivism' has almost never been used to describe Anarchists or Anarchism and does not need to be used as there really is no schism beyond the early 1900's between 'pro-capitalist' and anti-capitalist anarchists: Right-wing Libertarians are the inheritors of so-called pro-capitalist anarchism. The only anarchism movement to outlive the early anarchists is the one present in Europe AND America which RJII and his cohorts would call 'collectivist' Use of this term is seriously POV and un-encyclopedic -max rspct 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Followers of Bakunin were called "Collectivists." Bakunin modified Prodhon's philosophy by advocating collective ownership of the means of production (which Proudhon opposed). Now, in the general use of the term "collectivism," (as distinct from the name of Bakunin's movement) any philosophy that proposes collective property as opposed to individual property, is a collectivist philosophy. For example, from the contemporary Encyclopedia Britannica: "Although the individualism and nonviolence implicit in Proudhon's vision have survived in peripheral currents of the anarchist tradition, Bakunin's stress on collectivism and violent revolutionary action dominated mainstream anarchism from the days of the First International down to the destruction of anarchism as a mass movement at the end of the Spanish Civil War in 1939." RJII 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is useful in explaining anarchist history to have a term that differentiates between those who favor individual ownership of property (however defined) and those who favor only certain collectives owning property. We've tried various terms (e.g. individualist anarchist vs anarcho-socialist) but many didn't like that. I seems to me that this critical distinction in anarchist theory should not be ignored in the article. If some don't like individualist vs collectivist then please suggest alternate terminology. As is well known, this schism goes all the way back to Proudhon vs Bakunin, and was continued with e.g. Goldman vs Tucker, and continues today. Hogeye 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is useful to a degree, but like most categorisations it is only a device, and we need to remember that any individual's views may be too complex to always fall squarely on one side or the other. My problem is when people start distorting their presentations of individual thinkers to make them fit more exactly.Bengalski 20:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, everyone that's included as an individualist in the article is widely regarded to be so. RJII 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have a possible solution. The problem that concerns Bengalski, is mainly one of terminology: "Individualism" have many meanings, and some of its meanings apply to e.g. syndicalists. After looking up individualism and collectivism here on Wiki, I think a much more exact terminology - the terminology that applies to our article - is "economic individualism" and "economic collectivism." So I'll edit the article accordingly. Hogeye 21:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No that's not what that concerns me. I took that definition to be implicit. What bothers me is that, even defined thus, the distinction can be of some use in some contexts within the article, but it's taking things much too far to shape the whole text around it. It papers over the rather more complex nature of peoples' different economic theories. And I'm concerned this terminology is a later imposition you two are inserting. I don't think it has been widely used or stayed the same throughout the period we are looking at. In particular:

- Proudhon never saw himself as an individualist opposed to 'collectivist' anarchism. Indeed because there was no substantial group of communist or 'collectivist' anarchists until the end of his life. All anarchists acknowledge their debt to Proudhon, and he is better presented as a common ancestor of all anarchists than a member of one school. When he wrote against communism he identified it with state communism. I'm pretty sure that (at least in places) he used the term 'collective' in a positive light - as in General Idea of the Revolution where he advocates workers' collectives. I think the onus is on you RJ to supply references for Proudhon identifying himself as an individualist and anti-'collectivist', I may be wrong but I don't remember anywhere he does this.

- Bakunin, as you've admitted, was also against communism, and wherever I've seen the term collectivism applied to his ideas it has been to distinguish them from, not identify them with, communism.

- This is also the way Kropotkin uses the terminology - for him collectivism is opposed to communism.

(OTOH If you want a clear cut ideological distinction, what about anarchism and capitalism. All anarchist fathers, of all tendencies including individualism, made outspoken statements opposing capitalism. Didn't Tucker say that anyone who charges more than cost is worse than a pickpocket?)Bengalski 21:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And can I just ask - why, given that this is disputed, do you feel it is important to structure the page so as to make this grouping into two schools more explicit? What does the article gain from it? Don't you think there are enough points of controversy on this page without suddenly taking up a new one?Bengalski 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Our article uses modern terminology, not outdated terminology. Did or did not Proudhon agree that private (possession) property was legitimate? Did or did not Bakunin and Kropotkin favor some form of collective ownership? Sure, they used the term "collectivist" to distinguish themselves from communists, but also they used it to distinguish themselves from capitalists.

Bengalski> "The distinction can be of some use in some contexts within the article, but it's taking things much too far to shape the whole text around it."

The distinction is used to group Proudhon, Stirner, and the individualist anarchists from the socialist (by modern terms) and communist anarchists, in the history part of the article. This distinction is well-known and not subtle at all. Why does this bother you? Hogeye 22:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But all these anarchists, including individualists, distinguished themselves from capitalists.Bengalski 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bengalski> "Why, given that this is disputed, do you feel it is important to structure the page so as to make this grouping into two schools more explicit?"

Because I feel that the article should not evade or hide such an important distinction. I'm amazed that you think it should. I amazed that you can't see the similarities between, 1.4.1 Anarchist Communism, 1.4.2 Propaganda by the deed, 1.4.3 Anarchism at work, 1.4.4 The Russian Revolution, that make them a natural grouping. Is it that you want to spread the blame for terrorism (propaganda by deed) to the individualists who opposed it. I dunno. Hogeye 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong Hogeye, mosts of Individualists Anarchists in Europe and South America did propaganda by deed.

Anarchy is Socialism, like said Joseph Labadie: is Voluntary Socialism. All anarchists were and are anti-capitalists. So we can use Individualists or Societarian (or Social) anarchists to difference if they focus on individuals or in society (economic issue included).

Who is an individualist anarchist that committed that which is euphemistically called "propaganda by deed"? You sure won't find one that subscribed to the native American form of individualist anarchism. RJII 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly RJII - your 'american indi anarchists' had no involvement in the historical development of anarchism... they have never been part of a movement and have only one mouth piece Liberty (1881-1908) if you ignore a handful of 20th cent anarcho-capitalist academics ... and thats it! And your main 'historian' on the issue James J. Martin was involved in the birth of the Institute for Historical Review - max rspct 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

American individualists had no involvement in the historical development of anarchism? Are you out of your mind? They constructed a voluminous body of highly influential philosophy that continues to influence to this day. Obviously you think that its only blowing up buildings and slaughtering people ("propaganda by the deed") that constitututes "involvement in the historical development of anarchism." RJII 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism Family Tree

Specifically, I don't object to grouping Stirner and the Americans together as individualists - this is non-controversial. But grouping Proudhon with them as against communists is misleading - Proudhon was a common ancestor of both groups. If there was a schism, it came after Proudhon, and this is retrospectively trying to claim him for one side in a debate he wasn't party to. The communists took from him his notions of federation and workers collectives, amongst other things, the individualists emphasised the concept of possession. (Incidentally, not all communists in fact oppose notions of individual possession.) And all of them took on his anarchism and critique of property. + Anarchy is Socialism, like said Joseph Labadie: is Voluntary Socialism. All anarchists were and are anti-capitalists. So we can use Individualists or Societarian (or Social) anarchists to difference if they focus on individuals or in society (economic issue included).

Secondly, while anarchist communism could be specifically opposed to individualism, it's wrong to group the other sections in that way. In what sense was the Russian Revolution an anarchist communist as opposed to an individualist event? There have been individualist syndicalists - whilst syndicalism has been most closely linked to communism, they are far from being identical. There is nothing in syndicalism as a method that rules out 'economic individualism'. Many anarchist communists (Malatesta perhaps the most notable) have opposed syndicalism as a method. +

Propaganda of the deed - yes there were American individualists posing it that way at the time. But I think it is wrong (and they were wrong) to present this as a question of economic philosophy. A better distinction in my view would be that most exponents of propaganda of the deed in the US were working class immigrants, coming from a background where political violence was a daily fact of life usually perpetrated against workers, as opposed to more comfortable middle class native 'philosophicals'. +

Be that as it may, it is misleading to try and equate communism and terrorism. There have certainly been violent individualists. There have certainly been pacifist communists (the Tolstoyans were generally communists, for example). Most communist anarchists supported revolutionary expropriation but opposed terrorism. There is no philosophical link between 'collectivist' anarchism and terrorism. If there is a historical link in the US it is more that anarchism attracted the poor and the despised, and so sometimes the violently angry. Communist anarchism had become by this time easily the majority current, and one that was more accessible to ordinary working people. +

I'm not shying away from the involvement of anarchists - whatever their economic theory - in terrorism. (In countries like Spain, for example, where workers' organisations were constantly threatened by gangs of hired assassins, I would in fact argue it was justified.) If you want to expand this section we could maybe put in a sentence dissociating the American individualists from terrorism (though I think there are so many issues here it would be better to refer the discussion to a page of its own). But identifying terrorism with 'economic collectivism' is just wrong.Bengalski 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. BTW, you should add a Labadie quote to definitions of anarchism. So far, only two out of sixteen theorists define anarchism as necessarily socialist/anti-capitalist. Question 1: Anarcho-syndicalism is the school I know least about, but my understanding is by definition they want worker (ie collectively) owned factories. So how can you have an economic individualist syndicalist? Question2: You imply that there existed some individualist anarchists who engaged in terrorism/propaganda by deed. Can you name one?

Like you, I consider Proudhon to be neither "socialist" nor "capitalist," but somewhere in between. He disagreed with capitalism's sticky property; he disagreed with socialism's collective property. And as you say, both anarcho-socialism and individualist anarchism borrowed from his ideas. I whipped up a quick tree chart of the way I see it:

Hogeye 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but mutualism is the economic system of labor-value individualist anarchists. Proudhon is an individualist. Your chart makes it look as if individualist anarchism is only a spin-off from Proudhon. Remember that Tucker got his ideas from Warren first, then Proudhon. Warren developed individualist anarchism apart from Proudhon. Individualist anarchism developed at around the same time in France with Proudhon, and in the US with Warren. It happened to flourish in the U.S. Bengalski makes the point that communists were influenced by Proudhon. That's fine and good, but that doesn't mean that Proudhonism is not individualism. Anarcho-communism may have had some influence from Proudhon, but even more so, it developed out of a rejection of Proudhon. RJII 03:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All schools of anarchism are Anti-capitalists, but not all are collectivists. Individualist anarchism is Anti-capitalist.

"anarcho" Capitalism doesn´t come from individualist anarchism, ancap come from Austrian economic school and was created in Ludwing Von Mises Institute

True, Warren probably beat Proudhon in practice, but Proudhon coined the term "mutualism" and formalized it. Maybe I should put Warren in the Proudhon box as co-inventor, but Warren overall is more like Tucker. Bakunin (as far as I know) was not influenced by Warren, if he knew of him at all. The tree is more a rough geneology of ideas rather than historical events. Hogeye 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious when Proudhon coined the term, because William B. Greene wrote on mutualism (and called it "mutualism") in 1850: [7] (Greene has been called the "American Proudhon"). RJII 04:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Proudhon was using it in the late 1840's. RJII 04:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Maybe I was wrong about Proudhon coining the term. This article says, "The word 'mutualism' seems to have been first used by John Gray, an English writer, in 1832." Hogeye 04:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Severino di Giovanni was an argentinian individualist anarchist who did propaganda by deed.

What evidence do you have that he was an individualist anarchist? Was he a theorist or what? If he was an individualists, it certainly couldn't be anything reminiscent of the private property anarchism of the American individualists. Maybe an individualist in the nihilist or Stirner sense? Where's your source? RJII 03:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

syndicalism

A few points:

- syndicalism is generally used as a term for an organisational method (i.e., organising through trade unions, and particularly favouring direct action union methods such as the general strike) rather than a post-revolutionary economic model (of worker collectives.) Thus there are, and have been, syndicalists of all kinds of ideological persuasions - including, of course, people who aren't anarchists at all.

- that said, syndicalism generally goes together with teh idea of 'workers control' or 'worker self management' - i.e., say you hold your general strike and the workers take over their factories, who then is in charge of each workplace? Do they appoint a new boss? No - the workers manage the factory themselves, generally I suppose through some sort of democratic structure (in an anarchist model, participatory democracy with rotating delegates etc.) You could then say - they run it collectively. But this is a statement about control/management rather than ownership - thus you could have statist syndicalists who say teh factory is in fact owned by the state. Or indeed mutualist or individualist syndicalists for whom each worker, perhaps, has a share in the ownership.

Indeed Proudhon advocated workers collectives - see General Idea of the Revolution in teh 19th Century. And (I can't remember the details but) I guess in this sense of shares. He didn't deny that workers would often need to work together and pool their resources in shared workshops, and even implement division of labour if necessary - that is not taken to imply collective ownership.

- as for actual examples of individualist anarcho-syndicalists, the most famous is Federica Montseny. Though as one of the four CNT ministers in the civil war governmemt she's a rather controversial figure of course - nowadays she's remembered in Spain as the first female government minister, I think in world history, more than for her anarchist views. [[8]]

But she is a good example of the fact that although the majority of the CNT supported Puente's Libertarian Communism, it was never an organisation closed to individualists (and I don't think any anarcho-syndicalist federations were), and there was a current of individualism in Spanish anarchism particularly amongst intellectuals.

To my mind this is fully in keping with anarchist (not individualist, not communist, but anarchist) principles - by definition, communist anarchists don't seek to impose communism on anyone, and should be able to live amicably with individualists who don't try to exploit their fellows.Bengalski 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing is certain. Individualists are not too keen on democratic control over anything. It's about individual control. RJII 14:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Individualists can't share a workshop together, or chip in to share tools? Or if they do, how do they make decisions within the workplace? It seems your view is that hierarchical decision-making - a boss who employs the others and makes all the rules within the workplace - is okay; but collective decision making (which is the only sense in which we're using democracy here) isn't.Bengalski 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Bengalski (and Leopold Kohr) here; voluntary democracy on a small scale can work just fine. As is voting your shares in a joint-stock-company.

Thanks for the explanation of syndicalism, Bengalski. I guess I was too hung up on the historic meaning of "syndicate" and saw it only as a method of ownership (rather as a transitional method of organization.) Hogeye 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the eytmology of 'syndicalism' is I think from French 'syndicat' (in Spanish 'sindicato') which is used in general just as we use 'trade union' (UK) or 'labor union' (US).Bengalski 16:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

"Question2: You imply that there existed some individualist anarchists who engaged in terrorism/propaganda by deed. Can you name one?" (Hogeye)

First of all, when discussing anarchist terrorism you need to bear in mind a couple of things:

- the amount it was hyped up by anti-anarchist propaganda, and the involvement of agents provocateurs.

- many of the terrorists labelled as such weren't in fact anarchists.

- to ask whether they were 'anarchist communists' or 'individualists' assumes these people actually had a well-developed position re. private property, or that they classified themselves in one of these groupings - I doubt that was often the case.

That said, as far as I'm aware the first actual theorist of anarchist terrorism was in fact an individualist, Karl Heinzen, who published a booklet Der Mord (Murder) in 1849. His famous quote is: "If you have to blow up half a continent and cause a bloodbath to destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no scruples of conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is not a true republican"

Unfortuantely I can't find an online version of it, or of any of his writings. But if we can trust Engels quoting Heinzen - they had a polemic match going, his position sounds pretty similar to classic individualist anti-communist anarchism:

'“By its above-mentioned casting-off of all private property..., communism necessarily also abolishes individual existence.” (So Herr Heinzen is reproaching us for wanting to turn people into Siamese twins.) “The consequence of this is once more ... the incorporation of each individual into a perhaps (!!) communally organised barracks ... economy.” (Would the reader kindly note that this is avowedly only the consequence of Herr Heinzen’s own absurd remarks about individual existence.) “By these means communism destroys ... individuality ... independence ... freedom.” (The same old twaddle as we had from the true socialists and the bourgeoisie. As though there was any individuality to be destroyed in the individuals whom the division of labour has today turned against their will into cobblers, factory workers, bourgeois, lawyers, peasants, in other words, into slaves of a particular form of labour and of the mores, way of life, prejudices and blinkered attitudes, etc., that go with that form of labour!) “It sacrifices the individual person with its necessary attribute or basis” (that “or” is marvellous) “of earned private property to the ‘phantom of the community or society'” (is Stirner here as well?), “whereas the community cannot and should not” (should not!!) “be the aim but only the means for each individual person.”'

[[9]]

RJ and Hogeye I think feel that terrorism contradicts the basic 'non-coercion' tenets of anarchist individualism. I would say that social anarchism is as much against violence and coercion as individualism. In theory, violence is a wrong against the core principles of either account. But there are differing views amongst anarchists of all types as to how far violence can be a justified or necessary evil. Within anarchist communism, there are plenty who hold that violence is justified under no circumstances whatsoever, and the large majority of communist theorists have condemned acts of terrorism.Bengalski 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're quite wrong to say that "social anarchist is as much against violence and coercion as individualism." You can say, well it's the bad image the collectivist anarchists have because of a few violent acts, but the philosophy of violence is coming from them mouths of theorists. Where do you see individualist anarchist theorists advocating throwing bombs and causing "massacres"? From Godwin and Proudhon on down through the Americans labor-value individualists, not only did the theorists oppose terrorist acts, but they even opposed revolution. Bakunin opposed Proudhon because the latter was for working apart from government and going into competition with it rather than taking it head on violently. This theme is expressed over and over with the American labor-value individualists. They mission of the individualists was to educate through philosophy (hence individualism is referred to "philosophical anarchism" and "scientific anarchism") and establish mutualist institutions and communities to bring about a gradual change to where individuals would eventually shake off government. Proudhon said it would take hundreds of years even. Now, I'm not saying in order to be an individualist anarchist, you have to oppose violent revolution against a highly oppressive government; I know that the American individualists supported the right of revolution in some cases an looked with great favor upon the American Revolution. I'm just talking from an historical viewpoint of the labor-value individualists theorists, it was not about violence at all, and it certainly wasn't about blowing things up and harming people. The Euros came to the U.S. and started blowing things up and the American individualists wanted to distances themselves as far as possible from the philosophy of "propagana by the deed." RJII 15:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Where do you see individualist anarchist theorists advocating throwing bombs and causing "massacres"? RJ did you actually read the paragraph above about Heinzen before you wrote your response?Bengalski 15:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I did, and as far as I can tell, while he's an individualist, he's not anarchist but a "republican": "Herr Heinzen is a former liberal, lower-ranking civil servant who in 1844 was still enthusiastic about legitimate progress and the wretched German Constitution, and who at best confessed in a confidential whisper that a republic might be desirable and possible, of course in the far distant future." RJII 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again RJ your whole understanding of anarchism seems to be based on a few US intellectuals. Here is an interesting anarchist life-story that may give you some taste of individualism within a broader (European and Latin American, as well as the US) context. Not all individualists have been so comfortably removed from the sometimes unpleasant realities of working class struggle.[[10]]. And Proudhon not being a revolutionary? Have you read even a brief life of Proudhon, or his General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century?Bengalski 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with individualists anarchists that are not American, but it's the type of individualist American developed by the Americans that is the most notable (not that they were the only ones who held it ..many Euros theorists also came to hold it). Where do you see Proudhon advocating violent anarchist revolution in General Idea of the Revolution? Bakuinin opposed Proudhon because he wasn't into revolution, and his Mutualist followers opposed Bakunin for favoring it. "[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation" Where do you see Proudhon advocating violent revolution? RJII 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Another quote from Gambone's essay which you're taking as a full and accurate summary of Proudhon's life's work? RJ I'll make you a deal (voluntary contract) - if you read an actual book by Proudhon, cover to cover, I'll read a book by Murray Rothbard.Bengalski 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't you read the Proudhon book too? RJII 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

'Severino di Giovanni was an argentinian individualist anarchist who did propaganda by deed. (anonymous)

I've heard this too - but looked and can't find any of Giovanni's writing on the web to back it up - I'll see if I can get hold of any printed material. However Berkman describes his journal, called 'Culmine', as individualist in his 'The Anarchist Movement Today'. [[11]]Bengalski 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a history of Stirner-influenced individualists in Europe using violence (often under the rubric of illegalism). Jules Bonnot, Octave Garnier, Raymond Callemin, and René Valet (all of the Bonnot Gang) are a few obvious examples. The individualist paper L'Anarchie in France (briefly editted by Victor Serge) was a fierce supported or propaganda by deed. Also, how about Marius Jacob and Clément Duval? I can't remember if they called themselves individualists... Nihila 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I found that info very useful and interesting. Thanks, Nihila. It turns out that in France, it was pretty much the opposite of the US. In the US, the terrorists were anarcho-socialists, who were roundly condemned by the (Boston anarchist) individualists. In France, the terrorists were individualists, who were roundly condemned by the anarcho-socialists. The link to the Bonnot Gang was especially informative. Hogeye 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as a suspected, a Stirnerite. RJII 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

fuck capitalism

fuck capitalism, long live anarchy! if capitalism were natural MONEY WOULD GROW ON TREES!

SMASH CAPITALISM

• • • THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF WORKERS, if each one have his own property that is anarchism

economic system is VERY important, economic liberty give us political liberty so we need an economy of no dependence. In other words: person=worker=propertarian, that is anarchy, and obviously that is not Capitalism.

Anarchy is that each one is his own boss, and Capitalism is the rule of the bosses over us.

Anarchism is not contrary to comunism or free market, if each person have his own property and if each person is his own boss. But as we know, property is not the same than Capitalism, capitalism is an authoritarian system where not everyone could have his own property.

You have Capitalism in U.S and in Soviet Union, in Japan and "Red" China, in privatized Chile and in North Korea, in ones Corporations are the bosses and in other ones State is the boss.

I`m an individualist anarchist, a market left-libertarian, and i consider Capitalism an authoritarian System, and "anarcho" capitalism for me is a contradiction (i`m not the only one). *

"Anarcho"-capitalism is an Austrian School invent to confuse anarchists individuals and to demobilize anarchists movements.

Anarchy is a society without bosses (the State or the Capitalists)

someone said: "For anarcho-capitalists, anarchy is just voluntary society", of course voluntary slavery is included but not named. It could be voluntary but is not anarchy.

Austrian School anarchists defend a Corporation anarchism that keep intouchable the great private tyrants of the world. Anarchism is a menace for Capitalism, and capitalists have created a "revolution" that dont affect them: "anarcho" capitalism.

Schools and Groupings of Contemporary Anarchism

I've been gone for a while and I've noticed that the whole "schools" thing is back, by which I mean the article is basically back to where it was: the needless and misleading subdividing of anarchists into different sects. How very disappointing. I was interested in portraying anarchism as a complex of memes that evolved through history but now we're back to square one, and the same old debate remains: Is anarcho-capitalism a "school" of anarchism? The whole point in not having "schools" was to avoid defining anarchism as one way or another. Contemporary anarchism should only list:

1. actual, formal anarchist organizations (CrimethInc, NEFAC, IWW, A-Infos, APOC, etc.) and projects (e.g. Mondragon Collective)
2. anarchist ideas that have arisen recently that are not canonical (Rothbard and Zerzan's ideas)

In other words, the article should not assert what is and isn't anarchism, and categories anarchists fall in to, but rather describe the host of ideas, organizations, and individuals that have made a claim to anarchism. For instance, someone coming to the page with genuine interest might want to know these things:

• What are the anarchist organizations and how large are they?
• How many anarchists subscribe to meme X?
• If some of these these topics are controversial (among anarchists), why?

Currently, they get a page which portrays Individualist Anarchism as the core set of anarchist values, whereas the vast majority of anarchists, while not outright rejecting those values, are not fervently supportive, either. If I was the only person who thought this was a solution to the whole "who is an anarchist" NPOV problem, then I guess my solution has been overridden, as I have no time right now to campaign for my own take on things. --albamuth 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that an encyclopedia article should discuss the main memes aka "schools" (individualist anarchism, socialist anarchism, communist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism). So I don't "get" what Alba is objecting to here. A school of thought is basically a related set of memes.

• I don't agree that a list of organizations should be a major part of the article itself; a simple list at the end of the article ("also see") seems sufficient. Of course, if they come up in the description of the memes/schools that's okay.

• I don't agree that an encyclopedia article should be a straw poll on popularity of various orgs or memes. Proudhon should be discussed even though there are few if any Proudhonians anymore.

• I don't agree that discussing memes/schools "defines anarchism as one way or another." All these memes/schools are forms of anarchism, or they wouldn't be in the article.

• I don't agree that the "article should not assert what is and isn't anarchism." Huh? An article on anarchism must define anarchism. It looks like we've done that recently by using the high-level (sufficiently vague) concept of authority, which apparently everyone can agree on.

The article looks pretty good at present, despite the occasional vandal deleting disliked schools . But that's Wiki. Hogeye 17:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the article as portrayaing individualist anarchism as the "core set of anarchist values." Individual autonomy in action and property was the initital conception of modern anarchism. Then, the "meme" of collectivism started infiltrating. Maybe you think individualism is over-emphasized because it's the first kind of anarchism talked about in the article? Remember you said you favored an historical account, so it has to be discussed first. By the way, if you want to talk about "memes," I can't think of many things more meme-ish than individualism and collectivism. RJII 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)