Jump to content

Talk:Anarchism/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Criticsms of Anarchism

I've moved the Criticisms of anarchism section to its own page to cut down the length of this one. Seems reasonable to have one page deal with what it is and another dealing with the criticisms / responses to it.

Chaikney 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson

The wikipedia article on Wilson itself describes him as a libertarian, though his work certainly shows a strong left-leaning tendency. I didn't remove him from the list on this page, but added a note that he may be better described as a left libertarian. This is consistant with every interview and discussion of his politics I've seen, though if someone has something definative, I'm certainly open to concede the point.

I actually changed the link on his page to reflect that prior to your change here. If you look on the talk page, he says that he would use the term anarchist if it weren't for its association to terrorism, and would use the term libertarian if it weren't for "the people who got their grip on that word". Seeing as he's in the United States where libertarianism has become synonyomous with libertarian capitalism, it seems pretty explicit to me that he's on the libertarian left. (But as someone suggested, it might be a good idea to mail him personally to find out.) Sarge Baldy 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You could do that, but his response couldn't be cited here. That would be original research. RJII 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well technically speaking it would but just gathering information doesn't appear to be against Wikipedia policy, which is concerned with new ideas. Sarge Baldy 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk archives & Open Tasks

Nozick

Why did infinity0 remove Nozick from the passage about minarchists who have influenced a-c? —Tamfang 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Saw his page, it wasn't very big, so I thought he wasn't too notable. Two is enough anyway, we're not trying to provide a full list. -- infinity0 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Since he is the foremost academic proponent of libertarianism, and second most renowned political philosopher of the late 20th century (after John Rawls), I think he should be mentioned. - anon

Proudhon on "property"

In Theory of Property, Proudhon writes: "In my System of Economic Contradictions, I reiterated and confirmed my first definition of property and then added another, quite contrary one based on considerations of quite a different kind. But this neither destroyed or was destroyed by my first argument. This new definition was: property is liberty. Property is theft: property is liberty: these two propositions stand side by side in my System of Economic Contradictions and each is shown to be true." (Edwards, ed. Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon. New York: Doubleday, 1969. p. 140.) See page 141 in the same source for the argument in favor of "property" "by its aims." But note that Proudhon, at this point, is also arguing for an "antinomic" balancing of anarchy and the aims of the State. I'll leave it to each to decide how to read these developments in Proudhon's thought, but this much is clear: the move in relation to "property" and "the state" is exactly the same move. So, either we read each move in terms of the irreducible dialectic and maintain Proudhon's original critique of property (though now in a complex tension with new thought), or we decide that Proudhon's anarchism is as abandoned as the notion of possession (although he denies the abandonment), and consider his embrace of property concurrent with an abandonment of anarchism. Libertatia 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked now at all of the major writings on property, and several of the minor ones, and can find no evidence that contradicts Proudhon's own statement that he maintained both definitions of "property" (theft and liberty) equally, and in tension. The possibility of this philosophical/rhetorical move is one he notes all the way back in A Letter To M. Blanqui, the "Second Memoir" on property. At that time, he chooses not to use the same word for both, but eventually changes his terminology. Libertatia 18:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
To say that Proudhon did not "totally" abandon his early critique of property implies that he abandoned some of it, and that simply isn't supported by the primary sources. His rhetorical shift and his embrace of property "by its aims" in the Theory of Property in no way invalidates his statement, in that same volume, that he still believed that "property is theft." Libertatia 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Proudhon is absolutely clear, in Theory of Property, about maintaining both the original critique of property and advocacy of possession and the affirmation of property "by its aims." The question of whether he "distanced himself from anarchism" is open to interpretation, since "anarchism" as such was in its earliest stages of development, but Proudhon's own testimony about his thinking on property and possession are hard to argue with. Libertatia 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RJII, while it is true that Proudhon changed his rhetorical strategy—as I have already mentioned above—and while that might be useful information in the Proudhon entry, or in an expanded discussion here, the trend has been to cut such explanations. And it remains clear that he did not change his basic ideas about property and possession. To mention the change in rhetoric without mentioning the antinomies, for example, presents a very deceptive picture. Libertatia 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The trend? What do you mean? And, I don't see anything deceptive. It doesn't say he changed his ideas about possession and property, but that he doubted that the distinction was useful. Proudhon is relatively complicated. I think it's best that we leave the interpretation to secondary sources. We're really not supposed to be doing our own interpretation of the primary sources unless it's straightforward. RJII 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
We've just had a whole series of cuts to this section, mostly by Hogeye. Ultimately, that's fine. As we've both noted, Proudhon is complicated, and perhaps it makes most sense to keep the section in this entry short. As it is, we already have an acknowledgement that he changed his rhetoric but maintained the same ideas. And that is quite straightforwardly presented in Theory of Property, or even just in the translated portions in the Selected Writings. The claim that he "doubted the distinction was useful" is correct only to the extent that Proudhon adopted the strategy of contrasting "property" (aka theft) with "property" (aka possession) that he initially rejected in Leroux's writing (in What Is Property?). And he still continues to refer to "possession" in Theory of Property. I'm in agreement about primary and secondary sources, except where the secondary sources are obviously a bit off. This is that sort of case. In order to contextualize the secondary source, we'll have to go further out on the interpretive limb than we've gone without it. From the point of view of genuinely NPOV editing, that seems pretty good. (In terms of the ideological struggles that we know are, in fact, also going on, the current edit seems even to give a little bit more than is perhaps justified to the propertarian faction. I suspect all but the ideologically greediest face a win-win-win situation in presenting the difficulties of the later Proudhon in roughly the terms we have now.) If you're up for it, we could tackle this stuff in depth on the Proudhon page sometime soon. My grades are in, and there will be some time for wrangling over details. Libertatia 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

on wage labor

I dispute that Proudhon opposed wage labor. That's one of the main reasons why the anarcho-communists don't like him. RJII 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. - under wage labour the employer takes sole ownership of the products. -- infinity0 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage labor just means being paid wages for labor. Proudhon supported that. RJII 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Really, RJII do you really need to inflict your ignorance of anarchism on to us? What have we done to deserve this? Have you actually *read* any Proudhon? I have. Proudhon thought that "all accumulated capital is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to rescue the working masses from capitalist exploitation." Or, "In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy." How about when he argued his ideas aimed for the "abolition of the proletariat"? [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 44, p. 80, p. 63 and p. 179] And I haven't even quoted from his "The General Idea of the Revolution" yet. Or the numerous indepth studies of Proudhon which point out that he was against wage labour and in favour of co-operatives!
Yes, he was in favour of workers being paid for their work but that is *not* automatically wage labour! An a co-operative labour is not a cost and so any "profit" is a wage income to be distributed between those who produced the goods. In a capitalist firm, labour is a cost and profit is owned by the capitalist (and so is a non-labour income). As Proudhon argued, repeatedly.
Being paid for labor is wage labor. RJII 08:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Read some Proudhon, he explains the difference well. Or read something on the economics of co-operatives, if you cannot bring yourself to read Proudhon. BlackFlag 09:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The mutualists do not oppose wage labor. They oppose profit being deducted from wages. Communists are the ones that oppose wage labor. Tucker explains it here criticizing Kropotkin for opposing wage labor. [1] RJII 08:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try and keep it simple. Proudhon was not Tucker. Tucker was not Proudhon. European mutualism is not identical with American individualist anarchism. That is obvious if you read Proudhon and Tucker. Tucker's support for wage labour is in direct contradiction to Proudhon's arguments on this matter. Quoting Tucker in support of a claim about what Proudhon thought is a joke. As is failing to even mention the numerous quotes I provided from Proudhon himself. I could provide even more quotes by Proudhon on the matter, reference numerous secondary studies of his ideas, but I really fail to see why I should given that you have presented absolutely *no* evidence to support your "dispute." What you have provided is references to two articles by two *other* people, one of which (Kropotkin's) you obviously do not understand and the other is not even about Proudhon's version of mutualism. BlackFlag 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I know what the problem here is. We have someone who seems to be ignorant of anarchism and the anarchist tradition trying to bolster his own specific ideology by clutching at any straws he can find. I can see why this webpage is constantly changing as even the most elementary ideas of anarchism are put up for "dispute" by people who don't know enough about the subject to know better. BlackFlag 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Kropotkin criticized Proudhon because, among other reasons, he supported wage labor. You don't know much about the conflicts between Proudhonism and communism, do you? RJII 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, man. That really sums it up. Because RJII knows nothing about the issues at hand, he assumes that those who do are ignorant of the subject! This is a waste of time. RJII has provided *no* evidence for his claim and has repeatedly shown that the basis of his "dispute" is ignorance of the subject matter. I suggest that this is closed as I really cannot be bothered having to provide evidence and quotes by Proudhon which RJII simply ignores. BlackFlag 08:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Source for basis of claim? -- infinity0 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"It is the same with the wages system; for after having proclaimed the abolition of private property, and the possession in common of all means of production, how can they uphold the wages system in any form? It is, nevertheless, what collectivists are doing when they recommend labour-cheques. It is easy to understand why the early English socialists came to the system of labour-cheques. They simply tried to make Capital and Labour agree. They repudiated the idea of violently laying hands on capitalist property. It is also easily understood why Proudhon took up the idea later on'. In his Mutualist system he tried to make Capital less offensive, notwithstanding the retaining of private property, which he detested from the bottom of his heart, but which he believed to be necessary to guarantee individuals against the State...But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?" -Kropotkin [2] RJII 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely that "the idea" refers to "labour cheques", as it is the preceding noun??? -- infinity0 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. You still think "wage labour" is the same as "wages for labour". -- infinity0 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wages for labor and wage labor are the same thing, yes. RJII 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Marx also criticized Proudhon for supporting wage labor. "Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society is then conceived as an abstract capitalist." RJII 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Kropotkin also criticised Marx for supporting "wages." I'm assuming that Marx was in favour of wage labour now? It really is simple. Payment by deed ("wages") is not the same as wage labour. Read a book on the economics of co-operatives and you would see that (or read Proudhon!). Kropotkin is making a polemic in favour of *communism,* payment by need (so to speak) against *socialism* (payment by deed, i.e. according to labour provided). Proudhon's scheme calls for payment for labour ("wages") but not wage labour (i.e. a capitalist employing workers). That is it. Nothing complex about it. I could provide some more quotes by Proudhon, but RJII does not seem bothered by what Proudhon actually advocated. User:BlackFlag 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please give a source showing that Marx criticised Proudhon for supporting wage labour. -- infinity0 18:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I just did. RJII 18:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That source doesn't mention wage labour. -- infinity0 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does. "wages, as demanded by Proudhon" RJII 18:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin is refusing to acknowledge a significant difference between a system based on labor notes and wage labor under capitalism. That's understandable, coming from an advocate of communist anarchism. From that point of view, any system that makes access to goods contingent on specific quantities of labor falls short of the goal. But that doesn't mean that the labor note system actually is wage labor in the generally accepted sense. Kropotkin is critical of Proudhon because he's not a communist. We need to be a little more specifically critical, since the issue here seems to be how to distinguish between capitalist and mutualist labor-contingent systems. Libertatia 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is totally right. Kropotkin wrote a polemic for communism, i.e. distribution according to *need.* He criticism Proudhon (and others) for supporting distribution according to *deed.* He called the latter "wages" in order to show what he considered the contradiction in that position. However, Proudhon was against *wage labour,* what *he* called the "wages system." If you bother to read Proudhon you will find him arguing that workers associations where a "protest against the wages system" and the "denial of rule by capitalists." [General Idea, pp. 98-9] In addition, he explicitly advocated co-operatives to replace capitalist workplaces. [Op. Cit., pp. 122-5] RJII is *utter* misrepresenting Proudhon's ideas on this subject and is in direction opposition to what he wrote (see quotes provoded by me as well as numerous books about him). I can only say that it speaks volumes that RJII has not provided a single quote by Proudhon in favour of wage labour, while I have provided quote a few in opposition. I would suggest that this "dispute" is no such thing. User:BlackFlag 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to try to keep to the actual words used by Proudhon and Kropotkin than for Wikipedia contributors to keep trying to put their own spin on what they wrote. Here is what Proudhon said about communism and wage labour in What is Property:

"In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the conscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be the duty of the strong to aid the weak, they prefer to do it out of generosity, — they never will endure a comparison. Give them equal opportunities of labor, and equal wages, but never allow their jealousy to be awakened by mutual suspicion of unfaithfulness in the performance of the common task.... Thus, communism violates the sovereignty of the conscience, and equality: the first, by restricting spontaneity of mind and heart, and freedom of thought and action; the second, by placing labor and laziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality in point of comfort. For the rest, if property is impossible on account of the desire to accumulate, communism would soon become so through the desire to shirk.... The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal."

All quotations can be verified at the following on line source: [3]

As these quotations show, Proudhon advocated two things opposed by anarchist communists: 1) an exchange economy; and 2) a wage system (equal wages, not the complete abolition of wage labor).

Lastly, I think it is unnecessary to include in this section the claim that "As such, communist-anarchism is based on the same distinction between possession and property as found in Proudhon's work." That is a matter of debate. As I indicated in a previous (now deleted) posting, Proudhon's notion of possession is different from the anarchist communists. The anarchist communists had no objection to people possessing something simply for the purpose of using it to satisfy their needs (in fact, that is what they advocated), and of course the actual means of production would have to be possessed by someone in the very limited sense that someone would actually be using the means of production to produce things that people need. But Proudhon's position was quite different. He advocated that people should be free to exchange their possessions for goods of equivalent value, and that in collective enterprises the workers in each enterprise would share in the profits and losses of the enterprise, and would be compensated for the labour they contributed to the enterprise. As Kropotkin and other anarchist communists have argued, this is a "wage system," even if it is supposed to be different from the capitalist model. In Proudhon's mutualist schemes, "possession" includes elements of more conventional notions of private property, such as the right to exchange one's possessions for commodities of equal value. So Proudhon's notion of "possession" provides the basis for a completely different kind of economic system, an exchange economy with remuneration based on labour (i.e. a wage system).

Nobody is saying that Proudhon was a communist! It is well known that he was not. What we are saying is that Proudhon was a socialist who was against *wage labour*, i.e. capitalist social relations in production. This is well known and easily supported by Proudhon's works. He was in favour of payment of labour (what Kropotkin called "wages"). That was why he was not a communist. It really is not hard to understand. As for wage labour, what Proudhon called the "wages system," let me quote him some more. For Proudhon, capitalist workplaces would be "handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic." This would end "wage slavery." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] I can produce yet more quotes from Proudhon on this matter, but do I really need to?
So, let me just repeat the argument. Proudhon was against wage labour (as has surely been proven by now). He was against communism as he thought that distribution should be according to *deed,* not *need.* Kropotkin criticised this in favour of *need,* calling Proudhon's position a system of "wages." By "wages" it is meant simply labour income. Labour income is *not* wage labour. It only becomes wage labour when workers sell their time/liberty to a capitalist who keeps the products they produce. And just to reiterate this point, Proudhon was obviously against that!
So, please, can we now close this "dispute" as there is none. RJII is wrong. Proudhon opposed wage labour, as I have shown -- repeatedly. And I have not even got onto the secondary source material! User:BlackFlag 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Working for a wage is wage labor. Proudhon did not oppose that. He supported wages. Your problem is your trying to make "wage labor" and "laboring for wages" to mean two different things, but they don't. Proudhon supported laboring for wages --he supported wage labor. RJII 07:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the point? I've given numerous quotes by Proudhon where he explicitly opposes wage labour in favour of workers associations and RJII just keeps going on about how "wages" equal "wage labour." Why do I bother. He does not understand his subject nor the economics of co-operatives and simply expects his ignorance to be considered more important than Proudhon's own opinions. What does he think "abolition of the proletariat" means? Proletariat is a wage worker, someone who sells their time/liberty to a boss in return for wages (he "has sold and surrendered his liberty," to quote Proudhon). Proudhon was obviously against that (as proven, repeatedly!). There is no "dispute", RJII has provided no evidence and utterly ignored the evidence I have produced. Can we stop this now, it is a waste of time and effort. User:BlackFlag 08:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society is then conceived as an abstract capitalist." -Marx RJII 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That says it all! To prove that Proudhon supports "wage labour" does RJII quote Proudhon? Nope. He quotes Marx. Does he quote Marx on wage labour? No, on "equal wages." What is the point? I mean, really, what is the point? RJII really has no idea what he is talking about. He does not address the issue and simply ignores Proudhon's own words. This is a joke. User:BlackFlag 09:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If there's an expert on "wage labor" it's Marx. Proudhon never used the term "wage labor" --he just called it wages. Pretty much only communist-oriented people use the term. There are plenty of quote from Proudhon where he talks about wages --and raising wages, etc if that's what you want. RJII 08:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
He actually used the term "wage slavery" (as noted above). He repeatedly opposed capitalist social relationship in favour of workers associations (as noted time and time again). Now, who would be an expert on Proudhon's ideas? Marx or Proudhon? Difficult one! As for quotes from Proudhon, provide one quote where he supports capitalist social relations in production. Not "wages." Not labour income. Provide some evidence that Proudhon was in favour of a society split between a class of bosses and a class of workers. I have provided numerous quotes which prove beyond doubt that he was against such a system -- which RJII simply ignores. User:BlackFlag 09:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Opposing wage labor and opposing "wage slavery" aren't the same thing. RJII 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I give up. What is the point? RJII knows nothing about the subject. I've provided numerous quotes by Proudhon to support my argument. RJII has provided none. Case closed. He has proved a quote from Marx on this subject. So will I. "Labour-power was not always a commodity (merchandise). Labour was not always wage-labour" ("wage labour and capital"). According to RJII, a peasant is subjected to wage labour, for he pays himself "wages" when he sells the product of his labour. That should show how wrong his argument is. User:BlackFlag 12:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's quote Proudhon again (for all the good it does!). "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . he will become an associate." He stressed that "in the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" and "in the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." (The General Idea of the Revolution) I'm sure that RJII will ignore this quote as he has the others, but I live in hope! User:BlackFlag 09:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The "exploitation" is not wage labor, but the worker not receiving the full product of his labor is exploitation. Proudhon didn't want to get rid of wage labor --he wanted to raise wages. You've got it in your head that "wage labor" is necessarily exploitation, but that's not the case for Proudhon. RJII 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the point? RJII does not know what he is talking about nor is he concerned about understanding Proudhon's ideas. There is no dispute, as is obvious. I've proved beyond doubt that Proudhon was against wage labour. User:BlackFlag 09:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, go ahead and think that. RJII 08:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Dispute" closed. RJII has proved no evidence for his claim and simply repeats the same (false) statement over and over again. I have produced more than enough evidence to support the claim that Proudhon opposed wage labour from his own works. RJII has proved none. User:BlackFlag 12:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The dispute is very much open. You haven't proved that Proudhon opposed laboring for wages (wage labor). RJII 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have, repeatedly. RJII has proved no evidence to support his "dispute." Anyway, I've posted more proof below (on the "wage labour" section). Here is a summary: "Capitalist and landlord exploitation halted everywhere, wage-labour abolished." (Proudhon, "The General Idea of the Revolution", quoted by John Ehrenberg, "Proudhon and his Age", Humanity Books, new York, 1998, p. 116) Further proof can be found below. "Dispute" closed. User:BlackFlag 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Proudhon's notion of possession is different from the anarchist communists." You misunderstand. Proudhon's vision of how a society based on possession would work *is* different from communist anarchism, but the underlying principles are the same. There would be no private property, just possession. Those who rejected communism would be free to utilise the land and tools they used and exchange the product as they saw fit. Communist anarchists argued that Proudhon's position was contradictory, advocating common possession for the means but not the product. Proudhon disagreed, of course, but the basic concept is the same. Use would be the key, not property. No one is arguing that the systems based on the principle of possession would be the same. User:BlackFlag 08:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the point. Let's deal with wage labor first: in the passage from What is Property quoted above, Proudhon says "the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal." He advocated equal wages, not the abolition of wages. Receiving wages for your labor is a form of wage labor. What you don't understand is that one can be opposed to capitalism without advocating the abolition of all forms of wage labor. Proudhon did not advocate the abolition of wages (or wage labor - i.e. remuneration for one's labor). Neither did most 19th century socialists.

Marx, despite his attack on Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy, was in favour of a wage system during the transition from socialism to communism (see his "Critique of the Gotha Program"). By the time Kropotkin was writing about anarchist communism in the 1880s, this was the position of virtually all Marxists. The Marxist position (which Kropotkin included in the "collectivist" category in his essay, "The Collectivist Wage System") entailed the payment of wages to workers for their work, with higher skilled workers receiving higher rates of pay, and individual ownership of consumer goods. Opposition to such schemes became a defining feature of anarchist communism, which advocated the immediate abolition of wage labor and all forms of private property, and the immediate implementation of distribution according to need, rather than "postponing" it to the distant future.

The collectivist anarchists, including the early Spanish anarchists such as Ricardo Mella, and Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume, adopted a position similar to Marx's. In Guillaume's essay, "Ideas on Social Organization,"(1876) he writes: "Whatever items are produced by collective labor will belong to the community, and each member will receive remuneration for his labor either in the form of commodities (subsistence, supplies, clothing, etc.) or in currency," i.e. wages. Only later will it be possible to progress to a communist system where distribution will be according to need: "When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."[4]

Your refusal to acknowledge this point distorts the historical development of anarchist ideas, as well of the ideas of the anarchists you quote. As for the notion of "possession," while you may claim that it is the same for Proudhon and the anarchist communists, many others disagree. Thus, your statement, being a disputed one, should not be included in the article. Proudhon did not merely advocate possession for use; he also advocated being able to retain the products one produced and to exchange them with others. That is a concept of "possession" which incorporates elements of more conventional notions of property, something which Proudhon acknowledged when he later wrote that "Property is Freedom," not just theft (in The System of Economic Contradictions and in his posthumous Theory of Property),which is precisely why anarchist communists like Kropotkin rejected Proudhon's position. For a more recent critique of socialist schemes which retain some kind of wage system, see John Crump and Adam Buick's book, State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management (Macmillan, 1986).Robgraham

You are confusing opposition to "income from labour" ("wages") with "wage labour." Anarchist communists oppose both, socialist anarchists like Proudhon only oppose the latter (as I have proven). To use the appropriate terminology, Proudhon was in favour of "each according to their deed" while Kropotkin was in favour of "each according to their need." Kropotkin criticised Proudhon for not extending "use"/"possession" into the products of labour, that is true. But the basic theory that "possession" replaces "property" is at the heart of both. BlackFlag 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested

User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy - a few points we noticed about some issues and events on wikipedia. -- infinity0 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that all seems fairly obvious. Consider how long it took before we introduced a section on criticism. Not many people who aren't anarchists feel safe coming in here, partly by a lack of interest, partly by a lack of knowledge, but also in part because it just isn't a welcoming place to be. I know I make it a point to stay out of articles like anarcho-capitalism for that reason. It's pretty obvious who's going to take the effort to edit that article. And I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing hanging around here. Although considering that less than 1% of my edits have been to this page I don't think it's too problematic. The only real way I've found to avoid POV editing is to do most of it through the random page function, and that's often very boring. Sarge Baldy 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be interesting if you could only edit pages randomly? In other words, instead of an "edit this page" button, an edit button that just opens up a random page? There would be huge downsides, of course, but it would be interesting nonetheless. --AaronS 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage labour is not "labour for wages"

Please see Talk:Wage_labour#Suggestion_to_merge_this_with_wages. -- infinity0 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Paying wages for labor is wage labor. RJII 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we end this subject now, as RJII obviously does not know what he is talking about. Nor does he seem concerned about evidence either, as he has not provided *any* to support his claim that Proudhon supported wage labour beyond his own ignorance of the subject. BlackFlag 08:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of useful quotes from Marx (as RJII considers him an expert on "wage labour"). From Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm):

"Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labor, the other on the employment of the labor of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. . . . It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labor, employs that labor to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifest itself here practically in a struggle between them."
"capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons"
"We know that the means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They become capital only under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation and subjection of the laborer."
"What becomes of the production of wage-laborers into independent producers, who work for themselves instead of for capital, and enrich themselves instead of the capitalist gentry, reacts in its turn very perversely on the conditions of the labor-market."
"How, then, to heal the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies? . . . Let the Government put upon the virgin soil an artificial price . . . that compels the immigrant to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent peasant."
"the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words, the expropriation of the laborer."

That was why Proudhon argued for workers to form *associations,* as I have shown, in order to ensure the "abolition of the proletariat". Obviously, I'm expecting RJII to ignore his own expert in these matters, as Marx is obviously explaining why independent producers (who sell the product of their labour) are *not* wage workers, i.e. not subject to wage labour. BlackFlag 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we're tripping over semantics, rather than clarifying anything. Blackflag has presented plenty of evidence that "wages" would function very differently in a mutualist society than they do under the capitalist "wage system." I don't think anyone is really disputing that difference. Therefore, simply saying "wages are wages" seems likely to distort the account every bit as much as denying Proudhon's acceptance of "remuneration for labor" would. The distinction between "wage labor" and "labor for wages" is not really intuitive, so perhaps some clarifying language could be inserted. Libertatia 19:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This "dispute" rests purely and simply in RJII's ignorance of Proudhon's ideas. He confuses the word "wages" with "wage labour." His argument, which flies in the face of all studies on Proudhon's ideas, is that by "wages" Proudhon meant "wage labour." I have argued that by "wages" Proudhon meant labour income, not wage labour. RJII has presented no evidence to support his claim. I will present even more evidence here.
In Chapter 3, section 6 of "What is Property?" Proudhon maintains "That in society all Wages are Equal." It is clear that he is discussing labour income, not wage labour. He is discussing those who argue in favour of rewarding labour done, "that the products of Nature procured by labour and industry are a reward . . . to all kinds of pre-eminence and superiority . . . that the greatest capacity is entitled to the greatest reward." (p. 131) He disagrees, arguing that "in so far as labourers are associated, they are equal." (p. 133) Who pays the wages? he argued "society . . . is forced to pay them all the same wages, since she pays them only in its own products." (p. 135) Hence Marx's comments about Proudhon viewing "society" as an "abstract capitalist." And in case anyone has any doubts left, Proudhon answered the question of how will a workplace be organised? He is clear, any "leaders . . . must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers themselves." (p. 137) This makes perfect sense, in a situation where "all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor." (p. 130)
In summary, Proudhon is advocating workers associations and self-management. So he clearly used "wages" to refer to labour income, not wage labour.
This is confirmed in later works. Discussing the "workmen's associations" founded in France, he notes in "The General Idea of the Reovlution") that "the workmen, in order to dispense with middlemen . . . , capitalists, etc., . . . have had to work a little more, and get along with less wages." (pp. 89-90) So he considers workers associations as paying "wages" and so, obviously, means by "wages" labour income, *not* wage labour. He calls "wage labour" by the term "wages system," arguing that the "workmen's associations" are "a protest against the wage system" and a "denial of the rule of capitalists." (p. 98) I have already quoted his opinion of wage labour and capitalism and its effects on workers (pp. 215-6). For Proudhon, the aim is "Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed." (p. 281)
I must note that this has been translated as "Capitalist and landlord exploitation halted everywhere, wage-labour abolished." (John Ehrenberg, "Proudhon and his Age", Humanity Books, new York, 1998, p. 116) The author notes that Proudhon advocated "companies of workers" organise industry.
So, all in all, I think that I have shown that this "dispute" is no such thing. As shown, Proudhon used the term "wages" to refer to all forms of labour income, even that of associated workers, so it cannot be inferred that he supported wage labour by his use of it. He was clearly supported workers associations to replace capitalism and was totally opposed to wage labour ("the wages systems abolished" or "wage-labour abolished", depending on the translation).
If Proudhon's own words do no convince, may I suggest K. Steven Vincent's excellent in-depth analysis of this aspect of Proudhon's ideas, "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism" (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984). As he concludes, "Proudhon consistently advanced a program of industrial democracy which would return control and direction of the economy to the workers." (p. 230)
Now that I have proven (yet again!) what is a well known fact about Proudhon's ideas (to anyone actually familiar with them), can we move on? This "dispute" is just the product of RJII's ignorance. BlackFlag 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, it's the product of your ignorance. Labor for wages is "wage labor." They're not two different things. RJII 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Many people (me, Jim6sch, Arthur Rubin, etc etc etc) have already explained why RJII is wrong on this point; it's time to move on and quit whipping a dead horse. -- infinity0 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You've done no such thing. And stop accusing me of being a "troll." Your personal attacks will get you nowhere. Laboring for wages is "wage labor." By the way, don't misrepresent Arthur Rubin. What he said was that wages for labor and wage labor are not the same thing, but that "We might have to argue about "wage labor" and "labor paid (for) by wages" I agreed with him that wags for labor and wage labor are not the same thing. But, labor for wages and wage labor are indeed the same thing. Wages and labor are inseperable. Proudhon supports laboring for wages --wage labor. You can't support wages without supporting wage labor --laboring for wages. RJII 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will remember my own advice, and not respond. Instead, I point RJII to the various responses already given in many places more than which is enough to explain the difference. -- infinity0 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not been "more than enough to explain the difference." No difference has been explained, because there is no. Laboring for wages is wage labor. You can play with semantic all you want. The fact remains that Proudhon supported laboring for wages --wage labor. RJII 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You can say that all you like, but you need a source from Proudhon showing that he thought of them as the same thing, and that "wage labour is labour for wages" is the majority view. Also, to allay any accusations in the future, "don't feed the trolls" is a referral to your current behaviour on this point of wage labour, not your personality in general. -- infinity0 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wage labor is labor for wages. There is absolutely no difference. Kropotkin and Marx both criticized Proudhon for supporting wage labor. RJII 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, both criticised him for not being a communist, for supporting payment by *deed*, not *need.* Get it right. Oh, and provide a quote from Proudhon where he supports wage labour (and using the term "wages" does not count, as I have proved). BlackFlag 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the solution here is as simple as noting that Kropotkin made no distinction between capitalistic wages and labor notes, although other anarchists considered them very different. Libertatia 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a total joke. This is what Proudhon wrote: "wage-labour abolished." Now, perhaps RJII will explain how this means anything other than what it says? But, obviously, what Proudhon thought seems irrelevant to RJII. As it stands, RJII has provided *no* evidence at all to support his claim while I have provided more than sufficient. This "dispute" is closed. That he continues to repeat the same disproved claim shows he is a troll (at least on this issue). BlackFlag 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see where Proudhon wrote "wage-labour abolished". Back up your alleged quote. Cite the source. RJII 17:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He already did cite his source. Sarge Baldy 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see it now. Proudhon is talking about the capitalist wage system where a person doesn't get his full produce, he's not talking about wage labor altogether. BlackFlag also notes that the quote is "the wages systems abolished" or "wage-labour abolished", depending on the translation. Therefore, there is no difference between "wages system" and "wage labor." Proudhon indeed supported a wage system. He advocated that wages should equal the amount of labor expended. RJII 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a joke. Proudhon clearly (as proven) used the term "wages" in relation to workers co-operatives. In a co-operative, there is *no* wage labour. As such Proudhon knew what he was talking about, unlike RJII. If Proudhon "indeed supported a wage system" why did he write "the wage system abolished"? RJII is a troll. I refuse to waste my time with someone who does not understand the basic concepts of the subject he is talking about. "Dispute" closed as RJII has provided *no* evidence while I have provided more than enough. BlackFlag 08:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Look at the quote: "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" Obviously he was talking about capitalist wage labor, where the person isn't paid his full produce. He fully supports wage labor if the person recieves his full produce. Never heard of mutualism? By the way, cut out your personal attacks. RJII 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a waste of time. RJII does not know anything about mutualism, as expressed by Proudhon. Proudhon argued for "industrial democracy" and "wage labour abolished" means what it says, the end of workers selling their labour to a capitalist. I love the claim he "fully supports wage labour" after I've provided quotes showing he did not! [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]. End of dispute as RJII is denying the obvious and provided no evidence (yet again). BlackFlag 08:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to note that in his attempt to bolster his silly argument, RJII has to change Proudhon's quote from a list to a sentence. In a list, a comma signifies a new item -- little wonder RJII abolishes it. Not even the laws of grammar are safe from him! As I said, this dispute is over. Proudhon advocated co-operatives, "industrial democracy," to replace capitalist wage labour. As shown, repeatedly. BlackFlag 10:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not resist. RJII's denial of reality is becoming very funny (in a sad sort of way). RJII is denying that Proudhon opposed wage labour, arguing that he supported a system where a capitalist hires workers and pays them a wage the same as the full product of their labour. I note he has provided no evidence in support of this claim. I have presented plenty against. I just wonder how he explains Proudhon's continual call for "industrial democracy"? In "The General Idea of the Revolution" he argued that workers had two options, either be "the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter" (as now) or become "an associate" (in anarchy). "In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" (note, *obedience* so showing Proudhon's opposition to hierarchy in production *as well as* exploitation). "In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave." He stressed that "every" capitalist workplace must become an association and that *every* position "subject to election." For "we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers." Otherwise, there would be "subordinates and superiors" and "two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society" (Proudhon calls this the "wages-system" or "wage labour" and wants it "abolished"). I know, I know. He will ignore this like he ignores all facts, but it would be interesting from a pyschological point of view to see how he denies the obvious, namely that Proudhon (as he himself said) clearly opposed "wage labour" in favour of co-operatives. BlackFlag 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deny it all you want. Proudhon supports wage labor. He wants to RAISE wages, so that profit is not deducted from them. In other words, he wants to eliminate the capitalist wage system and convert to a labor-value wage system so that equal amounts of labor receive equal wages. That's what mutualism is all about --a system to make sure a person recieves a wage the accords with the full product of his labor. RJII 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC) "The Revolution considers the hypothesis that men are unequal as an unfounded insult which is daily disproved by the progress of science and industry. It devotes all its energy to trying to redress the balance, tipped by prejudice, by means of legislation and greater and greater equality of services and wages. -Proudhon, Justice RJII 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Where does this appear? Libertatia 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought that would be the case. RJII is simply denying what Proudhon repeatedly argued for. So given a quote where Proudhon explicitly and obviously shows he opposes wage labour (when capitalists hire workers), RJII denies it! What can I say. Dispute closed. No point discussing this issue any more as it is pointless. Btw, I found another direct reference to "wage labour" by Proudhon in The Principle of Federation, in which he argued that "industrial and financial feudalism" (the current capitalist system) results in "wage labour" being created. His "agro-industrial federation" would produce equality and end it. (pp. 70-1), if anyone cares. BlackFlag 08:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You still don't get it do you? Proudhon doens't oppose wage labor. He opposes the capitalist form of wage labor. He supports mutualist wage labor. Appparently, you don't understand the difference. In the former, the laborer doesn't get the full product of his labor, and in the latter he does. RJII 16:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's ignore the two books where he states he opposed "wage labour" (by two different translaters, so cannot be a mistake). Let's ignore that an individualist anarchist translates his words as "wages-system abolished". Let's ignore the fact he uses "wages" to describe the income of workers in co-operatives. Let's ignore his repeated calls for "industrial democracy." Let's ignore his own words on the situation of workers hired by capitalists. Let's ignore the in-depth studies of his ideas that show he was opposed to capitalists hiring workers. No, that all counts for *nothing* as RJII thinks that by "wages" Proudhon means "capitalists hiring workers but not exploiting them." Sure, that is *really* convincing! I've proven beyond reasonable doubt that Proudhon opposed capitalists hiring workers and argued for industrial democracy. Case ::closed. BlackFlag 08:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No you haven't proven anything of the sort. You ignore the rest of the quote when you say "wages-system abolished." He's talking about capitalist wage-sytem. He supports a profitless wage system. RJII 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to RJII, who ignores a comma and everything Proudhon wrote against workers selling their liberty/labour to a boss! Proudhon supports co-operative production, as proven. Dispute ended, case closed. BlackFlag 15:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Case still very much open. Proudhon does not oppose a wage system. What do you think mutualist money is for? How does anyone get it? By working and getting paid for it. RJII 14:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The case is closed. I've proven the point beyond all reasonable doubt. I've quoted Proudhon on the matter, from numerous works from 1840 to the 1860s. I've pointed to an excellent secondary source which discusses this very subject in great depth. And what has RJII done? Said that "wages" equal "wage labour" again and again! As I said, case closed and "dispute" closed. If someone does not understand the subject matter, English or the author in question, it does not equal a "dispute." BlackFlag 10:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are not using the correct definition of wage labour. Wage labour is a socioeconomic system, not a type of labour. -- infinity0 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII your a damn liar and a cunt. You also have way to much time on your hands.--FinnMacCool

You should read the policy WP:NPA. *Dan T.* 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, blah blah blah

You know, it's interesting how much attention is being given to the exact wordings of guys who have been dead for over a hundred years. And the thing is, it doesn't matter exactly what they said or believed, but what others took away from them. You see, who would care what Proudhon or Bakunin wrote, unless they influenced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?

I suggest shifting the focus of debate to how certain ideas were adopted by anarchists, not the particulars of those ideas. It is more interesting to see how the Spanish anarchists of the 1860's and the Parisian communards of 1871 largely embraced Proudhon's Mutualism, and that this idea was brought to Spain by Bakunin, actually. It is more interesting so see how certain ideas were applied (like the Makhnovschinka creating worker-run communes in 1917-1920) and how those ideas have changed (like the new form of "mutualism" which embraces alternative economic strategies).

The battle over semantical nuances is only a distraction from the greater things the article can do, and just another obsession of the fanatical-factionalists. --albamuth 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to talk about the "embrace" of mutualism if you can clarify what mutualism was. (It's not obvious, nor really much discussed in anarchist circles.) But don't be fooled, these debates are mostly very presentist. They're about what we are taking from these historical figures. The mechanics of cooperatives may be more interesting to you than the development of theories of property, but both are applicable in the present, and both have their place. So start that entry on the Makhnovschinka, if that's what turns you on. Chances are at least some of us will pitch in. Libertatia 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. People get really caught up in the details of a few "notable" anarchists, as if the whole of anarchism is somehow within their text. I see it as something far bigger, and do not see these writers as having "formulated" anarchism so much as tried to assemble it in a sensible, readable fashion. Certainly I came to a conclusion of anarchism before reading any of the people mentioned on this page, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Anarchism is dynamic and not static, and anarchists are theorists rather than ideologues. Sure, the theorists listed on this page are important, and have attempted to piece together the heart of the philosophy. But to say their theories represent anarchism isn't to say that the entirety of anarchism exists in their theories. Well my attention span is short, but I would agree we should be focusing more broadly on anarchism and anarchists as a whole and less on a few "key thinkers" (a social history approach, as you suggest, would be a much more informative read). Sarge Baldy 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
But at the same time, we have to all understand where we are coming from in terms of debate. Whilst we may have moved beyond Bakunin, Thoreau, Kropotkin etc., it's still useful to have a clear idea of what they wrote and believed, as this enables us to debate their merits properly, rather than with different ideas of what they wrote. For example, if two people wish to discuss the concept of mutual aid, then it is useful if they all understand what is meant by the term, and what Kropotkin and others wrote on the subject. To do otherwise just lowers the tone of debate and leads to confusion. I'm perhaps being unclear but my basic point is that we must clearly understand what those before us wrote in order that we can move on. --Graius 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Change of section

I am not allowed to edit the main page (apart from minor edits) as per my agreement to be unblocked, but I don't think this edit is a good idea. Whilst the change to the first paragraph is good, the additional paragraphs bloat up the section - and one of the paragraphs is a complete quote, which is unnecessary. -- infinity0 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This new stuff about Bakunin, Marx and Action Directe belongs, if anywhere, in the First International section. The quote from Aubron is way too long. This section isn't about the relation between anarchism and Marxist versions of "communism." It's about anarchist communism, as the previous heading and text made clear. Robgraham

Small improvements to NPOV, Molinari comment

I made several slight changes attempting to improve the neutral point of view in the anarcho-capitalism section. Because there is controversy about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, I removed the assumption in the first paragraph that it is not. My new phraseology is more neutral and, I hope, does not try to manipulate the reader into agreeing with one side of the argument. I also removed the slightly inflammatory reference to "right-wing" libertarian historians; the term is not in keeping with an encyclopedic style and readers are liable to interpret it (or "left wing", for that matter) in a variety of ways. Lastly I corrected an apparent misreading of David Hart's essay about Molinari. If you read the linked PDF, Hart describes not one "system" but an evolution of thought, the latter parts of which may well have supported "competing governments"; in Molinari's earlier work, however, Hart claims that what Molinari was calling government was not government at all, but more like an insurance or defense agency (of the sort anarcho-capitalists argue in favor of.) In that respect, Hart was certainly not admitting Molinari's "system" was one of competing governments, but rather he was trying to explain Molinari's confusing terminology. Go easy on me, I'm a new poster (and still too lazy to create an account!) -anon

These changes looked good (and fair) to me (although I didn't see why someone would have to be an anarchist or against property to note that Molinari never considered himself an anarchist, and so generalized accordingly). Sarge Baldy 06:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
good edit; thank you.-anon

individual possession

Why is it being deleted that Proudhon favored "individual" possession. In What is Property he specifically says "individual possession." Proudhon wants to make it clear that he's not a communist. We should represent him as accurately as possible. RJII 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The entry alway says he opposed communism, that is enough. To use the term "individual possession" is redundant and confusing as the entry notes that workers would possess and run their own workplaces as a group (and lets not mention the "agro-industrial federation"!). As for RJII wanting to "represent him as accurately as possible," what a joke. That is the last thing RJII wants (as can be seen by the "wage labour" thread). So no change is required as the entry already makes the points RJII wants to make and does so in an accurate and less confusing way. User:BlackFlag 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is important to say "individual possession." You were saying in the article that he and communists were the same on "possession," but that's not the case. RJII 16:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
How do they differ? Oh, yes, Proudhon argues that possession does not apply to the products of labour (i.e. workers will sell the product of their labour) while communists disagree. As the article states that Proudhon rejected communism, no change is required. User:BlackFlag 09:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

American anarchists in the First International

We should find a way to incorporate the history of American anarchist participation in the First International. Individualist anarchists were prominent in the English-speaking New York Section 12 (Stephen Pearl Andrews) and the French-speaking Boston Section 1 (William B. Greene). The "Yankee" sections were censured and then finally expelled at the Hague Congress. Timothy Messer-Kruse' The Yankee International covers some of this, and the Address of the Delegates of the Boston section n° 1 (French) of the Working People’s International Association (mostly written by William B. Greene, and published by Ezra Heywood) gives a contemporary account.

I'm a little hesitant to mess with the flow of the section as it is now. Perhaps a paragraph at the end, noting this other lesser-known history would be appropriate. The facts are of considerable interest, as they link the individualists organizationally with the much broader movement. But the Yankee Internationalists' struggle with Sorge's group is perhaps still best presented as a sort of "side-show" to the Marx-Bakunin conflict. Libertatia 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds fascinating. I would love to see more of this sort of information incorporated into Wikipedia articles. If it doesn't warrant significant space here, then American individualist anarchism would seem an appropriate place. - N1h1l 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Government

I dispute that anarchists are necessarily against "government." They are not against self-government. For example, individualist anarchist James Lloyd says: "No Anarchist has any logical objection to a government to which all its members consent; only he carries the logic one step further and says that if the individual withdraws his consent, in that moment the just power of the government over him ceases." [5] And, Richard Slyvan, says in his article Anarchism "First, a variety of political arrangements and organization, inluding governments of certain sorts are entirely compatible with anarchy." I think Proudhon even says that anarchy is a "form of government" (I don't have the quote right now). RJII 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you disputing? Lloyd makes it clear that the "government" to which anarchists would assent is a matter of consensual relations, a government that "governs not at all." In Proudhon, in the work on Federalism, you can find a characterization of anarchy as a kind of "government," but, again, the term is used in a way that is not going to be self-evident out of context. We could, based largely on Proudhon's very complex later philosophy, and on some sloppy use of terms elsewhere, recuperate a number of terms that are generally not used positively by anarchists—as you have insisted on doing with "wages" in this entry. But we'll only create greater confusion—not exactly the goal of an encyclopedia entry. It's relatively simple to clarify precisely what anarchists oppose when they oppose "property," "wages," and "government." It would even be relatively simple to present a variety of perspectives on these pages, particularly if the individual pages were well-developed. But if we begin by asserting that anarchists are actually not opposed to all the things people generally assume they oppose, either because some faction is not opposed, or because they use the words in a different way, we're going to be hard put to clarify anything. Libertatia 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I was disputing the entry that says anarchists oppose government. I changed it to "state." RJII 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Funny that you've moved from saying the dictionary definition of anarchism is "exactly the kind of definition we should have to head the article" and "the most NPOV way to do it" [1] to rejecting it entirely after I clarify that governments and states are not the same thing. There's nothing anarchists so clearly oppose as government, and if we claim that anarchists don't oppose government, we've piddled the term down to such a point we may as well say anarchists oppose nothing. Sarge Baldy 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not necessary that anarchists oppose government. Acceptance of consensual government is anarchist. Everything consensual has to be compatible with anarchism. What is not anarchist is coercive government or the state. RJII 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right. And dictionaries say "all forms of government" why? And how are you not being hypocritical? It doesn't give me a lot of faith in your claims to NPOV. You go ahead and define anarchism your own way, but this article isn't exactly the place for legitimizing wacko definitions. Sarge Baldy 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not being "hypocritical" because I'm under no obligation to have the same opinion from one day to the next. I really think you should lighten up with the ad hominem by accusing me of hypocrisy and focus on the issues. Before I thought opposition to government was necessary for anarchism. Now I realize it's not. It's the state that's not compatible with anarchism. If you want to make a big show that I'm a hypocrite, fine. Hey Hey Hey RJII is a hypocrite!!! Now, let's move on. RJII 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but this isn't just you changing your mind. What I linked to wasn't your opinion, it was you stating that dictionaries are the most NPOV source and the best way to handle the article. What I'm saying is that when your conception of "NPOV" happens to shift in such a way as to be compatible with your opinion, it kind of leaves your commitment to NPOV in question. Sarge Baldy 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. I forgot about that. I suppose that is the best way to handle the NPOV issue. Let's go back with the dictionary definition. I'll have to delete the "hierarchy" stuff then. But, then later in the intro or ariticle it needs to be explained that anarchism is not incompatible with consensual government. RJII 03:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't saying I agreed with your earlier opinion. I'm consistent, and stand by my opposition to dictionary entries as some penultimate source. I think the entry is correct in so far as what it says, but like all dictionary entries far too simplistic to be very useful to this article. And you know, it wouldn't make a whole lot of etymological sense for anarchism to be called an-archism if it's not opposed to hier-archy, would it? Sarge Baldy 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Consensual hierarchy is compatible with anarchism. Anything consensual is. RJII 03:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So anarchism is not against any form of government, as long as its "voluntary"? Which means we live in an anarchist society, cool. I can leave my present state and go to (say) France. No one forces me to live here, so it must be voluntary! No one forces me to go to France, so it must be anarchy! Silly me, thinking we were living under statism. Does that mean, say, a fascist party is an anarchist association? It is voluntary, after all. But enough of this. Consensual hierarchy is still hierarchy, voluntary government is still government. To change "anarchy" from "no rulers" to "voluntary rulers" just makes a mockery of the word, the ideas and the tradition. User:BlackFlag 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Does your government let you stop paying taxes if you wish and does not initiate coercion against anyone? If so, it's anarchistic. Nothing consensual can be incompatible with anarchism. RJII 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. It takes the same position as my landlord or boss would take if I refused to pay rent or disobey their orders, namely to take me to court or penalise me. As with them, I have a choice -- Love it or leave it. I can find a new landlord or a new state, assuming they let me onto their property. Consensual hierarchy is still hierarchy. Thanks for proving that capitalism is not anarchism, btw. So consensual fascism is anarchism? Nice to know! BlackFlag 15:15 7, April 2006.
Right, "of course not." Your government is not anarchist. But, if a government does leave it up to you whether you want to pay for its services or not and doesn't initiate coercion against anyone, then it is an anarchist government. RJII 14:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"anarchist government"? "no-government government"? really? reductio ad absurdum, I think. My boss and landlord do not leave me alone to decide what rent to pay or what work to do. Thanks for proving that capitalism is not anarchism, btw! But the point remains. I can decide to leave my state and join another. As such, we are living in an anarchy. Who knew? Shame there are no "no-government goverments" to join, but I do have plenty of choice in which kind I can join. Just as with bosses. Oh, the joys of the market! This really is a joke. BlackFlag 15:37 7, April 2006.
It depends on what you mean by "leave" your state. If you have to physically leave to escape taxation and other government-initiated coercion, then it is not anarchy. If you can still stay in the same place on choose not to pay for government and government does not initiate coercion against anyone, then it is anarchy. Of course, that's not an ordinary understand of "government" but that that situation is what individualist anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists) support. RJII 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try that out on my boss and landlord and see what they say. I'm sure I will have to physically leave to escape rent and other owner-initiated coercion. Thanks for proving that that hierarchy, capitalism and private property are not compatible with anarchism. BlackFlag 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by "hiearchy." If you mean employee/employer then it is compatible with anarchy. I'm sure you "boss" would let you quit your job. RJII 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as my state would let me emigrate. BlackFlag 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Is RJII arguing that "anarchy" which most people agree (at the minimal) means "no rulers" really means "voluntary rulers" and "no government" really means "voluntary government"? Is he *really* suggesting that Wikipedia change the meaning of a word so he can pursue his own pet little ideology? I'm not surprised, though. I saw it coming. And I can understand why, though. It ensures that "anarcho"-capitalists and people like Herbert can be more easily squeezed into the anarchist tradition. But, to be honest, it simply shows how far these people really are from anarchism (imho) User:BlackFlag 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with that. Richard Slyvan, says in his article Anarchism "First, a variety of political arrangements and organization, including governments of certain sorts are entirely compatible with anarchy." He says that anarchists oppose "coercive government." And, in that article he's promoting social anarchism --not individualist anarchism. "Social and individualistic types will both operate defence through institutional arrangements, social types through functional bodies geared just to defence of relevant territory, individualist types through a set of defence firms. Each sort of arrangement allows for various kinds and levels of defence (individualistic types depending upon what is purchased)." I hate to to be the one to break it to you, but defense of liberty is anarchist. RJII 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That is why anarchists are against capitalism, following orders is hardly liberty. Unless liberty has also been redefined by RJII as well? Simply put, voluntary fascism is fascism, not liberty. Obvious, really. BlackFlag 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Following orders is certainly liberty if you volunteer to follow orders. Believe it or not, some people would rather be told what to do than to be self-guided. To be anarchy, there has to be the liberty for those people to work for someone else if they don't want to be entrepreneurs. Let's face it. Going to work for someone else and being told what to do is taking the easy way out. The only way you can stop this situation is by the state forbidding it. RJII 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

btw, people may find this essay of use here, "The Libertarian Case for Slavery" [6] by "J. Philmore." It is really David Ellerman, exposing the autocratic nature of classical liberalism and right-wing libertarianism. People may find it useful in understanding where RJII is coming from and why it really has *nothing* to do with anarchism. User:BlackFlag 09:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting article. But of course even suggesting a return to slavery is a humane offer coming from libertarians, being far better than wage-slavery. In slavery, it is at least in the economic interests of the owner to attend to your well-being, to ensure you receive adequate food and shelter, so that the value of your labor exceeds your market value. In wage-slavery, these obligations no longer exist. After the American Civil War, The South found out that this system works even more effectively than the old methods. If an employee falls ill due to malnutrition, it's not to the detriment of the business, because they can freely rid themselves of this underefficient employee and find new blood without inferring any cost, without losing a piece of property as before. Contracts! What a wonderful freedom! Sarge Baldy 08:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If a person wants to work for someone else instead of taking the effort to go into business for himself, it's quite compatible with anarchism and quite unarchistic to forcefully stop him from doing so. How are you going to stop it? They only way to stop it is set up a government that prohibits it. RJII 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, we would urge their to form a union and take over the workplace. Then the boss would call in the state (or private cops) to impose his authority (government) over his property. This happened in Italy, 1920, btw. The bosses turned to the fascists and crushed the labour movement and the anarchists. So, no, we do not need a government to prohibit it, we just need workers to rebel and destroy government. BlackFlag 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And, once it's destroyed, how are you going to stop people from starting business? RJII 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Not reading what I wrote, obviously! BlackFlag 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone wrore that anarchists are against rulers, not against leaders. // Liftarn

I agree with RJII. If voluntary, hierarchical relationships are not opposed to anarchism. Current definition is misleading. -- Vision Thing -- 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise! Sure, the *definition* must be wrong. *Not* "anarcho"-capitalist claims to be being anarchists. No, of course not. It's the *definition*. Sure, saying anarchy means "no government" must be wrong is "anarcho"-capitalist ideology allows "anarchists" to be in favour of government! I think we have now reached the "reductio ad absurdum" point with "anarcho"-capitalism -- it now argues that government is compatible with "no government"! Well, better change the language so that this contradiction can be included in Wikipedia. BlackFlag 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It should say "states" instead of "governments." But, I'm willing to go with "governments" because that's how most sources define it. They're just not technically correct --a state by definition is coercive, but a government need not be. RJII 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
When communist anarchists talk about being opposed to "hierarchy" they include employment. The definition in the article is anarcho-communist POV. Individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, do not see employment as incompatible with anarchism. He has a problem with "individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." The "social hierarchy" thing needs to go. It's communist POV and not supported by the sources listed in Wikiquote. [7] RJII 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Does not make it anarchy, any more than a voluntary fascist regime is anarchist. As RJII has proven, ironically. Let's go all the way. Let's just say anarchism is in favour of "no government government" and delete everything else on the Wikipedia about it. That should ensure that Wikipedia is taken seriously as a source of knowledge. Oh, btw, it is *not* a "communist" definition. As I have proven, this perspective is found in Proudhon. BlackFlag 15:44 7, April 2006.
Do you deny that individualist anarchists, such as Tucker, are anarchists? RJII 14:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm denying that wage labour is anarchist. Voluntary government is still government, voluntary hierarchy is still hierarchy. It's a simple difference. BlackFlag 16:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why are you not denying that Tucker is an anarchist? He supports privately-funded defense of person and property and he supports the liberty of people "assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." RJII 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason I'm not denying that Proudhon was an anarchist because of his sexism (patriarchism). It is inconsistent with anarchism and contradicts his other principles. If he consistently applied his principles, he would be against it. Simple, really. Anarchists are people and people make mistakes. Just because someone who calls themselves an anarchist makes a claim it does not make it anarchistic. We have to use our minds and think it throught. BlackFlag 08:40 10, April 2006.

RJII is trying to prove that defining “anarchy” in terms of opposition to hierarchy is “communist” and inappropriate. To do so, he presents the case that anarchism is compatible with government. Given that Anarchy is defined as “no government,” the idea of ‘“no government” government’ is a contradiction. This is proof by contradiction and so he proves that “anarchy” *is* incompatible with hierarchy. Case closed. BlackFlag 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're confusing things. The discussion about hierarchy and government are two different things. When I'm talking about hierarchy I'm talking about employee/employer. When I'm talking about government I'm talking about defense of liberty. I'm not relating the two in any way. There just happens to be two different topics going on here. RJII 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that explains things. RJII is talking his own personal language. That makes much more sense. When anarchists talk about government they mean government and government-like social relationships. As do most people, I think. RJII uses the term "government" to mean something else (probably defence of property). Now, is it wise to change the definition of anarchy so that it fits in with RJII's private meaning of the term? That *is* a hard one. Thinking about it, I have to say no. I think we should keep "anarchy" as most people use it and its definition in terms of "No rulers" or "no government." And as RJII has kindly shown, the idea that anarchy is not against hierarchy is proved by contradiction as it allows the notion of "no government government." BlackFlag 16:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Richard Slyvan, says in his article Anarchism "First, a variety of political arrangements and organization, including governments of certain sorts are entirely compatible with anarchy." He says that anarchists oppose "coercive government." And, in that article he's promoting social anarchism --not individualist anarchism. "Social and individualistic types will both operate defence through institutional arrangements, social types through functional bodies geared just to defence of relevant territory, individualist types through a set of defence firms. Each sort of arrangement allows for various kinds and levels of defence (individualistic types depending upon what is purchased)." I hate to to be the one to break it to you, but private-funded institutionalized defense of liberty and property is anarchist. RJII 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"No Anarchist has any logical objection to a government to which all its members consent; only he carries the logic one step further and says that if the individual withdraws his consent, in that moment the just power of the government over him ceases. So too, all Anarchism is logically contained in the statement that the right of every man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in his own inoffensive way, is rightfully inalienable. Therefore the American principles are profoundly Anarchistic and the logic of Anarchism is absolutely American." -John Lloyd, Individualist Anarchist, circa 1920 RJII 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop quoting that one source. You found it two days ago and now you're using it as if it's the utmost authority on anarchism. That's ridiculous. -- infinity0 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I won't stop quoting that source. That is a scholarly and respected source, unlike the bogus uncredible An Anarchist FAQ witten by a bunch of internet-anarcho-communists source that you love to use. RJII 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't use it as a secondary source, like you are using yours. And I think real anarchists are more of an authority on anarchism than a non-anarchist. Stop calling the FAQ "bogus" and "uncredible". It's widely well-received. And stop calling them anarcho-communists, which only some of them are. You have a major thing against the FAQ, and it's compromising your ability to think about it neutrally. -- infinity0 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
My sources is an acceptable credible secondary source. "An Anarchist FAQ" is not. And, it's so obviously biased that it destroys any academic crebility it could have. They even personal attacks against anarcho-capitalists --calling the "annoying" and "irrelevant." They say individualist anarchist has "many flaws" because it leads to "hierarchy." The thing is joke. RJII 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of him and I've read most books on anarchism and about anarchism. Is this the same Richard Sylvan who was a proponent of "deep ecology" and died in 1996 (according to Wikipedia)? And I hate to break it to you, just because its published does not make it true. Scholar's make mistakes all the time. And appeals to authority will hardly cut it with anarchists! And who would even suggest that *anarchists* may be experts on anarchism? Who could ever think such an idea! Just as Proudhon is not an expert on Proudhon, RJII is, so anarchists are not experts on anarchism, rather an unknown academic is. Obvious, really! User:BlackFlag 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article which RJII points to. RJII states that Llyod is an "individualist anarchist" ("circa 1920") and quotes him as supporting "government." I would like to point out that by the 1920s Lloyd had become an *ex*-anarchist, a social democrat in fact. As the essay RJII references indicates. It *starts* by him saying many "may know me only as a Socialist, and may doubt my qualifications to explain Anarchism, I will say that for some 20 years or more I was a professed and active Anarchist." Near the end he states "I had no thought of becoming a real Socialist, but I studied the thought and the literature and in time came to feel that the Socialists had the best of the argument." So, just to stress the point, RJII claims that Lloyd was an "individualist anarchist" in the 1920s when, in fact, the essay he uses as proof states the opposite. Now, if RJII cannot even get this right, what hope is there?

As it stands, LLoyd's essay is riddled with inaccuracies ("Samuel" rather than Albert Parsons, Bakunin as a communist, and so on). I would also suggest that by "government" he was referring to social organisations rather than "private defence agencies". I would say this from the context and the example used (the US government). So the example is inconclusive, I think. I would also note that he thinks that Napoleon would be considered as a "Nietzschean Anarchist" and so if we use this essay as evidence of anarchist support for government we must use it for anarchist support for coercion, too. And I should note he admits that social anarchism has "largely outgrown the Individualistic-Anarchistic division in numbers and political importance." So, surely, any definition of anarchism should reflect this. User:BlackFlag 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy

RJII, what is your reason for suggesting social hierarchy is acceptable in anarchism? BlackFlag has given plenty of sources but you are supporting your claim with only your words. -- infinity0 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Blackflag has not. Don't make false claims. I offer a full range of definitions: [8] Obivously, "social hierarchy" is not anywhere near standard way of defining anarchism. That term comes from commmunist anarchism. RJII 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I've proven that anarchist opposition to hierarchy is found in Proudhon and so pre-dates communist-anarchism. This is unsurprising, as anarchy means "no archy" while hierarchy is a form of archy. BlackFlag 08:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

YOu said, more or less, a voluntary government is anarchistic. Anarchism is anti-government. Your objection makes no sense.

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation. [L. Susan Brown. The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

Provide your opposing source. -- infinity0 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I already explained that the proper term should be "state" instead of government, but that since most sourced definitions use the term "government" I have no problem with that being in the definition. I just pointed out that it was technically incorrect. You should really read what has been said before you comment. RJII 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It says anti-hierarchical. You're not disputing this. What's the problem, then? -- infinity0 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got ONE source that uses the word "hiearchy." I gave a huge range of definitions that don't. Also, it's best to use definitions from reference works to be NPOV, rather than from anarchists themselves --because every anarchists has his own definition apparently. RJII 16:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't given any source that says supports your comment that a voluntary hierarchy is anarchistic. That's what the real point is. I have given one source with this definition. Many definition miss out a lot of things. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the definition. Anarchism is anti-hierarchical. -- infinity0 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've given a huge number of sources that don't define an anarchism in terms of opposition to "social hiearchy." You found one source from an obscure self-described "existential individualist" who opposes ordinary individualist anarchism. Sorry, but the burden is on you. RJII 16:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, those definitions all imply it severely.

  • "resistance to all forms of authority or control"
  • "the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together"
  • [From Greek anarchos: lacking a leader.] *"Anarchism is inspired by the moral-political ideal of a society untouched by relations of power and domination among human beings. This ideal has most often expressed itself in a doctrine advocating the total absence of government as the only firm basis for individual liberty and societal progress..."
  • "An array of philosophical and political positions arguing that human societies function best without government or authority, and which suggest that the natural state of people is one of living together harmoniously and freely, without intervention."

As we all know, hierarchy is a euphemism for authority and control, whether voluntary or not. Burden of proof is on you. -- infinity0 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not how social anarchists use the term. They include employee/employer relationships as "social hierarchy." Aside from this, the term is extremely vague and should not be used. The sources I provided corroborate this. RJII 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro doesn't mention social anarchists. Neither does the wikiquotes. I just handed out 4 definitions to you on a plate showing that anarchism is anti-hierarchical. You haven't provided any sources stating the opposite. -- infinity0 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You gave ONE definition from an extremely obscure "existential individualist" that mentions opposition to "hierarchy." None of the other definitions you gave mention "heirarchy." RJII 16:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Authority is synonymous to hierarchy. Those four definitions support the one source. Provide an opposing source, or else there is no dispute. -- infinity0 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No. That's the problem. "Social hierarchy" is very vague. For some, it includes employee/employer. And, it's not even true that all anarchists oppose "authority." Bukunin says authority is compatible with anarchism. RJII 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But for others, it doesn't. So then, what's your problem? Bakunin quote? -- infinity0 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But, for others it does. Therefore, and given that only ONE source uses the term, it should not be used for the definition in this article. RJII 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Bakunin's use of the word authority is a bit confusing. He does say he supports authority, but only in the sense that people considered skilled in some area can recommend things to him, but without any real power to enforce control. ("In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me.") Bakunin also says (in the same work) "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists." (the only time I can honestly remember him using the word anarchism in the entire book) Sarge Baldy 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he consents to let others be the authority on some matters. "I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." RJII 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Social hierarchy is not voluntary and has nothing to do with what you just quoted. -- infinity0 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't quote that to make any association with social hirearchy. You asked for a quote about "authorty." RJII 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
But, now that I think about it, that is an acceptance of voluntary "social hierarchy" of sorts. RJII 17:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? And still I have one source and four definitions above showing hierarchy to be unanarchistic. -- infinity0 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This is about the WORD "hierarchy." You've only found ONE source that uses it, and it's not even from a secondary source but from an obscure self-titled "existential individualist." None of the other definitions I sourced use the term. So, we shouldn't either, especially given that none of the secondary definitions use it. RJII 17:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Authority includes all hierarchy. Or, hierarchy always comes with authority. Since the sources say anarchism is anti-authoritarian, by necessity anachism is anti-hierarchical. I have one source which explicitely uses the term, whilst the other sources imply it. -- infinity0 17:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope. "Social hierarchy" is vague and no secondary sources use the term. You've only found one source, and from an obscure self-defined "existential individualist." The term should be taken out. RJII 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That source I just quoted is a secondary source. "Obscure" - how do you know? You've been quoting Richard Sylvan for the past few days. I would say he's obscure. -- infinity0 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's got nothing to do with this. The fact remains you found ONE source, and it's from an "existential anarchist." None of the other sources use the terminology. And, most importantly none of the secondary source reference works use the term. You have no justification to use the term for the definition in this article. RJII 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not a term unique to "existential anarchism". There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. You shouldn't expect all sources to use exactly the same wording. Furthermore, please stop implying the source is unreliable. I think a source from an actual anarchist is more reliable than a source from Richard Sylvan. -- infinity0 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sylvan is not the source. The sources are all the definitions here: [9] Obviously, opposition "social hierarchy" is not how anarchism is generally defined. And, for obvious reasons. RJII 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, do you believe that dictionaries are the most accurate source for definitions of oppositional ideologies? All of these definitional questions are real abysses, with the answers being almost necessarily POV, but at least we can get individual assumptions clarified. Libertatia 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dictionaries are good sources for something like this because they've done what we would have to do anyway --go through every definition of anarchism and come up with one that seems to satisfy them all. Also, look at the lead definitions in encyclopedias --generally the same thing. No matter how much we analyze various definitions from various anarchists we are inevitably going to come up with a definition very similar to those in the dictionaries and encyclopedias. Aside from that, do you not see the problems with defining anarchism as opposition "social hierarchy"? It doesn't even a commonly accepted definition. RJII 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dictionaries are full of nothing but compromises. You're right in thinking that this is what we have to do, to some degree at least—find general definitions that satisfy, more or less, the NPOV rule. That means what we are doing isn't really explaining anarchism as it is, a dynamic movement which is constantly renegotiating its terms around some core concerns, and within relatively narrow limits. We're just trying to find something useful and relatively neutral to say, from which readers can usefully jump into the real task of understanding the topic. Given that, questions like these about "government" and "hierarchy" are important, but the yes-or-no, war over a unitary definition approach that dominates here just means every entry of any real significance probably ought to have a POV tag of its own. If we start from dictionary definitions—other than, say the OED, which is at least a useful source on past usage—we're enshrining the sources that are sloppy and imprecise by design, guaranteeing that we'll never come up with anything more precise or useful. (And don't let's start about dictionaries as carriers of mainstream political bias...) Libertatia 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
We are not defining anarchism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- infinity0 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. We better be defining anarchism. A good encylopedia article starts with a good definition of the topic. It sure looks like a definition to me. RJII 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, the summary can use words not included in most concise definitions. It is clear from the above sources that "social hierarchy" is un-anarchistic. -- infinity0 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, it's an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Therefore, an article should inlclude not only a good definition heading off the article, but a large body of text going into more detail. "Social hierarchy" is extremely uncommon in definition of anarchism as can be seen on Wikiquote [10] (an article I created specifically to help resolve the definition dispute). Given that, and that it has no commonly accepted definition, it should not be used in the definition. RJII 20:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not a tight reasoning. You aren't disputing that social hierarchy is a characteristic of anarchism, so what's your problem? There is a source supporting it. It is enough that an anarchist who has published many books on anarchism says that it is anti-hierarchical, and four concise definitions back it up. We can afford to be a little more detailed in the intro. We have a whole paragraph to write about it. Dictionary definitions only have one or two sentences. -- infinity0 20:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I do dispute that opposition to "social hierarchy" is necessary for anarchism. And, I already explained why. RJII 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think RJII is confusing anarchism with voluntaryism. They're far from the same thing, as you'd find if you tried to merge the two topics. Sarge Baldy 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm certain I'm talking about anarchism --the philosophy that opposes the state and favors voluntary relations between individuals. RJII 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why RJII vs. the World constitues a "dispute". -- infinity0 22:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
More like infinity vs. the World. There's a load of definitions of anarchism working against you. RJII 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Do I count as part of the World, infinity? Gee, I hope so. Anyway ... I once belonged to a bowling league. Each team elected a captain, and the team captains would get together now and then to pick somebody to perform some administrative functions -- i.e. making sure that the lanes are reserved on the proper day. It seems to me that it is perfectly sensible to regard this situation as a hierarchy, but utterly insane to regard it as authority, government, or a state. Under most of the definitions you and RJ have been discussing, an anarchist can without troubling his conscience join such a bowling league, even become a captain or an administrator thereof. Thus, most definitions of anarchy as you have set them out are consistent with hierarchy. QED. --Christofurio 23:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Do your captains tell you how to bowl? When to turn up? What to wear? What you are allowed to talk about? Whether you can meet up with other members to discuss joint interests? No, of course not. It is *not* a hierarchy, it is a division of work based on the captains being instructed by the members and held accountable to them. It is not, say, a capitalist workplace or a state. But that much should be obvious, surely? BlackFlag 08:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Situation described by Christofurio (bowling team & their captain) is hierarchy according to definition 2.1. (Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status). Also, I’m pretty sure that bowling captain tells his teammates how to act in certain things connected with bowling. -- Vision Thing -- 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Engels would be proud! For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection of the individuals that make it up. As he puts it, "whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation" and so it is not possible "to have organisation without authority," as authority means "the imposition of the will of another upon ours . . . authority presupposes subordination." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731 and p. 730]
And your point is…? Do you agree that Christofurio's bowling team is a kind of hierarchy? By definition, it is. -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Administrative functions" isn't hierarchy. Hierarchy involves controlling those further down the hierarchy. hi·er·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "hierarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rärk, hrär-) n. pl. hi·er·ar·chies

  1. A body of persons having authority. [holy shit! even the dictionary says it!]
    1. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status.
    2. The group so categorized.
  3. A series in which each element is graded or ranked: put honesty first in her hierarchy of values.
    1. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above.
    2. Religious rule by a group of ranked clergy.
  5. One of the divisions of angels.

RJII, I don't want to waste space, so I point you to Libertatia's reply above explaining the flaw in your logic that dictionary definitions are total and absolute and a comprehensive, detailed and accurate source. -- infinity0 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go. See how vague the term is? It can also mean people ranked according to "ability" (something that Bakunin supports). The term "social hierarchy" should not be used in the definition. Also, for some "social hierarchy" (communists) includes differing levels of wealth. That's something not all anarchists oppose. The term should not be used, because you haven't sourced it beyone ONE definition from an obscure self-described "existential individualist," the term is vague, and by some meanings of the term it's simply false to attribute it to all anarchists. RJII 17:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So dictionary definitions are decisive when you quote them, but don't count when you don't like the implications? Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realise that you were actually proud of your illogic. Holy shit indeed. Or the unholy kind will serve as well as a paradogm for the above. --Christofurio 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What implications? No dictionary definition says hierarchy in anarchism is OK. What are you talking about? -- infinity0 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"I realise you haven't been in this debate for long so let me explain: I provided four dictionary sources above which say anarchism is anti-authority. This by definition implys anarchism is anti-hierarchical. So no dictionary actually disagrees that anarchism is anti-hierarchical - they just don't use the word "hierarchy" explicitly. RJII is saying that because of this that word should not be in the intro. -- infinity0 14:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is intriguing to me that just above you quoted a dict def to me, and immediately below that criticized RJ for relying on dict def. Phrases such as "even the dictionary says it" indicate that when the dict agrees with you, you think it definitive. When it doesn't, you discard it. Fine with me, but others can do the same.
At any rate "hierarchy" isn't something anarchists necessarily oppose, just as "authority" in some senses of the word isn't something anarchists necessarily oppose. If someone is a better bowler than I am, then I will take his advice on how it should be done in order to improve my own game ... I will attend to his authority. As some of the quotes cited in the above discussions indicate, some very prominent anarchists (agreed to merit that title by everybody) have been very explicit about this. Likewise, a society with authority in that sense can likewise have non-coercive hierarchies. This isn't neurosurgery. --Christofurio 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as Bakunin goes, he makes the valid distinction being *an* authority and being *in* authority. Therefore, if I was seeking to discover what anarchism was about, I would consult an expert and judge his opinions based on my own understanding of the facts. The same with doctors, etc. Bakunin, however, explicitly argued against *hierarchical* organisations, favouring organisations in which "no function remains fixed" and does "not remain permanently and irrevocably attached to one person. Hierarchical order and promotion do not exist. . . In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone." (Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 415) So attempts to protray Bakunin in favour of hierarchy are misplaced. For him, "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." (Marxism, Freedom and the State) This is well know, at least to anarchists. BlackFlag 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the line: "Some say yes. Some say no."? The slogans say "against all authority," which probably isn't exactly right. On the other hand, most anarchist appear to oppose more than just the state. It's likely that most actual anarchist activism is aimed targets other than the state per se: racism, patriarchy, environmental degredation, economic inequity, hunger, etc. It probably does come down to the question of "coercion," and the differences between anarchists largely break down according to there definitions of the coercive. Libertatia 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. For me the only definition that really works is Saul Newman's: "Anarchism is, fundamentally, an ethical critique of authority – almost an ethical duty to question and resist domination in all its forms." That one is a lot different than most, in that it shifts it from being political/social theory to a general sense of ethical criticism. But it has the advantages of being relative to each individual, rather than forcing one essential definition on everyone like all the ones we're making up. But I think it pretty much hits the nail on the head, and the word "domination" [11] pretty much covers everything anarchists oppose. Sarge Baldy 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. I'm one of the co-authors of "What's Wrong with Postanarchism," so I guess I've made my concerns with Newman's work clear elsewhere. We might do as well starting with Kropotkin's opening to the 1910 Brittanica entry, and clarifying a bit from there: "ANARCHISM (from the Gr. , and , contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." Whatever we do, this endless back and forth isn't helping anything. Libertatia 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is simple. An-Archy, against *archy.* Hier-archy, a form of *archy.* Anarchy is against hierarchy. This does not mean that people cannot form hierarchical organisations, just that such organisations are not, by definition, anarchist. For example, if a religious cult creates a little community based on the worship and obedience to their leader then as long as they don't impose it on others, that is fine. It is *not*, however, an anarchist community. Similarly, if a group of Leninist form their own little "dictatorship of the proletariat" somewhere. That is the difference. BlackFlag 08:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Another perspective. Anarchism, as a political theory, was born when Proudhon wrote _What is Property?_ specifically to refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware that in such circumstances property "violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." He, unsurprisingly, talks of the "proprietor, to whom [the worker] has sold and surrendered his liberty." For Proudhon, anarchy was "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" while "proprietor" was "synonymous" with "sovereign" for he "imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control." This meant that "property engenders despotism," as "each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property." [_What is Property_, p. 251, p. 130, p. 264 and pp. 266-7] I've already noted Proudhon's opposition to wage labour and support for "industrial democracy", so suggesting that the father of anarchism would have agreed that anarchism is against hierarchy in the workplace). BlackFlag 09:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The cult example is an important one. Yes, a Branch Davidian style cult isn't anarchistic. But within a broader anarchistic society such cults could (and probably would) develop, and their existence unmolested would itself be one of the anarchistic elements of the whole. There would be no Janet Reno to condemn and burn the non-anarchistic cult. Anarchists logically must tolerate some archy within their midst, because only by archy could they prohibit it. --Christofurio 13:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Kind of the point, surely? It is the internal organisation of a group is what determines whether it is anarchist, not whether it is "voluntary" to join. If "consent" is purely the issue then the current state system is "anarchy" as no one forces you to live in a specific one. As for tolerating hierarchy, it depends on what you mean. Obviously anarchism cannot come about until people want it. Anarchists seek to convince those subject to hierarchy to rebel and well they do, then the ruler will have to employ force to maintain their monopoly of power over their property. The aim would be for would-be rulers to have as much land or machinery they can use by themselves (i.e. occupy and use) and no more. BlackFlag 08:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is "kind of the point." The "current state system" in the US obviously didn't tolerate the Branch Davidians, which is why most of them are dead. An anarchistic system would have allowed for the peaceable existence of that particular (internally hierarchical) group. For such reasons I think Sarge's proposed def makes some sense and begs the fewest questions. A related point: you say anarchism can't come about "until people want it." Okay, but how many people? Are you saying that no anarchy can exist anywhere until every human on the face of the globe wants to live in a non-hierarchical setting? Or is anarchism a philosophy that will allow for human diversity, and so would consider anarchistic a broad society in which some people do want to live hierarchically, and voluntarily organize themselves accordingly? --Christofurio 14:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Diversity is fine, but as can be seen capitalism results in most people being subject to a boss. Not much diversity there. As for an anarchist society, sure people who wanted to be subject to a boss or government can do so -- but that would not be an anarchist association. Anarchy will exist when enough people in a given area organise themselves to do without hierarchy -- and get rid of it. Anarchistic movements can exist within hierarchical systems (e.g. syndicalist unions), so we need not wait until "after the revolution" to apply anarchist ideas. BlackFlag 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We don't know what anarcho-capitalism would result in until we try it. I'm sure it would result in greater diversity of life styles than exists at present. As for the anarchistic society, you and I may agree at heart, although we're using words somewhat differently, I wholeheartedly agree that within such a society "people who wanted to be subject to a boss ... could do so," although I wouldn't call such a boss a "government" unless it claimed the authority thereof -- i.e. unless it was based on somebody's idea of sovereignty. The effort to bring about that world, one in which there is no such claim or any such idea of sovereignty to base it on -- with the diversity that would result -- including both the presence of bosses in some situatioins and the absense thereof in others -- is the core of what I mean by anarchism. --Christofurio 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that anarchism is against hierarchy is not one limited to "communists" (as RJII). As I've shown, Proudhon was against the concept. Not only that, he used the actual word (hierarchy). For example, we find him stating "As you cannot conceive of society without hierarchy, you have made yourselves the apostles of authority" He wonders "Is it, then, impossible that, in the present condition of society, the workshop with its hierarchical organization, and machinery, instead of serving exclusively the interests of the least numerous, the least industrious, and the wealthiest class, should be employed for the benefit of all?" He notes that the "workshop, after having degraded the laborer by giving him a master, completes his degeneracy by reducing him from the rank of artisan to that of common workman." He does indicate an alternative, association but "In order that association may be real, he who participates in it must do so, not as a gambler, but as an active factor; he must have a deliberative voice in the council . . . everything regarding him, in short, should be regulated in accordance with equality." (obvious links with The General Idea there, as quoted before) He also calls for "a war of labor against capital; a war of liberty against authority; a war of the producer against the non-producer; a war of equality against privilege" (System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery) I think we can safely say that opposition to hierarchy is a long standing anarchist principle, as shown by Proudhon. Moreover that he thought that "hierarchy" was a result of wage labour and he favoured workers' control (association) to end it. BlackFlag 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that Kropotkin argued that "the origin of the anarchist inception of society" lies in "the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." (Anarchism, p. 158) So we have at least three anarchists (two of whom are non-communists) agreeing that anarchists are against hierarchy. As these are the three most famous anarchists, I would suggest that (as a valid generalisation) we can agree that anarchism is against social hierarchies -- particularly as there are plenty of other anarchists who say the same thing. BlackFlag 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There's also the oft-quoted statement from Chomsky (who is not a communist): "I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom." Sarge Baldy 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Sylvan as a valid source

I've managed to track down RJII's article by Richard Sylvan. It was, to say the least, an interesting read. As well as the claim that anarchists are not opposed to government, I discovered that "hostility" to the state "is not a feature of anarchism." I think that we need to ensure that any definition of anarchism should read "anarchists are not opposed to government or the state", that seems very accurate!

In addition, I was impressed to discover that anarchism "is in fact the most recent and novel of political philosophies"! And there I was, under the impression it pre-dated Marxism by at least 8 years! Obviously 1840 comes *after* 1848, silly me. I was also impressed to discover that the "notion has recently been extended beyond political arrangements." Silly me, to have thought, for example, that Goldman and de Cleyre had "extended" the "notion" to attack sexism in the 1880s and 1890s! I suppose it all depends on what "recently" means! After all, Proudhon had "extended" the "notion" to attack wage labour in 1840 but, then, I forgot 1840 comes some time *after* 1848 so, maybe, it is more "recent" after all!

So, what to conclude? Well some may conclude that the article is pretty flawed and, consequently, not really a firm basis to change the definition of anarchism. After all, "no government" government is an oxymoron of the highest order. Moreover, if we accept that we need to accept that anarchists are also okay with the state. Which makes the definition of "anarchism" a bit tricky as it no longer means what most people (and anarchists) would think it means. Or we may conclude, with RJII, that based on this one article the definition of anarchism should be changed and, as a result, anarchism becomes compatible with government, state and numerous other "voluntary" arrangements (such as dictatorship, contractual slavery, and such like).

I would suggest that changing the definition of anarchism would be a mistake based purely on this article. BlackFlag 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I already suggested leaving opposition to "government" in the definition in the article because most sources use that term, even though I think it's wrong. The correct thing would be to say opposition to "the state" or "coercive government." Government can conceivably be voluntary. Government, in this sense, is any institution or organization of people that uses defensive force to protect liberty, and which may include judicial functions. The State, on the other hand, is coercive (initiates coercion) by definition --it has a forced monopoly on the use of force and it forces you to fund it. Defending oneself from aggressors is certainly compatible with anarchism, as is voluntarily paying someone else to protect you from them. "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices" -Benjamin Tucker. RJII 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If we remove government, we need to remove state. As evidence, I present your own reference, Richard Sylvan. Feel free to argue that he is not a valid reference but I won't be impressed. As for the possibility of a government being voluntary, I can quite agree. But it is not *anarchist*, which is the point (as I've shown). As for "government" being "defensive force to protect liberty", well, I would suggest we do not start changing the meanings of words. I think most people (never mind anarchists) would agree that this is *not* the usual definition of the term government. I think that most people would expect an entry on anarchism to start with at least some shared language with the rest of humanity rather than the non-standard definition of one person. I hope most people would agree. BlackFlag 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is anarchist to have private defense of liberty and private courts, etc. You deny that the American individualist anarchists, like Tucker, are true anarchists? RJII 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Change the record, eh? Who defines "government" as "defensive force to protect liberty" in the real world? So stop muddying the waters by introducing strange definitions of words so that you can prove your own pet little theories. BlackFlag 10:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

government and state

If government is that which organizes and constrains human behavior, then it must include custom and contract as well as the coercive authority. Most people think of the latter as the source of all order, and thus it's natural that government is commonly a synonym for state. Natural but unfortunate. Now: to be a good anarchist, would I have to oppose custom and contract? —Tamfang 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends on whether you want to be a "good" communist anarchist or an individualist anarchist. Communists like Kropotkin want to abolish all contracting. On the other hand, contract law is the very basis of individualist anarchism. RJII 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You really don't understand anarchism, do you? Free association is its basis in all its forms. BlackFlag 10:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My own take on the words "government" and "state," -- which I submit isn't merely my own but has a great deal of history behind it, is this: the state is the legitimating authority, the government is the legitimated institution. The state is, so to speak, Queen Elizabeth. The government is Tony Blair. In a republic, the state is "we, the people" -- the government consists of the duly constituted branches of elected and appointed persons. Anarchism at its heart is the view that the state is a myth, and one best forgotten, so that government will lose its cloak of legitimacy. Elizabeth is just an elderly woman who loves her dogs and lives in nice houses. Tony Blair is the head of a mob, like Tony Soprano, and thinks will start to change for the better once a lot of people see that similarity. --Christofurio 13:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

anarcho-socialism?

Er, well sure, but no one would use that term. Most anarchists consider themselves socialist, and would see a term such as "anarcho-socialism" as redundant. You may want to take a look at libertarian socialism. Sarge Baldy 10:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to use the term, based on the discussion below. :) Voyager640 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I think anbarchosocialism is when everyone owns something and then fights to see who gets to use it what abnout you? And i think this is a really great system because people are always fighting instead of everything being set up by THE MAN! what about youAgreeToBe

Likewise, many Marxists might agree to "anarcho-socialism" in that it comports with their idea that the socialist state will "wither away." The state must continue to exist until its job is done, though. In this way, the anarchistic promises end up being like the carrot in front of the face of the beast of burden. --Christofurio 15:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because most self-described anarchists would consider themselves socialists - even if it is true - doesn't mean they're right. As the fruitless discussion(s) above ably demonstrate, there's a central non sequitur within Anarchism if it is required to be against any social hierarchy however it comes about, or even any formal social hierarchy (there are always informal social hierarchies - who's cooler than whom; who can run the fastest, who is the cleverest - and no form of anarchism can prevent the occurrence of these).
  • Either you need rules (and therefore a state of some sort to enforce them) preventing formal social hierarchies coming about by agreement amongst certain members of the community - which state of affairs can certainly be socialism, but can't be anarchism in any meaningful sense - or you have no rules (or at least no means of enforcing them), in which case there is nothing in practice to stop members of the community forming social relationships and, inevitably, social hierarchies. This can't really be socialism but, I venture to submit, can be anarchism.
  • What you are left with as the most plausible definition for anarchism is a state where there are no rules (or at least, no means of enforcing them - but actually, I think, no rules), but - indeed therefore - people can form themselves into voluntary formal social hierarchies from time to time, which may be long lasting, or may be ephemeral, and anyone in the hierarchy who decides they don't like it at any time can opt out. That seems to me to be a robust, sensible, and workable version of capitalism. The only problem is that it is essentially free market capitalism, and "anarchists" don't like that idea. The problem is that the alternative, in effect, permits no social interaction at all, and really would be the Hobbesian caricature we all know and love. I've not seen a plausible case made for how this could be avoided in truly "socialist anarchism" - though there are some smart folks active on this page and I would be delighted if some of them could do it.
  • There is an interesting article called "Two Cheers for Noam Chomsky" by libertarian Julian Sanchez here - also cited on Chomsky's own site - which notes that Chomsky's pet theory anarcho-syndicalism actually gets much closer to good old fashioned libertarianism (of the sort you'd think Chomsky would despise) than most people would credit. ElectricRay 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
See anarchist law. It is a difficult subject and I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think people are largely products of their environment, and if people are raised in a good society, they will turn out good themselves and there will be less need for control. And if people do not follow the rules (yes there are rules, they are decided by the community as a whole through consensus) they will not be supported by the society and will have to be on their own or find a society who's rules they will not break. This is a last resort of course, but it is there. The Ungovernable Force 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
To me the whole aim of anarchism is to replace human law with natural law. Sarge Baldy 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Two very interesting answers.
  • The question of how or whether people will co-operate in practice can't really be a question of hoping people have been correctly socialised by some other sort of societal organisation before letting them loose on anarchism - that would be to admit that anarchism was not, by itself, viable. If such laws are necessary to, and do, produce good citizens in the first place, then why the need to get rid of them at some point? I'm optimistic about innate cooperation, irrespective of socialisation. We know that co-operation is an evolutionary successful strategy, because we are even here to argue about it. We also know, through the evolution of markets (and experiments in game theory) that in most repetitive interaction scenarios, over the long run cooperative strategies will work. That's why eBay works as a system - it relies on trust and cooperation in the main (there will be the odd shyster, but we can tolerate a certain amount of that, and in the long run the shysters will lose out anyway).
  • The idea that "there are rules, they are decided by the community as a whole through consensus" seems to me to miss the point of, and the beauty of - anarchism. If that's your organisational primcipal you're a democrat, not an anarchist. In practice there is no need for rules to apply uniformly across the community, and indeed that's the very problem with democracy that anarchy can solve for - at its heart, the notion of "the whole community" itself is an illusory one. (I live in north London. In what meaningful way is someone who lives in South London, whom I've never met, and who works in a different industry to me, part of my community?). Indeed, we have different "communities", with wildly different geographical spreads, sizes and "rules" for different aspects of our daily lives: the family, work, the footie club, the kids' school, church, and so on. The rules we make, for each such community, can be different, to fit the needs of the community, they can be inconsistent with each other (I moderate my dress and my language at work in a way I don't need to at the Football clubrooms), and they are fundamentally agreed by me in a way that "societal norms" imposed by democratic means just aren't. Anarchy allows a genuine (set of) social contract(s), rather than the illusory single one promised by democracy. The mistake is to think there should be a single social contract for all, some sort of "collective bargain" - anarchism says we bargain individually with each other; we do it frequently, as often as it suits, and we negotiate only on terms directly relevant to us. This is, as I say, really little different to genuine, no-state intervention at all, free market capitalism.
  • Sarge, your reference to Natural Laws is interesting, as I have noticed a number of socialist-leaning people (including Chomsky) saying similar things, which seem fundamentally at odds with post modern position I've always associated with them (and to which I subscribe myself): "natural law" implies moral truth and, as Bentham put it, is nonsense on stilts. A relativist reading would be that there any such appeal to "natural law" is really a masked attempt to impose one's own values on the rest of the community which, to my mind, is not a very anarchist idea at all. ElectricRay 23:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. When I say natural law, I don't mean natural law "translated" into formal law. That's only positive law again. I don't see why natural law would have to be "morally authoritarian". I see natural law as informal, something to be enforced only by nature and by common sense. That people should learn from nature rather than human beings, learn law from nature rather than human beings. Not by learning an interpretation of nature from other human beings. From what I understand the postmodernists oppose humanism, as I oppose humanism on the grounds it's anthropocentric and dominatory on the part both of those attempting to universalize their own moral beliefs, and on the human race itself, which treats nature as as a subservient entity and works to conquer it. For someone to "oppose natural law", it seems they must by extension oppose nature (how else can these laws be removed?) and this is just a form of continued domination, which for lack of other options must inevitably result again in human law (or in disorder). Sarge Baldy 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood you - "natural law", to a jurisprude, is the opposite of positive law - they're two different ways of rationalising why we should obey laws at all. Positivism says law gets its authority and legitimacy from the very fact of being enacted, as a brute fact - so if something's validly enacted there is no further cause for inquiry - naturalism says a law derives its authority by dint of being a fundamental law of the universe, unchanging for all times and all places - so therefore whether it has been enacted or not is immaterial. That - which, as Bentham says, is a very silly notion - is not really what you're talking about, so I think we're at cross purposes. ElectricRay 00:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. I see only two forms of law: positive, man-made law; and natural law, independent of human construction. I would agree that "positive natural law", i.e. positive law claiming to have a basis in nature, is insensible, morally authoritarian, and counter-intuitive. Sarge Baldy 00:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism

I have tidied up Anarcho-syndicalism section:

  • removed the grpahic of the flag, as it was disrupting the text flow of the article, and in any case doesn't really add anything here (it appears on the main page for anarcho-syndicalism, though it must be said it is one of the dullest flags in history)
  • replaced the introduction of this sub-section with (a tidied up version of) the introduction from the anarcho-syndicalism article - otherwise it really isn't clear what anarcho-syndicalism is at all - I realise this is somewhat duplicative, but then so is the whole section, which could really just be a redirect/merge to the main anarcho-syndicalism article - I wasn't bold enough to do that.
  • removed a fair bit of hard-to-decipher, speculative, or original fluff. To be candid, more could be removed, but I didn't want to overdo it. ElectricRay 23:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism

Removed the following sentence: Because it does not oppose profit or capitalism, most anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, apropos the discussion above, as not only is it totally speculative (in terms of "most anarchists..." and utter nonsense, but it is also a total non-sequitur - anarchism has nothing whatever to say, per se, about profit or capitalism. ElectricRay 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Every anarchist I've ever talked to consider opposition to capitalism to be an integral part of anarchism, and many authors have defined it as such. The fact that most other encyclopedias don't even mention anarcho-capitalism in their articles on anarchism is telling. The Ungovernable Force 04:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, every one except me, and I guess you never met famous aarchist writers such as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick. Anarchism is about the absence of certain forms of societal coercion. The fact that people who call themselves anarchists, as a group, don't tend to like capitalism is neither here nor there. On the merits, as set out above, anarcho-capitalism is an entirely credible account (and for what it is worth, in my view it is the only credible account) of anarchism. ElectricRay 07:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't anarchism, it's right libertarianism on steriods. Anyways, the article merely says that most anarchists don't think it's a form of anarchism, not that it isn't (which it's not). The Ungovernable Force 08:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to state the obvious, Nozick is *not* an "anarchist writer," famous or not. And Rothbard is considered an anarchist (by some) because he called himself one! As it stands, most anarchists reject the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That should be reflected in the entry (just as other anarchist opinions should be). BlackFlag 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the merits of Anarcho-Capitalism

Great, just what we need -- another zealot. --AaronS 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For an anarchist, you do a great line in self-righteousness. ElectricRay 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one declaring THE ONE TRUE ANARCHY. --AaronS 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Right you are. I'm sure someone will be along presently with your medication. ElectricRay 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Both AaronS and ElectricRay, please refrain from making personal attacks and remain civil. - FrancisTyers 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"Oh, hello, Kettle! This is Pot! You're black!" ElectricRay 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

HAHA. Nozick, an anarchist! — no. - FrancisTyers 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Its actually quite simple, I guess you didn't bother reading his book, you just read the title, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick was either a minarchist or some other form of small-statist. Certainly not an anarchist at any rate. Apologies if I came off as making your claims seem derisory, this was not my intention. I have stricken the comments. - FrancisTyers 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
How very glib and patronising of you. I own a well-thumbed copy of ASU, and while I haven't read every word (have you?), I have read far enough into it, and around it, to understand that (a) while what Nozick argues for is not anarchy, it is something which all the same aspires to it - his programme is to start with "no rules" as the ideal scenario and see how far one needs to depart from it to create a "moral" state, and (b) that his analysis, being based as it (and pretty much all libertarian thought) is on a form of natural law (in the Bentham sense), is bunk. Now, rather than assuming that anyone who presents a different view to yours is a buffoon, how about concentrating on not seeming like one yourself? ElectricRay 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, every one except me, and I guess you never met famous aarchist writers such as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick.
Robert Nozick was not an anarchist writer. Sorry if there was any confusion. Please refrain from making personal attacks, Wikipedia has a policy against them. Furthermore, I'd ask you to assume good faith, I apologised for my remarks said without sufficient forethought. - FrancisTyers 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you apologised, and in the same sentence said "Its actually quite simple, I guess you didn't bother reading his book, you just read the title". You would forgive me, I'm sure, for thinking your apology didn't seem especially sincere, in the circumstances. That said, I apologise to you for my brusqueness. ElectricRay 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How I see it, anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of anarchism, but only after you take the anarcho-capitalist definition of anarchism ("the abolishment of the state"), which conveniently puts it at the very center. But seeing as only anarcho-capitalists use this extremely limited definition, the point is moot. Anarchism didn't begin as an opposition to "the state", it began as an opposition to domination, to authority, to governing of any sort. It's such a trap that people like RJ are now having to argue that anarchism doesn't oppose government to explain why "private defense agencies" (or "competing governments", as Molinari called them) and so-called "voluntary governments" are compatible with anarchism. So sure, anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, even the perfect anarchism, after it completely abandons anarchism and redefines the word around itself. Sarge Baldy 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You deny that Benjamin Tucker was an anarchist? He also supported competing private defense agencies. Or, do you restrict this criticism only for anarcho-capitalists? RJII 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you, Sarge, for being civil enough to address the content of what I was saying. I agree. I suspect many of those who are uneasy about anarcho-capitalism have an unrealistic view of what is meant by free market capitalism, also. As I have noted above, there are conceptual issues facing any take on anarchy - the anarcho-socialist is no less afflicted. You can't have a non-governed, non-hierarchical society, without at least some means of preventing people voluntarily forming themselves into hierarchies - to pose a question on Sarge's terms, how would anarchism prevent the formation of private defence agencies, other than by some form of domination, authority or government? There is the dilemma. Anarcho-capitalism (which is really just pure free-market capitalism) solves for that by permitting voluntary hierarchies - permitting private defence agencies. Anarcho-socialism doesn't - sees them as too dominating, authoritarian or quesi-governmental, and so is left with a problem.
What you are all saying, really, is that "anarchism" has acquired a technical meaning as a term of art other than the commonsense one implied by its etymology. This is fine - on that basis, anarcho capitalism isn't anarchy. Anarcho-socialism, indeed, seems to be a reinvention of Marxism - a smart move, since it is clearly in need of some rebranding. ElectricRay 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, anarcho-socialism (or just anarchism) developed along-side Marxism. Bakunin and Marx were contemporaries who often debated with each other. There are similarities, but it's not because anarchism is some neo-marxism, it's because they are from the same era and were addressing similar concerns of the era. And this isn't a dictionary, it's an enclopedia, things like the aquired meaning over time is very important. The Ungovernable Force 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
What you posit seems to be nothing more than re-hashed social contract theory. --AaronS 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm smiling at you, AaronS. ElectricRay 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Great, now, wipe that grin on your face, and try to respond in a way that isn't condescending. --AaronS 00:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Say something which is worthy of a response, and I might respond. So far, you've done nothing more than troll. ElectricRay 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It would "prevent" the formation of public defense agencies by rendering the need for one both unnecessary and impractical. By taking things backward technologically to the point that groups can and *must* exist cooperatively to survive. This is necessary because freedom in anarchism must be the freedom to do as you will, but can never be the freedom to impose on others, because this is a massive contradiction that effectively nullifies itself. If people have the "freedom" to enslave others, to control and take the freedom of others, then it's really very hard to say you have freedom at all. As a result an anarchy should neither allow nor banish domination, but structure itself in such a way for it to seem an impractical, futile, and even harmful concept. Sarge Baldy 22:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds pretty utopian to me. Taking things backward technologically, positively structuring things in certain ways - it's all well and good, but it involves everyone agreeing as to what would be involved, and no-one defecting on the plan. People just don't agree - people just aren't "rational" (or they don't even agree on what it is) - look at this talk page as a very good example. Everyone has a different perspective. This is fundamental, right down to an epistemological level. Any workable theory of social organisation needs to deal with those multiple perspectives and differing views on what's sensible within a community.
Now take the private army "stricture" we have all agreed on: Since there's no disadvantage to defecting on this commitment, only upside (you get to have a private army; everyone else has agreed not to; you're in a position of power (and you have created an informal hierarchy!), the rational thing to do for each individual is defect - not just to be one up on everyone else, but as nothing more than a prudent countermeasure to someone else trying to get one up on you. Classic Prisoner's Dilemma. That is the problem that anarchism (your technical term) faces but that anarcho-capitalism, or my "rehashed social contract theory" [:-)] solves for. It assumes that defection, rather than hoping it will never happen.
One last thing to note: If a private defence force is unnecessary or impractical, it won't happen (for long) under anarcho-captialism either. Anything that has a cost (in the broadest sense) disproportionate with its usefulness will die an evolutionary death. ElectricRay 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Utopian how? It's an idea built out of anthropological evidence. A system with interdependence makes cooperation necessary and competition destructive. Just as you'd destroy yourself trying to be cooperative in a capitalist economy, you'd destroy yourself trying to act egoistically in a system where you rely on the efforts of others. (And if you ask me, promoting an economic system based on the idea of infinite production, infinite exploitation of the very finite earth is actually very blatantly utopian. There is also no evidence to support the very arrogant assumption that people can create a survivable alternative to nature.) Sarge Baldy 00:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Utopian for precisely the reasons I mentioned - it makes unrealistic assumptions about how people will behave. Imagine I were in your anarchist society. I like the idea of trading for a profit. I like having a microwave oven. How do you deal with people like me, who have pro-essentially capitalist values? You can't banish me to an island, unless you insist on dominating me.
"Just as you'd destroy yourselves trying to be cooperative in a capitalist economy".... This makes me think we're talking about very different things when we say "capitalist economy". Capitalism depends on cooperation. The sine qua non of capitalism is co-operation. Take eBay has a microcosm of capitalism. Every transaction relies on co-operating, when the single round prisoner's dilemma it (ought to) represent should predict a defection. All contracts are forms of cooperation, even wage labour. "You operate my machine, I'll pay you x". That's cooperation.
Re the exploitation of the earth - it isn't utopian; it's regrettably inevitable - the tragedy of the commons. Again, it's the prisoner's dilemma: If I don't exploit the earth, someone else will. That's the human dilemma, and there is nothing capitalism, or anarchism, can do to stop it. It is nature; not a survivable alternative to it. The best we can do is encourage people, in their own interests, not to waste resources and, frankly, not to breed. ElectricRay 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
While my system might be utopian in its implementation, yours is utopian in its final conclusion. Utopian to think the world can grow forever, can exploit infinitely finite resources. It's short-sighted. And it's already domination. Domination of the planet. I'm not a humanist. Dominating nature is no better to me than dominating human beings, who if anything are the most disposable form of life on the planet. If you were in "my" anarchy, you would starve to death trying to go it alone. You would feed the animals of the forest trying to work as an individual in a land with no microwaves, with no skills to survive, with no power stations. You'd have no capacity to survive. But I'm not to say you'd have to live in such an anarchy. I'm just offering it as the only practical alternative to the short-sighted utopian model currently in practice. I also find it interesting when you say it would be domination to force you into my anarchy. Don't you think the same would be true in forcing me to live under your anarchy? Your sense of "cooperation" is also remarkable. Was it "cooperation" when a slaveowner told his slaves that he would house them and give them bread, and not beat them so long as they continue to work? Sarge Baldy 07:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sarge, I just have to say this--I love you! (or your ideas at least). I would have never thought to say that but it is exactly something I would have liked to say. Especially that last part. Also, in terms of the private defense argument and defection, I think defection is perfectly acceptable (though probably to be avoided if possible), as do most social anarchists I know. But how does everyone going it on their own create a better society, especially if some of the people have private armies and others don't? If someone has a gun and is willing to use it on you, they won't give a damn about you right to defect, they'll shoot you or enslave you. You need to find a way to get everyone in a community to agree upon what rights people will have so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps it's utopian, but what ideas aren't? Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll end up among the stars (I know, it's cliched but it's true). The Ungovernable Force 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

AaronS evidently didn't like my paragraph breaks, I think, so I will just reinsert the substance of my post (with apologies to AaronS if this amounts to "flamebait" - but I don't think it does, and it certainly isn't intended to). ElectricRay 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you said you were only adding the section/subsection titles and moving stuff around ("inserting heading breaks for ease of editing, and re-ordering one paragraph to assist in flow"). A quick glance at the diff link seemed to show that that was the case. I apologize if I accidentally removed anything that you had actually added in your edit (aside from the section/subsection titles, which were indeed flamebait, if you ask me). --AaronS 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, I don't think the world can grow forever, and so I don't think my conclusions are even remotely utopian - if anything they're nihilistic. the one problem we face, which none of us, by ourselves, can control, is consumption of resources. We can try to be as efficient as possible about how we consume them - how we get the best bang for buck - but I don't see how any form of anarchism can temper our demands and desires to be less desirous of resources altogether. If you don't compel people not to consume and breed, they'll consume and breed until equilibrium is reached. What is equilibrium? The point at which the additional person, or consumption, isn't possible. It can be reached either in the good old fashioned apocalyptic Malthusian fashion - ie there are no resources left, or it could be acheived by people taking control of all the resources, so no more are freely available. Once a resource is yours, you're incentivised to look after it (or exchange it for fair value) in a way you're simply not if it's communally owned (two examples: the fastest car in the world: the rental car, and the time-honoured teacher's cry of "would you do that at home?"). If a finite resource is free to everyone, then everyone will try to gobble up as much of it as is possible for themselves before it all gets eaten. Any account of societal organisation which denies or disputes this is practially useless. A society must be orginased consistently with the interests of the people in the society. The tragedy is not that there is private ownership, but that some really vital things aren't susceptible of private ownership. Air, for example.

Each of us tries to master (or dominate, perhaps) our environment, be it people, or trees, or insects, or viruses. And each of these organic things in our environment is trying to master the environment, too. The species who survive are the ones who are best at that. If your anti-humanism is inconsistent with that, you're welcome to it. But don't take malaria tablets next time you're off into the jungle - that wouldn't be fair on the malaria bugs.

If I were in your anarchy I wouldn't try to go it alone. Anarcho capitalism isn't about going it alone - if you think it is, I don't think you've grasped it. I have skills, I would offer them for some reward acceptable to me for the effort. And if my reward is more than I need to survive I would put the excess to use in creating more rewards, so that I didn't have to just survive, but thriving. I might even use some of them to buy the skills of someone else to help my enterprise. And so on. I don't see why this is such an outrageous idea, but it seems to send "textbook" anarchists into apopleptic fits.

Slavery is a the utter worst case example, but fine - let's deal with that: Yes, it's one way of getting people to cooperate with the grand plan. But consider how inefficient it would be: you would have to spend too much time, money and aggravation finding slaves, incarcerating them, guarding them, stopping them from running away, and supervising their work, and most likely at they'd not be especially skilled or productive because the slave would be resentful and disincentivised to turn out a good product. Another guy might make the same product with correctly incentivised, voluntary labour, paying them a lot more (he doesn't have to sink costs into finding, capturing, incarcerating, supervising and tracking down truants, after all). The slave owner would think, stuff this for a lark ... ElectricRay 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've never heard of "subsistence"? If you're relying on nature and attune to nature, you're not going to destroy your entire natural environment because you'll recognize it as suicide. Capitalism is suicidal because it can't be subsistent, it's based on the idea that we can tap things from the earth indefinitely, quicker and ever more efficiently. Of course so-called sustainable forms of capitalism are futile, because corporation ensure production and consumption are growing and growing, new needs created. Do you think the Bushmen will eventually kill their environment? That the Native Americans were about ready to pillage every rock, chop down every tree, kill every animal? No, because they were sensible.
You think species do best that "dominate"? Humans kill their environment, kill their rivals. Do you think malaria could survive if it killed everything that moves? That predators could survive if they killed all their prey? Do you think the dinosaurs died because they didn't dominate? Nature works in cycles, not in utter domination of a location. I find it interesting that social darwinists misinterprete Darwin and then have the gall to reapply it to nature. To quote Darwin, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
You're right, wage slavery is more effective than slavery. And cheaper, because you no longer have an obligation to keep your slaves physically content and can toss them away without incurring a loss. It's voluntary in the same way, however: work, in exchange for the right to live. That isn't "voluntary" because the alternative is unsurvivable, the alternative is suicidal. If you're so obsessed with the voluntary, I have trouble understanding why you oppose tax, a "voluntary" relationship where you pay money in exchange for not being put in prison. A fair arrangement, isn't it? And at least with tax you can survive the alternative. And why not the draft? Fight for the state, or go to prison. Hey, it's your choice! Sarge Baldy 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's capitalism or any other system, you have to use the Earth's resources to survive. But, I have news for you. For all practical purposes, the total amount of resources are unlimited. They can't be diminished. They only change form. The only limit to wealth creation is human ingenuity. For example, oil was around for a long time before anyone realized it could be used for energy. More resources are just sitting there waiting to be exploited when someone figures out how to do so. We'll never run out of resources (until maximum entropy in a few billion years or so). There's not a thing to worry about. Wealth creation is infinite. Besides, "You cannot go against nature because when you do go against nature, that's part of nature too" -Love & Rockets RJII 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Your're right they do only change in form, but you make it seem like it's just so easy to change them back. It's not. The problem is not that we are using resources, which are replenished over time, but that we are using them so quickly that they don't have time to replenish themselves. What happens when ingenuity fails and we can't figure anything else out? What will you say then? And it's not like we only have ourselves to worry about, maybe you aren't aware of this but nature (outside of ourselves) has an intrinsic right to exist just as much as we do. To some extent you are right about not being able to go against nature, because we are natural so therefore everything we do is natural. At the same time, it is possible to go against sustainability which we are doing and have been doing for quite some time now. And people ask why I don't think capitalism is compatible with anarchism! If these are the ideas capitalism breeds than we are all screwed! The Ungovernable Force 04:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to your doomsday scenario. I don't see "sustainability" decreasing, but increasing. The world is getting wealthier and wealthier; suriviving is getting easier and easier. Eventually, one will be able to survive with barely lifting a finger. This is because of increased productivity due to technological innovation. We can perform more work with less effort. Maybe you prefer going back to the old days where one had to work 12 hours a day to survive? The notion that we are going "against sunstainability" just isn't true. The reverse is true. With increased technological innovation, as has been occuring and will continue to occur, "sustainability" will only increase. RJII 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Which scientists have you been talking to? How can you equate economic wealth with ecological sustainability? And actually, the easiest and most leisurely societies to date were hunter-gatherer societies (with a few exceptions of some that were pretty similar to today). And maybe things are getting easy for us in the U$A, but do you really think things are getting easy for people in the third world (and I don't really think things are getting all that easier for us)? I am in the middle of watching a documentary on Jamaica someone lent me called Life and Debt, maybe you should watch it too. Then tell me how easy life is getting for everyone. What people fail to realize is that yes, we have it pretty damn good here in America compared to other places, but the reason why we have it so good is because all those other places are suffering to give it to us. Anyways, you failed to acknowledge my point that humans are not all that matter, we have to consider that the non-human natural world has just as much a right to prosper as we do, and it's unethical for us to just go around and kill everything in the name of progress. It's also stupid, because biodiversity is an important sustainability issue, whether you want to recognize it or not. There is more to the world than money. If only considering human impact, the vulnerability and extinction rate of species simply rises with the rise of technology (Holocene extinction event). You especially should read the second section (The Ongoing Holocene Extinction) of that article. The vast majority of biologists believe we are in the beginings of a human caused mass extinction. First, as I have said, I think the rest of the world has importance outside of our own uses, which makes this a tradgedy, but even a utilitarian "let's exploit nature to hell" view is impacted by this, because what are you going to exploit when everything's gone? Only when the last tree is dead, the last river dammed and the last field paved over will we realize WE CAN'T EAT MONEY! The Ungovernable Force 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Watching too much National Geographic Channel will do that do you. Anyway, how are you defining capitalism? There is no reason that one nation should suffer at the expense of another because they're engaging in trade. People don't trade unless they benefit from doing so. RJII 15:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
No. People don't trade unless they perceive a benefit. But "benefit" is not a simple category. There are short and long-term benefits, particularly when you're talking about perception. The market is the manifestation of a kind of collective "common sense" about benefits. There is absolutely no reason to believe that even the purest of free markets will lead to ecological sustainability. Libertatia 15:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What "ecological sustainability"? No matter what we do the eco-system exists in one form or the other. What does free markets have to do with any of this? I find it really odd that self-proclaimed anarchists are condemning free markets. What kind of anarchy is it where people are not allowed to trade? RJII 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Try to respond to what's being said. While it is the case that something will be there "no matter what we do," it pretty obviously isn't the case that markets have nothing to do with sustaining existing ecosystems and, in general, sustaining biodiversity. We can turn the planet into a smoking ash-heap and it will "exist in one form or another." But I would like to think that that particular outcome is not acceptable to most folks. It's bad business, bad stewardship, bad planning: pick your organizing values, short of suicidal nihilism, and it comes up short. If "trading" leads to this sort of end—or any of a large number of other unappealing ends—as is quite likely if relations "in the market" are governed primarily by attention to short-term profit, and various kinds of "wealth," then non-nihilist free-traders probably ought to be looking, without any sort of prohibition, for an alternative. It is likely that the "common sense" embodied in market relations can develop in ways that reduce the amount of wilful havoc we wreak. But probably only by marrying free market relations to bioregional federation, or some other environmentally conscious mutualism. Libertatia 15:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, just to show I'm not a "zealot" - while I broadly support the capitalist programme, I do think you're being a bit head-in-sand here with your comments about technology. While thanks to technology survivability might, for now, be getting easier and easier, that's largely because we haven't hit our malthusian population limits yet. That's meaning there are more and more people in the world (I read somewhere (probably apocryphally) that there are more people alive today than have ever been died in the history of the world) so yes, we're getting better and more efficient at surviving, but there are geometrically more of us, and we're using up resources more quickly. There *are* strains on the environment - the ozone hole is shot to hell (trust me - I'm a New Zealander - down there, you can't go outside for more than ten minutes without a frigging space suit on these days), and carbon resources are running out, and their consumption is buggering up the atmosphere - global warming isn't just lefty paranoia (I'm good mates with an atmospheric physicist at Oxford university who's running a massive climate change experiment - he's no lefty and he says it's for real). The easier it is to survive and thrive, the more thriving we will all want to do, and the more resources we'll want to consume. You just can't deny that. Capitalism doesn't deal with the tragedy of the commons. But neither does socialist anarchism - just as RJII is being idealistic to expect we'll all have maximum wealth and prosperity without lifting a finger (come on, who are you trying to kid?), it's idealistic to expect you can convince anyone else to go back to subsistence farming, give up mod cons, return to nature and live in teepees etc. You may value that; you go ahead and do that (capitalism won't stop you, either, by the way - you're free to head for the hills to opt out and live on self subsistence if that's what you want to do), but for anarchism to work everyone has to value it, and do it. And it is simple lunacy to suppose that everyone will, and no-one will break ranks, when "getting more than the next guy" and "overconsuming at every opportunity" are so fundamentally wired into our biological makeup (and that of every living organism). Once one person takes a little bit more, then everyone else will too, and all of a sudden everyone will be back to aspiring to 7 Series Beamers. You just can't avoid that. What capitalism does is allow you to work with it - say, okay, consume - but at least do it efficiently. ElectricRay 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


OK, I think this is getting to the end of the part where there's an valuable exchange of information or views, and down to fundamental perspectives, and like christians and atheists, we're not going to persuade one another, and so I'll pull up now. Let's agree to disagree. Nice talking to you, all the same. ElectricRay 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Electricray, I highly suggest you study anthropology if you think humans will just inherently screw up the environment and use all the resourses. The truth is we were able to live in relative harmony with nature for a couple million years. The current over-consumption of resources can be traced back about 10,000 years with the beginnings of civilization and intensive agriculture. And capitalism didn't help things. The societies that lived in the greatest balance with nature were those that did not try to own it--the ones who respected it and only used what they needed, without building up insane surpluses and profits. You're right, once people have a taste of wealth and power they seek more, and that's why it's such a difficult problem to solve. When people own something (whether it's a person, a cow, or a piece of land) they feel they have the right to abuse it and often do. That doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out. So how do you expect people to privatize everything possible and not abuse those things (people, other animals, resources)? As an aside, you can privatize air, ever seen Spaceballs? But honestly, I'm sure someone will (unfortunately) come up with a way to do it eventually. Also, I currently have a job, and it's "voluntary", but if I didn't have to work it to survive I wouldn't, I would much rather do something more fulfilling. How do you expect to keep people from being forced to "volunteer" for jobs they don't want to do? I'm not trying to get into an argument, I am interested in seeing your ideas, I really try to be open. If you want we can take it back to my talk page. Oh, and BTW, I'm not a primmie, although I probably sound like one. I am however highly influenced by anti-civ views. Like sarge, I try to remain a fairly open and non-labelled anarchist (beside the whole anti-an-cap thing).The Ungovernable Force 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your tip, my friend, but can I suggest that what is important is biology, not anthropology. Try The Selfish Gene, or Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

  • The reason we didn't inherently screw up the environment until about 10,000 years ago is that we weren't smart enough to, pure and simple. There was a fair fight between us and the rest of the ecosystem, meaning we couldn't get ahead, we didn't increase in population, because, given our intellectual capacity at the time, we were already at a stable equilibrium with the environment. Then some bright spark (ahem) thought up the idea of fire, and then the wheel, and then why the hell should we wander round the forest looking for birds when we can stick them inside a fence and breed them... and boom - the equilibrium shifted dramatically, and then kept shifting as we advanced tenchnologically, and I still don't think we've found it again. It certainly had nothing do to with primitive societies respecting nature, though I realise that this is a tremendously appealing idea. They weren't smart enough to do that, either. Take Sharks. Sharks don't dominate the aquatic environment, even thought they're big, fast and have huge teeth. Is that because they respect their environment, or because they haven't evolved a capacity to dominate it?
  • Re only abusing property you own, I really coulnd't agree less. Do you not look after your stuff? If you own something, it is totally in your interests to look after it (remember the fable about the goose that laid golden eggs?). If it gets wrecked, you've got to go buy a new one. It is communal, un-owned property which you've got an incentive to abuse and use up (if you don't, someone else will - so get your licks in first) - that's the tragedy of the commons: there are some things (air, the sea) which it isn't practicable to own privately. What would you rather buy: a two-year-old car with one private owner, or a two year old ex rental?
  • Volunteering for jobs they don't want to do: there's this thing called a supply curve and a demand curve. Where they meet, people will do jobs, whatever they are. If a job is really shitty, but needs to be done (working in a sewerage factory, say) then no-one will want to do it, who can do something else for the same wage, right? so, you have to either (i) put the wage up, or find someone who can't find alternative work at that price. If people really need sewerage workers, they'll pay. In practice, of course, the people who wind up at the sewerage works will be people who couldn't get jobs doing anything else. I have a voluntary job too (not at a sewerage works, I am glad to say), and if I didn't have a wife, three kids and a huge mortgage - and an expectation of eating nice food, drinking good wine and going nice places on holiday, I wouldn't work either. It's a choice we all make. Does it make me a wage slave? Of course not. I'm simply refuse to be categorised as some sort of victim of this system. ElectricRay 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the last iteration of this discussion was in archive 27, section 15. Also stuff on Nozick about then. Eternal recurrence of the same, eh. And even prisoners dilemma further down that archive.Bengalski 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, isn't it. It's like arguing about christianity, or whether pink floyd is cool or not. I actually find the *fact* of this eternal recurrence more interesting than the actual argument, and what it implies about our claims to have access to "truth" and "rationality".
The talk page isn't really the place for theoretical discussion, anyways. --AaronS 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, “most” is OR and “many” would be more neutral. Does anyone disagree? -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, far from it. Most is accurate, many is not. In terms of book and essay references (not to mention webpages) by anarchists, "most" is accurate. In terms of actual anarchists, the same (basing this on direct experience after 20 years in the movement). But, then again, the actual opinions of actual anarchists do not seem to rate highly with some on this website. BlackFlag 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said, that is original research and it's against Wikipedia policy. -- Vision Thing -- 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As well they shouldn't. However, if "most" is OR, how about "the majority of", the alternative of course, which I think no-one wants is to have a "notable-anarchist off" where we list notable anarchists in the style of "these notable anarchists etc.". That would be horribly ugly, so just live with it. Most anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists. - FrancisTyers 14:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
With "the majority of" there is the same problem, it's original research. Or can you name some reliable source for that claim? -- Vision Thing -- 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The citations I requested about which anarchist writers reject A-C as a form of Anarchism at all have been provided - thanks for that. However, this only establishes "a number of well known writers on anarchism think ...", not that "MOST" anarchists think that. That is a simply preposterous statment, and noone has provided any evidence for it. Does "most anarchists" include anarcho-capitalists, or people (free marketeers) who have broadly similar views but don't label themselves as anarchists? If not, then doesn't this statement beg the very question it seeks to answer? In any case, plainly there is no readily identifiable class of anarchists (QED, as by this statement they can't even agree amongst themselves about this!) There is no conceivable way one could establish that "most anarchists" think about anything, so I hope we can finally drop this point, and rely on the more concrete, less sweeping statment as I have rendered it.
Rather than a piddling match on what proportion of anarchists think this, wouldn't the more productive thing be to explain the reasons these anarchists have this view (otherwise it's just a blatant appeal to authority) - I can see the argument that capitalism assumes an intrinsic set of informal, voluntary hierarchies and so therefore might be inconsistent to an anarchist who says you can't have social hierarchies (though imho this argument doesn't bear close scrutiny - refer to discussion below if you are interested in that point), but I fail to understand what the existence or otherwise of a PROFIT adds to the debate. If someone can enlighten the article on those two fronts it would lend a lot of credibility to a fairly meaningless statement. ElectricRay 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Blah, you make a good point. How about "The majority of notable anarchists", which can be verified, as we have a List of anarchists. - FrancisTyers 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Blah yerself - I just don't see why you're hung up on this blatant appeal to authority, when clearly no-one is prepared to put the substantive reasonings (it's pretty obvious why from the debate here - none of you can actually articulate a sensible one). But if you want to play it that way, ok - how about "the majority of the anarchists on Wikipedia's notable anarchists page - which again is a different, far less significant, statement. ElectricRay 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of a tricky issue. There is nothing in the core tenets of anarchism that says it must be the syndicate style, and excluding anarcho-capitalism based on the predominant school of modern anarchist thought just causes a self fulfilling prophecy/no true scotsman fallacy. On the other hand, it's not really neccesary to throw anarcho-capitalism under the umbrella of anarchism at this point, as we already have libertarianism as an overriding philosphy that it could be considered a flavor of. Though if you do that, you better also consider whether or not Agorism should be thought of as anarchist thought. - Mike May 8, 2006

There are so many fallacies here that it would take forever to refute all of them however, as an anarchist, I can assure you that anarcho capitalism has no place on this page. For as long as its been around, Anarchism has always been socialist. Yes sometimes its supported property rights to a certain extent but for the majority of people, anarchism is a school of socialist thought. "Anarcho" Capitalism is almost exclusivly an American thing and there cannot be more then 400 "anarcho" capitalists in Europe. I could only find two sites for anarcho capitalists in Europe. Even though there are slight differences in philosphies between individualist anarchists (the real kind), anarcho communists, and others, all of them agree that anarcho capitalism is not anarchist. RJ is an "anarcho" capitalist with a lot of time on his hands and he needs to be restricted, if thats even possible. -- FionMacCumhail

another source for government being consistent with anarchism

"As has been indicated, many writers about anarchism have taken opposition to government to be the most distinctive characteristic of the theory...However, there is further reason for questioning such a characterization: the distinction that some anarchists have themseleves made between government and state. While there runs through all anarchist writings an unmitigated contempt for the state, the anarchist position on government is far from unequivocal hostility." (What is Anarchism, John P. Clark) I think we need to note somewhere in the article that government is not necessarily incompatible with anarchism. It's only government that initiates coercion that is incompatible. RJII 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this using my broad definition of government above, then? —Tamfang 05:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is getting silly. "No government" government? Please! Anyway, I'll have a read of Clark's essay and put that quote in context and see what he is really talking about. I'm 99% sure it is not "private defence agencies"! BlackFlag 09:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I’ve checked the essay. Guess what? RJII has hardly done it service. Take his quote. The part he misses out starts "This is, in fact, probably the means of defining the term.” Funny what a "…" can hide! Clark admits that "the use of the term ‘government’ is quite atypical of that of anarchism in general." And (surprise!) Clark is *not* talking about “private defence firms” but rather Nock’s ideas, noting that his use of the term "government" is "unusual" and a "limited sense of the term."

So, apparently, we should change the definition of anarchism based on an edited quote from an author who states clearly that it is "unusual" and "atypical" to use the term in this way! Clark also notes that "no government" is "probably the means of defining the term". Presumably RJII has read the article in question and so his doctoring of the quote is intentional, as is his ignoring of the relevant discussion and quotes Clark provides on the matter. I have to admit to being a bit sick of having to track down RJII’s sources in order to find the context of them.

Clark himself discusses the anarchist definition of anarchism, noting that anarchists use the term "no government" or "no authority" as a definition. He summarises that "Anarchism can be described not only as a theory that opposes such things as government, the state, authority, or domination, but also as a theory that proposes voluntarism, decentralisation, or freedom." He also says that "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism, saying "what they propose is a system in which the affluent voluntarily associate to use force and coercion against the poor and weak in order to maintain class privilege. The abuses of the state are thus perpetuated after the state is allegedly abolished." Needless to say, he draws a clear distinction between it and individualist anarchism. BlackFlag 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess I don't understand what the difference is between anarcho-captialism and individulist anarchism. Doesn't the latter imply the former? Also, I don't understand at all Clark's description of A-C. Why would A-C require the "affluent" to voluntarily associate with each other against the poor and weak? why would it try to perpetuate the class system? He sounds like a dude who doesn't understand free market capitalism very well.ElectricRay 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You miss the whole point. The point is that some anarchists use the term "government" in an "unusual" way. So, the difference between state and government needs to be mentioned in the article. By some anarchists' definition of government, government is compatible with anarchism. State is government that initiates coercion. That's why some definitions of anarchism choose to use "opposition to the state" instead of "opposition to government." RJII 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So, based on Clark's assertion that Nock is an anarchist, we must now change the definition of anarchism to include "unusual" and "atypical" uses of the word! I'm impressed. There I was thinking we should try and *generalise* the meaning of anarchism to draw out its typical and usual use, as Clark himself notes. No, that is wrong. We must define "anarchism" in such a manner that any one who ever used a word in a particularly strange, atypical and unusual way must be included! Impressive. I'm sure I can find someone who thinks that a suitably defined "state" is compatible with anarchy (Sylvian springs to mind, of course!). So where does that leave us? With "anarchism" being for everything and against nothing.... BlackFlag 08:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you're not getting this. The point is that some anarchists make a distinction between "government" and the state, and I think it's a good idea to note that in the article. RJII 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why even bring it up? BlackFlag 08:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
yes, some anarchists (like Kropotkin, say) did make a difference between government and the state (and opposed both). A few people (usually described by others as anarchists) make a difference too, but support one or the other. As a definition of anarchism, in the introduction to an entry about it, it would make much more sense to use the *typical* definitions most anarchists use rather than the "atypical" definitions a few people have used (particularly if these definitions are themselves "unusual"). This is what Clark does and he provides more than enough evidence to support this position. And as I noted, if you say anarchists support "government" I will use your own reference to say that they also support the state. You cannot have it both ways. Let's just stick with the typical, usual and common definition of the word in the introduction rather than change it to suit one person's pet theories. BlackFlag 14:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to change the definition. I support the definition that says opposition to government, because so many sources use that terminology. I am saying to note in the article the distinction between the state and government. RJII 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And then note that 99.9% of anarchists oppose both? Why even bother? BlackFlag 08:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, using coercion against the poor is perfectly consistent with anarchism, as long as it's defensive coercion. There is nothing anarchist about allowing the poor to steal from the rich who acquired their wealth through honest labor and trade. RJII 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And where would they be? If you read anarchists (like, say, Proudhon, Kropotkin or Tucker) you would be aware that the rich do *not* (and have not) acquire(d) their wealth "through honest labor and trade"! Other people's "honest labor", more like! And, yes, "anarcho"-capitalism is based on the wealthy using violence to maintain their social and economic power against those who use their wealth. That is one of the many reasons why it is not anarchist! BlackFlag 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism advocates that private property is only created through labor and is only properly tranferrable through honest trade or gift, so of course it's anarchist. Keeping a poor person from stealing your honestly-produced property is anarchist. RJII 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, (anarcho-)capitalism is based on paying a poor person less than the produce by their labour. This is how the rich get rich. And the state exists to keep the poor from taking back their honestly-produced property. Read Proudhon... BlackFlag 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
And according to Stirner, the poor should unite and take wealth from the rich. And anarcho-capitalism advocates the rich keeping the property created by the labour of others. Read Proudhon, he is very clear on how "property is theft." BlackFlag 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalists do not advocate taking the property produced by others; they are dead-set against that. They believe property is only properly tranferred by trade or gift. RJII 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Before I forget. As for, "there is nothing anarchist about allowing the poor to steal from the rich." I would suggest reading Stirner. He thought that was perfectly acceptable. Stirner, as RJII notes, was an anarchist. So it *is* anarchist to allow the poor to steal from the rich (it would make a change!). Better include that in the definition of anarchism! BlackFlag 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand Stirner. RJII 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ROTFL! I would suggest you read Stirner. BlackFlag 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You really do misunderstand him. For Stirner, property is merely a matter of force. If the rich can hold on to their property by force, that's fine. For him, property is not a moral entity. "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." --rich or poor. RJII 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
So, steal from the rich or steal from the poor, it's all good for Stirner if you get away with it. Where is RJII's disagreement with Blackflag, exactly? —Tamfang 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly. It seems, for RJII, the rich stealing from the poor is fine and anarchist while if the poor steal from the rich, it is very, very, very wrong and un-anarchist. To prove this all that is required is to quote Stirner and then ignore what he says. BlackFlag 08:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Stealing from the rich or the poor is "un-anarchist." Stealing is by definition the wrongful taking of the property of another. There is nothing anarchist about that. RJII 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not according to Stirner, so stealing is perfectly anarchist. I would suggest you read Stirner, he was not concerned whether something was "wrongful" or not and he was not into respecting property. BlackFlag 08:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Debates about anarchist theory

I see there have been several new debates over anarchist theory again. Please keep in mind that you are not obliged to answer someone's points. This is the talk page for the article anarchism, not for anarchism. Understand that not answering does not automatically make the other person right. Furthermore, if you think the opposing view is ridiculous, why bother dignifiying your opponent with a reply?

In short, these sort of debates are pointless, you can't win, they waste a lot of time and they aren't productive. Please don't start them, and please don't carry them on. -- infinity0 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, a good anarchist would just leave everyone else to debate if they feel like it. If you don't want to debate, don't. ElectricRay 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A good anarchist also gives helpful advice to friends. -- infinity0 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A good anarchist - and a good Wikipedian - also mentions on the talk page why he has reverted the patently stupid "most anarchists" comment, especially in light of the careful reasons - explaining the non-sequitur - set out on this talk page. How can you say with any sincerity or credibility that you know what most anarchists think? This is just plain daft. ElectricRay 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Prose is not mathematics. -- infinity0 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And petulance is not a sort of air freshener. ElectricRay 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You argue like a married couple! Just leave each other alone. Just because you have different opinions doesn't mean you have to get into arguments on trivial things. Focus on the issue. This looks like it will get out of hand soon. As for the actual issue, most self-described anarchists don't consider it a form of anarchism (even if you include an-caps, who do describe themselves as anarchists). Of course there is no poll to prove this, no citation that isn't POV, but the lack of attention paid to an-cap by encyclopedia entries on anarchism and my own direct experience and the experience of others leads me to believe that the vast majority of self-described anarchists are anti-cap and consider that a necessary part of anarchist beleifs. So it goes back to the comment above, that including a big long list will be ugly and a waste of time. If that's what you really want to do, do it, but I suggest you just leave it be. Do you really want me citing a dozen or more prominent anarchists who say that (which will only prove the point more than now by providing an abundance of resources). The Ungovernable Force 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if "most anarchists" don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. That's to be xpected. There are anarcho-communists who don't think anarcho-syndicalism is a true form of anarchism. There are labor-value individualist anarchists who don't think anarcho-communism is a true form of anarchis, and there are anarcho-capitalists who don't think anarcho-communism is a true anarchism. These are all biased sources and not really credible. Is it any surprise that anti-capitalists claim anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism? Get real.

More like a grumpy old man and a wise-guy teenager. Look, all I want to know is this: why is there so much resistance to saying "a number of prominent anarchists think" - which is a defensible assertion - and not "most anarchhists think" - which, even you now concede, isn't? ElectricRay 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no resistance to saying that. I just hesistate to remove "most anarchists think" because it's quite true. I cannot prove this mathematically or with sources, but saying it isn't is just not being realistic. There's no need to be unscrupulously picky; we're humans, not robots. -- infinity0 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"What most anarchists think" is not really relevant as to whether a philosophy is a true form of anarchism. It's all too common for someone to think their anarchism is the true anarchism. Does anyone really expect an anti-capitalist anarchist to grant that anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism? There are anarcho-communists who claim anarcho-syndicalism is not true anarchism. There are labor-value individualist anarchists that claim anarcho-communism is not true anarchism. And, so on. Anarchists can't really be relied on for this. Now, if an anarchist with a doctorate in political philosophy makes the claim in a peer-reviewed journal that's another story. That would be a credible source. But, it's best to reference non-anarchists, if possible, on this question. RJII 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It would be a "sourceable" source, but a doctorate doesn't not eliminate bias, nor does it guarantee your work is adequate or accurate. RJII, most of the most engaged historians of anarchism are folks like us, who don't do their work in peer-reviewed journals. In a specialized field such as anarchism, peer review is designed really just to catch really flimsy arguments and obvious mistakes. Now, "what most anarchists think" is relevant to the extent that "anarchism" is a social movement, the tenets and boundaries of which are subject to struggles. I've surveyed major databases, Yahoogroups, websites and such, and been involved in libertarian circles for over a decade, and there doesn't seem to be any doubt that individualist anarchists and anarcho-caps are outnumbered by social anarchists. But, barring a competent demographer with credible access to the anarchist movement doing a study, i'm guessing this debate will continue in the realm of stubborn individual assertions to the contrary. Libertatia 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not my point. Even if it were indisputably true that most anarchists are collectivists, the word of "most anarchists" is not reliable as a credible source. Wikipedia has standards as to what is regarded as a credible source. "Most anarchists" just doesn't do it. "Most anarchists" have not written scholarly papers. The opinion of "most anarchists" is largely irrelevant. RJII 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Most anarchists don't like the state either, but I guess since it's merely the opinion of some anarchists it doesn't matter. Get real, the opinion of most anarchists definitely matters--this is an article on anarchism after all. It's not saying an-cap isn't anarchism because most anarchists don't think it is, it merely says that most anarchists don't think it is and lets the reader know that there is a major schism between the two ideologies. The Ungovernable Force 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I had to comment on this: "'Most anarchists' have not written scholarly papers. The opinion of 'most anarchists' is largely irrelevant." So, an entry on anarchism does not have to reflect the opinions of (most) anarchists? Interesting. And these people who write "scholarly papers", do they not take the opinions of (most) anarchists into account? And as for "many anarchists" or "some anarchists", they also have not written "scholarly papers" Does this mean the opinion of "most" or "some" anarchists is also "largely irrelevant"? BlackFlag 08:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The flaw in anarchist theory is that social co-operation cannot be wholly voluntary.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

--88.155.0.123 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Add-ins

It's just a suggestion, but hasent there ought to be a section on the red scare, where anarchy was protested and communism was feared, with V.I. lenin asking the world to revert to communism, i have nither the time nor writing skils to write one, maby just a link to the red scare.--Teh Teck Geek 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Caution: BlackFlag's sources

I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for a FAQ or contrives articles on the net anonymously then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him on the Auberon Herbert article, that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?" [12] that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy. [13] Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? I don't think so. He's been citing these things as sources on this article as well. Here is another article that magically appeared just a couple days after a dispute about Herbert for which he had no sources: [14]. It looks like BlackFlag is this "Anarcho" character. If what it appears to be true, is true (it appears to be too much of a coincidence to not be), then this is fraudulent. RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a response I received from an administrator on the matter: "They don't look like credible sources to me. The first one (the geocities site) definitely isn't. The anarcho directory in anarchism.ws looks like a personal directory. Anything that looks like a personal website is disallowed, in part for the very reason you've given above, viz. that anyone could add whatever they want to a personal website then use it as a source for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)" RJII 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Anyone can make things and sections up"? So the sections in question are not referenced with the appropriate sources? As for who I am, it is not that relevant as it is the quality of my contributions which count, based on the evidence I supply. BlackFlag 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hang about: It's very relevant if you're Anarcho. Are you? ElectricRay 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to cite "credible" sources. An anonymously written article by someone with no apparent academic qualifications that has never been published is not a credible source. You can't go contrive your own internet article then come back here cite it because you lack sources for your assertions on Wikipedia. RJII 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than happy not to reference any new sub-sections of section F of "An Anarchist FAQ" in the future -- I would hate to be considered "unethical" by RJII (whose grasp of facts is well known). However, I do wonder what will happen when "An Anarchist FAQ" *is* published. Does it become a valid source then? And what of articles written by anarchists who have "no apparent academic qualifications"? Does that mean we cannot quote anarchists who have only been published in anarchist papers? Just wondering... BlackFlag 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources RJII 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the FAQ is obviously a "primary" source. It is written by anarchists, linked and mirrored by anarchists, referenced by anarchists (and at least one academic book) and is being published by the leading anarchist publisher (AK Press). What else is needed? BlackFlag 11:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, who are you saying has no academic qualifications? Why is that relevant on whether they understand anarchism? Anarchism isn't exactly a subject taught in universities. -- infinity0 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe not at Devry. RJII 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia notion of "credible" sources is much, much narrower in most senses, than the prevailing scholarly standards. On the other hand, it grants much more authority to credentials than it does to competent work. In essence, the Wikipedia system really sees all us "editors" as doing little more than sifting the published opinions of "credible experts." It tends to give a high priority to the simplest sources—the sort that make the baldest, boldest statements—because careful reading of nuanced works and synthesis of primary sources can be too easily dismissed as "POV" or "original research." In short, structurally, Wikipedia has to be thankful for our labor, but doesn't care much for our knowledge, unless, of course, we're tucked away in a credentialled position somewhere. As for the facts of the matter, they sometimes sneak into an article. Unfortunately, with so many folks using Wikipedia as if it was itself "credible," it's necessary to hang around and do damage control. Libertatia 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia will never be a credible source. I think it would be laughable to quote it in a scholarly paper. You're right that we just serve to rehash the opinions from credible sources. As far as we know, none of us here has any qualifications to comment on anything. That's why Wikipedia will never be a credible source. But, yes your right --apparently a lot of people look to Wikipedia for information. I think the "An Anarchist FAQ" suffers from the same thing. People who don't know about anarchism to look for information pull that up in Google searches, but I don't think the "small collective" who writes the FAQ is qualified to comment either. I don't see any reason to trust their interepretations. But, Wikipedia has one thing going for it than that FAQ doesn't --it's truly open to all information available that can be sourced from a credible source. RJII 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, please don't make it appear that I agree with Wikipedia's notion of what a "credible" source is, because I don't. IMHO, this is the weakest aspect of the Wikipedia concept, and the one which makes is almost entirely useless as a reputable encyclopedia. I like your multiply-qualified "open to all information available that can be sourced from a credible [sic] source" (and the number of edits it took for you to get something that wasn't obviously false on the face of it.) It shows how little openness there really is here. Now, if folks really cared about accurate content, as you claim you do, it wouldn't be all that hard to maintain a certain number of quite accurate (if not terribly detailed) entries, which would serve as clear and useful starting points for further research. That would mean not perspective-pushing at every possible point—not, for example, feeling the need to insert an-cap content in every social anarchist page and vice versa. We would probably all be much better off—in terms both of the accuracy of the pages we edit, and of the partisan value of the various sub-pages, if we warred less and decentralized more. Let pages like anarchism be simple conduits to more detailed pages. Highlight conflicts in a sentence or two per page. Emphasize primary sources on detailed sub-pages. The most frustrating thing about the current situation on the anarchism-related pages is that all of the research being done is essentially being wasted, except to the extent that it ends up informing other work elsewhere. BlackFlag is obviously a good researcher. You're obviously engaged enought to be tracking things down. I won't take a back seat to very many people when it comes to anarchist history. But we battle each entry into POV-contested, fragmented, unreadable nonsense. And that can't be good for anyone, NPOV or clear political agenda. There are a few sections of pages, like the section of the Mutualism (economic theory) page, where we've managed to do some good, collaborative work. But those pages are few and far between. Libertatia 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you Anarcho? ElectricRay 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


RJ, there is a class chasm between u and the blackflag (the crimson one). The faq I have to see but other stuff is sourced.could do with one more. But at least he's not misquoting ehh? --- max rspct leave a message 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII RfC

I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2. If anyone has comments, please feel free to input. Thanks. -- infinity0 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go again, trying to get rid of me. Good luck. I guess pointing out the unethical behavior above was the final straw, huh? Is insisting on credible sources and NPOV a crime in your eyes? RJII 16:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The RfC is only a comment. Its very nature is to be a consequent-free thing. As for your attitude, have you not even read what I wrote? Your attitude is exactly the problem. You think you're right all the time (in fact I have yet to see you admit to a mistake). You keep explicitly insisting your edits are NPOV and sourced, though many editors have found fault with them, and you have distorted policy to attack others' edits. -- infinity0 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have news for you. My "attitude" is never going to change. If you don't like my "attitude" too bad. I couldn't care less. RJII 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unethical? You are on probation for being unethical. Even if BlackFlag wrote this specifically to piss you off, I see that as poetic justice. And, even if your accusations are true, that doesn't give you the right to attack An Anarchist FAQ like this. The editors may be assuming in good faith that BlackFlag is contributing content, which I'm sure has been checked for factual accuracy. -- infinity0 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. My "attack" on the "An Anarchist FAQ" is to enforce the Wikipedia policy on credible sources. According to policy, a non-published internet source from a partisan website like that cannot be used as a secondary source, but only as a primary source and never as a "sole source." RJII 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Not wishing to be overly provocative, but wouldn't a more approriate subject for an RfC be the suggestion (which he hasn't denied, despite repeated requests to do so) that BlackFlag has been surreptitiously citing material he has in fact written himself anonymously in edits to Wikipedia? That seems to me to have significant implications for Wikipedia's credibility. RJII's "attitude" doesn't.
RJII, your points have been responded to before. ElectricRay, WP:AGF. "Attitude" has serious implications for Wikipedia's credibility, especially since RJII is attacking others' edits and enforcing his own. -- infinity0 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Infinity0. What about BlackFlag's behaviour, though? If it is true, is that ok by you? BlackFlag: are you Anarcho? ElectricRay 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a Christian. Like I said before, RJII has done far worse things than BlackFlag has, even if he did do this. -- infinity0 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Like what? RJII 03:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And how does BlackFlag being Anarcho show that he wrote that section on the FAQ? -- infinity0 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This is how:
  • February 28, added to Auberon Herbert article: "Herbert, however, explicitly rejected the label "anarchist," arguing that such a system would be "pandemonium." He thought that people should "not direct our attacks — as the anarchists do — against all government, against government in itself" but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent, unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which are found everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights." He stressed that "we are governmentalists . . . formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." Moreover, Herbert knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism, considering it to be "founded on a fatal mistake." [15]
  • March 3, submitted to AnarchistNews.org, signed "Anarcho": "Significantly, Herbert, knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism, considering it to be "founded on a fatal mistake" and would result in "pandemonium." He thought that we should "not direct our attacks - as the anarchists do - against all government, against government in itself" but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent, unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which are found everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights." He stressed that "we are governmentalists," aiming for a government "formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." [16]
  • April 15, added to An Anarchist FAQ: "Herbert was clearly aware of individualist anarchism and distanced himself from it. He argued that such a system would be "pandemonium." He thought that people should "not direct our attacks - as the anarchists do - against all government , against government in itself" but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent, unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which are found everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defence of self-ownership and individual rights." He stressed that "we are governmentalists . . . formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." Moreover, Herbert knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism, considering it to be "founded on a fatal mistake." [17]

That's just one example. Look for yourself at the rest of the content.

Here is an example of me requesting a source for weasal words/original research: [18] There is no source for him to cite until he gets it in the FAQ, then he comes back and puts it back in with a citation: [19] That part of the FAQ did not exist when he put the sentence in the Auberon Herbert article. (Again, that F7 section [20] has not been added to the mirror sites yet (at the time I'm writing this), such as at Infoshop [21]) There are many more examples. The F7 part of the FAQ was written directly as a result of my dealings with him in the Auberon Herbert article, and used for citations. It's clearly a scam. RJII 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously RJII has never heard of "cut and paste"... You do realise that the whole of section F was written in response to the authors' "dealings" with "anarcho-capitalists"? In fact, the FAQ was started in response to "dealings" with "anarcho-capitalists" (as you have noted yourself). It gets regularly added to, changed and expanded. Like most webpages (and new editions of books). It is currently being revised for publication and (as the new page states) part of this is moving the current section F to an appendix and replacing it with a shorter version. What about the recent revisions to section A and B? Is all that due to my "dealings" here? And, of course, the infoshop site often gets updated *after* the geocities site. btw, when the FAQ gets published, will RJII acknowledge it as a credible source? BlackFlag 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We'll see. But, at least you won't be able to add to the printed material on the fly when you need a source and then come back here and cite it. But, it's hard for me to believe any reputable publisher would publish that thing. I'll believe it when I see it. RJII 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, you keep asserting AFAQ to be "unreliable" and "uncredible". Why are the sources you cite any different? Because they are published? Why does that make credibility? And just because one view is published, why does that make it NPOV? -- infinity0 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please review our Wikipedia:Reliable_sources policy. There you can see why Wikipedia policy does not consider it a credible secondary source. RJII 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
AFAQ is published on the internet. AFAQ is not used as a secondary source. So, according to policy, it can be used as a source. -- infinity0 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Anywhere that it's used to comment on the views of anarchists, it is being used as a secondary source. It can only be used a primary source. That is, it can only be quoted to show what the FAQ says, and only in the An Anarchist FAQ article --in order to study the FAQ. RJII 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The FAQ should be acceptable as a primary source anywhere the question is "what anarchists believe," and, like any other primary source used in such a context, it should be used in concert with others. Statements like "the authors of An Anarchist FAQ argue..." seem well within the rules of the game. And it is extremely important that this sort of source be included, as academic accounts of anarchist beliefs are seldom credible (even if they are sourceable.) As it is, the FAQ is being used both as a primary and as a secondary source various places. Libertatia 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be using it as a secondary source. That's a violation of Wikipedia sourcing policy. You could not cite the FAQ as a source for what "anarchists believe." And, you couldn't use it to say "An anarchist FAQ argue..." The authors of the FAQ have no credentials for commenting on anarchism and the FAQ is not-published. Besides it not being permissible by Wikipedia policy, it bothers me that some are trusting of the editors' interpretation of anarchism. What reason do you have to have faith in them? Why should I think BlackFlag's original research here all of a sudden becomes credible just because he copies it over into the FAQ? Help me understand. RJII 05:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No. Using the FAQ as a primary source would not be using it as a secondary source. Listen. Not even Wikipedia can skew the definition of "primary source" so far that the beliefs of anarchists cannot be considered "credible" as the beliefs of anarchists. OK. Wikipedia has instituted ridiculous standards for secondary sources, which may allow you to exclude otherwise-credible sources on the basis of their non-academic origin. (For the record, Wikipedia will not be getting the benefit of my own research, beyond a bit of factual "damage control" here and there. And I'm a professional academic, published on anarchist theory.) BlackFlag's research is as credible as your "suspicions" about the relative popularity of anarchist forms—probably moreso—and certainly every bit as credible as any of the other tissues of citations that try to hold these pages together. Honestly, the "original research" caviat appears to be there to eliminate crankish stuff. It is explicitly OK to synthesize existing sources. It just isn't at all clear how to distinguish between that and what is forbidden. The credibility of the FAQ rests in its extensive citations. You can check the work that's been done and, for the most part, it holds up. It is not without problems, some of which seem to be addressed in some of the recent revisions. As a mutualist and a historian of individualist anarchism, my understanding of the issues differs from that of the authors of the FAQ, but the means of addressing the differences are present in the 'FAQ. That is what scholarly standards demand. And, as I have been saying for some time, there is not a single significant published history of anarchism in English that does not have factual-errors or point-of-view issues at least as serious as those of the FAQ. Libertatia 13:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"The authors of the FAQ have no credentials for commenting on anarchism and the FAQ is not-published." So anarchists have no credentials for commenting on anarchism? Really? Better get rid of all those quotes by Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin and so on. They do not know what they are talking about! What about secondary sources? Well, they quote anarchists and if anarchists have no credentials for commenting on anarchism, then why do the secondary sources? And the FAQ is in the process of being published, an extremely relevant fact. The FAQ is a primary source, deal with it. BlackFlag 08:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the FAQ can be only be used as a primary source. That means it can't be used to reference anything about anarchism. It can only be used to quote in order to give information about the FAQ in the An Anarchist FAQ article. RJII 14:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. This rationale effectively eliminates all primary sources, except in the most self-reflexive of situations. Benjamin Tucker is not a secondary source on anarchism, for the simple reason that he is an anarchist. The same is true of the authors of the FAQ. As I said before: Not even Wikipedia can skew the definition of "primary source" so far that the beliefs of anarchists cannot be considered "credible" as [an example of] the beliefs of anarchists. Libertatia 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When we cite Benjamin Tucker, we're using it as a primary source for his 'own anarchism. To use the Anarchist FAQ as a primary source would be to use it as a source for the authors of the FAQ --no one else. To use them as a source for what "anarchists" think, is to use them as a secondary source. They are no credible source to interpret anyone else's philosophy but their own. Moreover, the authors of that FAQ, as far as I know, are not notable people. So, it doesn't really matter what their philosophy is. Who cares? The only place where that would matter is in the An Anarchist FAQ article. RJII 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"The only place where that would matter is in the An Anarchist FAQ article." Really? You must mean, of course, that the only place it would matter to you is in that article. Otherwise, you would be making a judgment about what matters to everyone else, and as you are "not notable" as an expert on "what matters to everyone," you're engaged in inappropriate POV-pushing if you are on the basis of this judgment. Right? Seriously, the position that you're advancing, inadvertantly or not, is that the individual opinions of anarchists about anarchism-in-general are only "notable" if they are first validated by the academy or the publishing industry—and this is patent nonsense. At any given time, "what anarchism is" is the product of debates about what anarchism is, within the context of the actions of, and institutions developed, by anarchists. The authors of the FAQ are notable, precisely because their formula of "what anarchism is" is persuasive and has had a broad influence. You can deny this, but the evidence of websites, citations in scholarly works, etc tells a different story. Libertatia 21:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Untrue. The FAQ has been written by many anarchists as is therefore representative of their views. -- infinity0 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also being published by a leading anarchist publisher, linked to and mirrored by many, many anarchists, praised by many well known anarchist activists. None of this would have happened if they did not think it was a credible reflection of anarchist ideas and opinions. It is obviously a primary source. BlackFlag 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it can be used as a primary source. That means it can be used to show what the philosophy of the authors of the FAQ are (as if anyone cares). But, it can't be used as a secondary source. That is, their interpretations of OTHER anarchists can't be referenced. It's not a credible source. And, "being published" is not good enough. I don't believe it's going to be published, anyway. I think that's wishful thinking. And, on what grounds to you think it is proper of you to enter in your original research here and then when a sources is requested of you, you just add your original research to the FAQ and come back and cite it? What you have done is the kind of thing that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is meant to protect against. RJII 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the point? RJII does not "believe" that the FAQ is going to be published. Does he *really* think the authors' of the FAQ would state openly on their webpage and their update announcements that their work is being published if it were not? They would be a laughing stock if AK press turned around and said "No, it's not being published." RJII really has serious problems, not least of which is with the FAQ. I'm sick of this. This is my last post (see my talk page for details). For those who remain fighting the anarchist cause, you have my fondest regards and best wishes. I appreciate how difficult your task is now and I wish I had your energy and time. I don't, I'm sorry. BlackFlag 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"Going to be published" is not good enough. It means nothing according to Wikipedia policy. RJII 14:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is Ayn Rand listed as a minarchist?

As RJII has "proven" that supporting governments and states (aka Auberon Herbert) is compatible with anarchism, I was wondering why Ayn Rand is listed as a minarchist in the "anarcho"-capitalist section. Like Herbert, she supported an elected "central agency" to define and combat crime. Like Herbert, she was in favour of limited government and the state. Like Herbert, she was in favour of free market capitalism. Like Herbert, she was in favour of voluntary taxation. Like Herbert, she was against "the initiation of force". And, like Herbert, she explicitly denied being an anarchist. It seems highly illogical that one should be listed as a "minarchist" while someone with identical politics should be classed by RJII as an "anarchist." It suggests one of two things. That Rand should be classed as an anarchist or that RJII is wrong. Obviously, the latter is not possible so perhaps people could explain why Rand should not be re-labelled as an anarchist. BlackFlag 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Government is only compatible with anarchism if the definition of government includes private defense of liberty and property and adjudication of disputes --some define it in this inordinary way. But, states by definition are definitely not compatible with anarchy. States are coercive government (government that initiates coercion). Rand is not an anarchist because she believes in government having a coercive monopoly on coercion, in other words, she favors what is defined as a state. Read Our Enemy the State by individualist anarchist Albert Jay Nock to learn about the differences some anarchists make between government and state. Then, go add it to your FAQ. RJII 14:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So Ayn Rand *is* an "anarchist" then? If Herbert is one, then so is Rand. Herbert argued for an elected "central agency" and so did Rand. If you bother to read, say, Rothbard you would know he criticises Herbert precisely on this issue. And states, from your own sources, are perfectly compatible with anarchism. Herbert talked about "the state" providing services, Sylvian talks about the state being compatible with anarchism. You really cannot have it both ways. You have a choice, make Ayn Rand an anarchist (and show that you know nothing about anarchism) or admit that Herbert is not an anarchist. BlackFlag 08:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, Herbert never advocates that competition in defense and adjudication should be forbidden. He just says it's a good idea for people to get together and agree on a central institution. In other words, he doesn't advocate a coercive monopoly on coercion. RJII 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw, please provide some quotes by Nock and Herbert where they express support for private defence agencies and courts. In other words, please provide a quote that shows that either meant by “government” anything other than a standard elected (minimum) government which would specify the law and what was legitimate property. Secondary sources will not do. Herbert, for example, argued for a "central agency" which was "formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." Like Rand, he believed in voluntary contributions to fund his state. So why is Herbert an anarchist and Rand not? BlackFlag 09:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Rand is not an anarchists because she believes in a coercive monopoly on coercion. That is, she believes others should be forbidden from setting uptheir own defense agencies and she doesn't oppose taxation. Herbert opposes all taxation and doesn't say that the defense institution should have a "monopoly on coercion" (Rand's words, I believe). RJII 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Rand argued that a lottery could be used to fund her minimum government ("Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"). I've seen one book quote one of her ex-followers arguing that she was wrong to advocate voluntary taxation ("The Ayn Rand Cult"). So, from what I can gather, she was in favour of voluntary taxation -- unless you can prove me wrong, of course. I'm also not aware that Rand opposed private security guards ("defense agencies") or that Herbert advocated/opposed them. And Herbert argued that without a government there would be "pandemonium" -- his argument is the same as Rand's on this issue. So, why is Herbert an anarchist and Rand a minarchist? Their arguments are nearly identical, even down to their argument against competing states. Both argue for a state and central government and predict anything else would result in chaos. Why is one an anarchist and the other a minarchist? And what about Nock? BlackFlag 08:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Opps, I made a *slight* mistake. Rand's support for a government funded voluntarily, without taxation, can be found in "Government Financing in a Free Society" ("The Virtue of Selfishness", pp. 116-20). She suggests a lottery and contract insurance as possible means. Clearly, as RJII argues that Rand is not an anarchist due to her support for a government to specify what is and is legitimate property and coercion, neither can Herbert. He *also* advocated a voluntary supported government to specify what coercion is. Sadly I won't be here to see how RJII gets out of this, but I'm pretty sure he will quote Herbert: "I deny that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State." Which simply shows that Herbert opposed compulsory taxation rather than his clearly stated aim of an elected minimal central government. But, then, anarchism is apparently compatible with government -- so welcome to anarchism Ayn Rand! And so Wikipedia becomes a laughing stock... BlackFlag 11:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a credible source saying Ayn Rand was an anarchist, feel free to put it in this article. Good luck with that. But, Ayn Rand explicitly argued against the philosophy of "competing states." She was adamantly opposed to anarcho-capitalism. She felt that government should enforce a monopoly on coercion. Herbert does not say that that a defense agency should forcibily bar competition but rather that it's simply a good idea for people to get together through mutual aid and form a central agency. RJII 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
ROFL! So Herbert and Rand have the same political ideas, both dismiss anarchism as leading to chaos but one is an anarchist and one is not! Lovely logic. BlackFlag, 08:46, 08 June 2006 (UTC)
Rand supports taxation, Herbert doesn't. (as far as I know --I'm not an expert on Rand). Also, Rand advocates an enforced monopoly on coercion --minarchism. As far as I know, Herbert does not. He advocates a single private defense provider, but I've never seen him say that competition should be forcibly prevented. If he does say that somewhere, then I wouldn't call him an anarchist. But, that's not my call to make as far as content is concerned --we have to reflect what the sources say whether we agree with them or not. Again, I don't know much about Rand so I'm not one to discuss this with. RJII 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Before I forgot. I did see a book about anarchism which did claim that Rand was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism. It meets RJII's usual standard for credibility, so I'm assuming that we can change the entry? It is Ruth Kinna's "Anarchism". Personally, I would say that this shows that Kinna does not know the subject, but I said that about Sylivan and RJII rejected the obvious. I wonder how RJII will reject Kinna as a reference? BlackFlag, 08:46, 08 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, if you can find a credible source that Rand was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, feel free to put it in. RJII 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, is counterfeiting well and good in one of these so-called anarchist societies with a government? Seems that police breaking into your home and confiscating things wouldn't be acceptable, especially if you never gave them access to do so, and nor could they really do anything to you for spending counterfeit money. For that matter, there wouldn't be any problem selling machines to easily counterfeit money, would there? I bet the economy would be really really stable. Sarge Baldy 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you distinguish counterfeiting from other forms of fraud? —Tamfang 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure. I suggested counterfeiting because unlike insurance scams or pyramid schemes there isn't even a hint of coercion. Sarge Baldy 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for anarcho-capitalists on this because I haven't read anything by them about counterfeiting. But, the market would decide what the most popular forms of money are. The money most difficult to counterfeit would be chosen by market participants (printed money or electronic money, possibly, but not necessarily, backed by a precious metal --like E-Gold). I would think that counterfeiting money and then presenting it to the bank in payment for gold, or buying goods, would be fraud. Remember, that individualists (market anarchists) are not only opposed to the initiation of physical force, but also are opposed to fraud ("force and fraud") --taking value from someone else through deception (making one side of the transaction morally involuntary). Note that private money E-Gold has encryption protection against counterfeiting. RJII 18:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Baldy, what's the hint of coercion in an insurance or pyramid scam? But anyway — In any economy that uses documents, there's going to be forgery (which includes counterfeiting), and practices designed to prevent forgery or limit the damage. (You might like to read up on cryptographic signature protocols.) It's not clear to me what question you're raising here. Probably "counterfeiting equipment" exists in Anarchotopia, because the alternative is to deprive artists and engineers of some of their best tools, but equipment specialized for counterfeiting has a limited market. —Tamfang 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't possible for all coins to be counterfeits. Why? Because counterfeiting has significance only as an effort to imitate something else. Anarchists, including the anarcho-cap kind, would create a world in which "all coins are counterfeit" which (since that is impossible as just explained) means a world in which the idea has lost its significance. So the remaining problem would be ... what? If I make a deal with you to build you a house in return for an ingot of gold, I build the house, and you give me a brick painted yellow ... that's just garden variety fraud, isn't it? --Christofurio 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Baldy, what's the hint of coercion in an insurance or pyramid scam

I suppose you've looked at Albania and decided that in "anarcho-capitalism" there would be no irrational human beings, or alternatively blame it all on the government. - FrancisTyers 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions: State vs government

State 1. (historical) the organization of legitimized plunder (Oppenheimer) 2. (legalistic) an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area (Max Weber) 3. (Rothbard) that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive geographical monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a feature of all governments; as well, historically speaking, it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services rendered but by coercion.

Comment: 3 is basically conjoining 1 and 2.


government 1. State 2. an organization intended to secure the rights of individuals 3. the person or persons who organize and lead and/or exert a guiding influence over an organization. Comments: The distinction between 1 and 2 is discussed by Albert Jay Nock in chapter 2 'The Origins of State and Class' in Our Enemy the State (whole book online!!!). Definition 2 is practically synonymous with PDA (private defense agency) Definition 3 is rarely used in political discussion except perhaps to obfuscate, as Tetra aptly noted.


This should resolve the verbal arguments re "state" and "government." Anarchists are (by def) against all states in principle. Anarchists are not necessarily against government in the sense of definitions 2 or 3.

Another confusion I saw: Someone pointed out that Herbert used the term "state" in his writings. Also, Proudhon and Bakunin did so. Of course, none of these used it in the modern sense. In context, we see that these guys were using "state" to mean government(def 2). Please realize that meanings of some words (e.g. state, socialism, capitalism) were different back then. Max Weber had not yet precisely defined "state." - An Observer

Infoshop.org

I’m not sure how anything coming from infoshop concerning anarchist theory and practice can be considered credible. On theirs forum they are censoring all topics on anarcho-capitalism and banning all anarcho-capitalists writings 1. I guess that is how their anarchism would work in the real world, very much like Stalinism. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing credibility and neutrality. More importantly, while infoshop.org is among the sites that hosts An Anarchist FAQ, the FAQ is not an infoshop publication. Libertatia 18:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
They are censoring what other people write and are banning all those who are found posting "so-called "anarcho-capitalist" viewpoints or ideas". To me, such behavior is putting their credibility as anarchist in question.
If you think "anarchist" means "anything goes," then I can see your point. But that obviously isn't the interpretation being put on matters by the admins at Infoshop, who can be combatative even with other folks they recognize as anarchists. As far as I can see, they're within their rights. Libertatia 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Censoring and stopping free exchange of ideas isn't something I usually associate with anarchist ideas. But then again, when it comes to social anarchists man shouldn't be surprised with that kind of behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a real red herring. First of all, the idea that one site—even a big one like Infoshop—refusing to host discussions of any topic does much to "stop free exchange of ideas" is probably a little unrealistic. If it was an an-cap site, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because, of course, nobody would assume you can't establish user rules for the projects you create. And, again, the specific folks who do the actual work to administer the Infoshop site, have years of history in the debates about anarcho-capitalism and its relations to anarchism. (Those debates don't change much, honestly, even though all sorts of exciting things are happening in other areas of market anarchism—such as the dialogues between traditional ("socialist") individualist anarchists and left-libertarians.) If the Infoshop crowd are tired of talking about the subject, I can understand why, although blanket prohibition isn't my style. Social anarchists come in lots of varieties, and are no more or less subject to confusion and hypocrisy than individualists and an-caps. Anyway, the attempt to smear the FAQ with guilt by association is kind of weak. Libertatia 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
They are in the control of one site and they are stopping free exchange of ideas on it. I don’t know what they would do if they were in the control of all sites - would they censor them all, like they are now censoring all threads on infoshops forum, or would they allow discussion on some sites. -- Vision Thing -- 14:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. You don't know, but seem to assume "social anarchists" are inclined to stomping on dissent. I know of an anarchist discussion list that's gone over 15 years without a single resort to censorship or banning, where most of the Infoshop and FAQ crowd have been active. As somebody who has been providing and maintaining public forums for almost 15 years now myself, I can tell you that keeping the "free exchange of ideas" meaningfully free is hard work. There are enough active debates among the folks that Infoshop recognizes as anarchist to keep admins pulling out their hair pretty constantly. I understand the whole anarchist vs. an-cap issue a little differently than the Infoshop admins, so I would go at things differently, but I entirely understand the Infoshop ban. To be honest, if folks on the an-cap side didn't tend to treat all "social anarchists" as if they were Stalinists, free discussion would be simpler. As I made my transition from syndicalism to mutualism, I had to learn to bite my tongue a lot and figure out what other people really meant when they talked about "capitalism" and "socialism." And I had to make sure I was very, very clear about what I meant—and could back it up. Useful, productive dialogue is possible. Too bad we don't see much of it here. Libertatia 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that infinity0 was claming that Infoshop's site is the main one[22]. -- Vision Thing -- 21:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And BlackFlag said it too ("The geocities site is the original home of the FAQ. Infoshop is a mirror, although now it is the main site (effectively)") [23]. -- Vision Thing -- 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. And the FAQ editors are still a different crowd of folks than the Infoshop admins. For better or worse, Infoshop is probably the single most popular anarchist website, so that's where the FAQ gets the most notice. Libertatia 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
On this talk page we recently had discussion whether social hierarchy is something that anarchism is against by its definition. BlackFlag, infinity0 and social anarchist in general thought that it most definitely is. Editorial and administrator positions, with rights to censor other people writings and ban people, most definitely are hierarchical positions. How then editors of the FAQ and administrators from the infoshop.org can be considered credible anarchists when, by their own definition, they are the people against whom the anarchism stands? -- Vision Thing -- 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't believe in the right to exercise some control over the projects you create? Libertatia 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure I do, but I don’t claim that supporters of voluntary, non-coercive, hierarchy can’t be called anarchist. They do claim it and, at the same time, they have established such hierarchy. Last time I checked, that was defined as hypocrisy. -- Vision Thing -- 14:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Its a website, editing code to remove certain things from the website isn't even close to authoritarian. Censorship? sure, but with no threat of violence whatsoever!
Great! :-) -- Vision Thing -- 14:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the FAQ originates from someone's geocities.com site [24] (apparently someone's personal website --I don't know what else to call it). And, apparently BlackFlag has access to the site to add what he wants to the FAQ whenever he needs a source to cite. Then it gets circulated around. According to them they will accept suggestions through email, but of course the content would have to be authorized by the authority figure(s) that run the geocities.com site to make sure it passes the anarchist purity test. So, in the same way that the editorial on Wikipedia would not be a credible source to cite because we are all apparently have no qualifications to comment on anarchism (or anything else), so is the FAQ not a credible source to cite as credible commentor on the anarchism of others. RJII 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
As oppossed to what? Some ancap site? an encyclopedia? The FAQ is sourced much better.

I hardly believe that stuff about BlackFlag, The FAQ doesn't update that often; when it does, it's not in response to Wikipedia.

He admitted it. And, that's how the FAQ is created and has always been created. It develops as a result of the authors debating with anarcho-capitalists (or those who they beleive are anarcho-capitalists). They debate online in various forums then move the arguments over to the FAQ. RJII 20:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the founder and main coordinator of Infoshop.org. The person who claims that Infoshop censors people in our forums doesn't have a clear understanding of censorship or why websites have a right to moderate and control discussions. Every website which runs forums and discussion boards has some kind of moderation policy. Even the boards which look like they have no rules will moderate posts which may put the site in trouble with the authorities. Websites like Infoshop have a right to set moderation policies because this is part of free speech and freedom of association/disassociation. You would be laughed out of the room if you demanded that some magazine publish your words and then screamed censorship.

Infoshop has a variety of moderation policies for forums on our website. We have a set of guidelines for our popular Infoshop News forum (which have been copied by other websites). We have very few rules for some of the boards on our Infoshop forums and more rules for other boards. We don't allow anarcho-capitalists to post to the website because we've found that many of these people are simply ignorant about basic political and economic theories. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron and we feel that anybody who pushes this nonsense is just confusing people about anarchism. People who are interested in "anarcho-capitalism" really should familiarize themselves with mutualism and the works of Kevin Carson. Mutualism is a much more sophisticated take on capitalism which also overlaps with anarchism. If you really, really love capitalism and want to exploit working people, you might want to join the American Libertarian Party or the GOP.

Infoshop mirrors "An Anarchist FAQ" on our site. We work closely with Iain, in fact, he just sent me an update tonight. It's not true that the FAQ is just a rebuttal to anarcho-capitalists. Many people have helped with the FAQ over the past 10 years and many more have offered their feedback. I've sent Iain more than a few emails taking issue with various parts of the FAQ. Overall, the FAQ is a pretty good overview of anarchist theories, albeit one with a few serious problems. Chuck0 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank God for Wikipedia then, because it allows input from everybody. Maybe take a read of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and learn the value of free speech. To censor the other side is to assume infallibility. Ideas should be constantly subject to test and scrutiny. You could be dead wrong and never know it, thanks to censorship. There goes any credibility Infoshop.org ever had. RJII 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There's not much I can say in response to your retarded remarks. If you think that Wikipedia allows anybody to do whatever they want, then you are even dumber than you show here. Didn't you have your editing privileges suspended? Do people such as yourself really exist? I just shake my head when I read your nonsense. Do you really think that websites should let people say whatever they want? Can I come over to your house and do whatever I want with it? Infoshop has policies for people who want to participate on our site. We aren't preventing you from exercising your "free speech" elsewhere. Chuck0 06:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, I do have to say that the censorship on infoshop does go a bit overboard at times. I mean, it makes sense to remove some things like the nazi, racist stuff, (as well as spam links), but I do think debate with an-caps is important, if only to help us truly understand why we reject it as unanarchistic. Then again, if an-caps start posting all the time it could get out of hand (I don't know how many an-cap posts you usually delete before anyone sees them, but I rarely see any). I think open debate is important though. Also, is there a place in the forums for dissenting people? I don't frequent the forum so I don't know, but if not it might be a good idea. Other than that, good job with the site. The Ungovernable Force 06:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No, my editing privileges are not suspended, and I am an invaluable resource to Wikipedia. Aside from Infoshop having little credibility to any intelligent person who doesn't assume himself infallible, the personal attacks coming from you, the founder, further deteriorates its credibility to an abysmal level. I think we can safely write Infoshop.org off. Wikipedia is the true anarchistic information source, and therefore the most informative and important source on anarchism. This is the beginning of the end for Infoshop. It's now irrelevant. RJII 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is the true anarchistic information source"??!!! Wikipedia explicitly values credentials over knowledge and expertise, popular nonsense over specific truth, sourceability over scholarly standards of credibility, etc. Infoshop, for all its faults, at least doesn't pretend to be a NPOV encyclopedic resource. Libertatia 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
When I want to know about stocks, I turn to my stock broker. When I want to know about law, I turn to my lawyer. When I want to know about anarchism, I turn to a professor of political philosophy. I sure don't turn to Joe Blow Internet Anarchist. RJII 18:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Joe Blow Internet Anarchist" is a straw man, but he might be a better source than Herr Doktor Professor. What's interesting is that, when you want to know about anarchism, where you turn is based on an institutional position, rather than on any actual knowledge of the subject. I'm not one of those anarchists who believe that we need be "against all authority" in the sense of that we assume nobody has particular skills or knowledges, but I am a genuine individualist in the sense that I believe that institutions cannot grant authority to individuals all that credibly. I know some very fine scholars of anarchism, but most of them are not in universities. I'm an academic as well, and know just how basically broken university credentialing mechanisms really are. Wikipedia is fundamentally un-anarchistic in that it only recognizes institutional authority.
Well, Wikipedia accepts sources without credentials, as long as they're published. If they're self-published then at least they have to be cited by someone with credentials. But, yes, generally the ultimate authority here is based on credentials. And, I think that's a good idea. I agree that someone that never went to college can know more about a topic that an PhD, but generally that's not the case. And, since it's not generally the case, then I think having the policy is the rule utilitarian thing to do. I don't think "we" can trust "ourselves" to be able to discern a source that knows what he's talking about from someone who doesn't. And, let's face it --not only is not everyone on Wikipedia qualified to make that judgement, but neither is everybody ethical enough to refrain from citing information that they know to be false in order to push a POV. So, I think the maximization of good consequences is going to result by not leaving that decision up to the editors, but to have a rule, that, though it of course keeps some good information out, it also keeps more bad information out than would otherwise be in the encyclopedia if the rule didn't exist. RJII 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
We know that the current rules don't really limit POV-pushing. In fact, they probably amount to a particular kind of POV-pushing, as the mechanisms at work in the academy and in the publishing industry are hardly value-neutral. That aside, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to show that our particular case on the anarchism-related pages is actually well-served by the Wikipedia sourceability rules. Take a look at the published work on anarchism, say, from the present back to 2000. You can keyword search on WorldCat or on Amazon, and in databases such as Academic Search Premier, and get a pretty clear picture of the work that's been produced in English. There's not a lot, and much of what has been published has been collections of historical texts. The "hot" anarchist theory texts, like Todd May and Saul Newman's "postanarchist" efforts, barely touch on anarchism, and get a good deal of what they do address completely wrong. I'm not afraid to claim that I can, in fact, tell whether or not these texts get it right or not. They mess up in basic ways, or they just don't do the homework to back up the claims they make. Those are the kinds of errors we can, in fact, trust ourselves to catch. The truth is that you and I together probably know as much about anarchism as the most of the academics writing political encyclopedia entries, or dabbling with anarchy as a way to advance their pet literary theory into the realm of politics. The published evidence suggests that academe knows very little about anarchism, and that much, perhaps most, of what it knows is wrong. A genuinely anarchistic approach to the problem of describing anarchism would throw the question open radically, not close off all approaches not already opened by institutions with a vested interest in rather un-anarchistic arrangements. And we could fight it out over the facts, which are, thanks to a variety of archiving efforts, more and more readily available to everyone. That's not going to happen here. I understand that. But there really isn't any evidence that Wikipedia standards keep bad info out, or that the good info they screen out is in the minority. The mechanical, rationalized censorship that occurs here is probably far more destructive, at least to entries on non-mainstream topics such as anarchism, than open POV-pushing would be. Of course, there's always the option of voluntary cooperation to get the facts straight, but I don't see much of that occuring here. Libertatia 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, Libertaria, but there is a significant flat-earther element amongst the "current" anarchist community (being the ones who hotly dispute the inclusion of anarcho-captialism). Saying that the "the mechanisms at work in the academy and in the publishing industry are hardly value-neutral" might be right, but I doubt it, frankly, and it sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory to me: that is certainly the simpler explanation at any rate. I didn't know much about Socialist Anarchism before getting involved in discussions on these pages, but it strikes me as being not especially coherent a philosophy, and to the extent it is coherent, it's not materially different from anarcho-syndicalism, which is only really championed these days by Chomsky, whose political philopsophy is (quite fairly) taken much less seriously that his linguistics, and which in turn isn't materially different from good old fashioned Marxist-theoretical communism. An-Cap, on the other hand, has its own problems (revolving around the moral justification and natural law), but at least has a more recent credible academic track record than an-socialism. Neither has a good answer to the problems posed by relativism, other than highhandedly wishing them away. What I've surmised from all this is that "anarchism" as a serious political movement, however you define it, is a bit of a dead-letter these days, for all the enthusiasm of the contributors (including myself) on these pages. Like creationism it's strictly an amateur pursuit, and the reason it doesn't get much academic attention is, frankly, because it doesn't deserve it. ElectricRay 10:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

@Chuck0 I'm not saying that you don't have the right to censor and ban other people from writing on your forum. I'm just saying that censoring and banning practice makes you a hypocrite because you are claiming that the anarchism is opposed to social hierarchy. Allowing anarcho-capitalists to present their views on certain subjects wouldn't get your site into trouble with the authorities anymore than allowing social anarchists to present their views. Or do you think that AC viewpoints are greater threat to the authorities than SA viewpoints? -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD

List of anarchism web resources is up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchism web resources. I doubt many of you know this, so here is the news. -- infinity0 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

List of recent changes

Requested by Sarge Baldy, even though they've already been discussed extensively.

  1. We don't need minutia about Cromwell in the intro.
  2. This article is about the political meaning of anarchism "the belief that forms of rulership are undesireable, and should be abolished."
  3. We don't need the gobbletygook about "degrees of commonality and conflict."
  4. Please don't hide the fact that Proudhon was anti-communist.
  5. Proudhon details should go in the Proudhon article, not here.
  6. Anarchist "schools" should precede all the sundry issue-oriented sects.
  7. Bullshit about misc. non-anarchist leftie movements don't belong in the anarchism without adjectives paragraph.
  8. Ancap books should not be censored.

Oh yeah, some idiot thinks that anarchism is not against rulership, but only competition in rulership. I reverted that. Hogeye 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists do not identify into schools, or claim all other "schools" are not anarchist. Likewise, most definitions of anarchism do not use the word "State", but government. These terms are clearly distinct. Sarge Baldy 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
?? Most anarchists recognize the existence and differences between individualist anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, collectivist anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc. You are correct that most definitions use the word "government," but you need to acknowledge that they mean "state," and not simply voluntary governance. IOW when people use "government" they mean "state" in this context. See definitions above. Hogeye 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Dictionaries know the difference between the word "government" and "State" and intentionally use the former term, and broaden it by saying "all forms of government". A standard dictionary definition of government does not even mention the term "State" [25], where it does include definitions such as "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." You can pretend all anarchists are too stupid to know the difference, but you're also going to have to pretend all dictionaries [26] are. Sarge Baldy 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, def #3 Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule refers to a State. Anarchists generally know the difference between leadership and rule. There's even a famous Bakunin spiel about what kind of "authority" is bad, and which is okay. Are you really trying to claim that anarchists are against a chess club having a "president," or Indymedia having a sysop and editors? I don't believe it. - Hogeye
The "details" on Proudhon that were removed were helpful in accurately representing his later position. The current edit, which includes the deceptive phrase "without totally abandoning his earlier critique," is considerably less helpful in that regard (not to mention being vague and probably in violation of POV rules, as it contradicts statements in Proudhon's own later writings.) (See my comments elsewhere on this page) Libertatia 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism!?

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction imo. Since capitalism by definition means head of state or head of government, any relation between anarchism and capitalism is very suspect. [27] --88.152.120.125 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


(Personal attack removed)


It's funny how often the phrase "by definition" precedes a wildly inaccurate claim. Capital in the context of capitalism means productive property, which is not obviously incompatible with anarchy. —Tamfang 23:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Capitalism has nothing to do with a head of state or a head of government. Pure free market capitalism advocates no government at all, so is, at first glance, the purest form of anarchy, since everyone is allowed to do what he or she likes. "Socialist anarchists" (now there's a cointradiction in terms) try to wriggle out of this conundrum by requiring anarchy to be not just no government/state, but no social hierarchy of any sort, voluntary or involuntary. Capitalism, they say, tends to lead to the formation of (formal and informal) social hierarchies. This is, of course, true. However, there are informal hierarchies in all communities, however they are organised, and indeed social anarchists are perfectly prepared to admit them, but only the ones they approve of. Therefore, the socialist anarchist criticism of anarcho-capitalism falls flat on its face. However, no amount of patiently explaining this to a number of the more committed social anarchists inhabiting these pages will persuade them of this.
Note that one of their number, BlackFlag, shortly after having been exposed for making up material supporting this position, posting it anonymously to a self-editable Socialist Anarchist website (quelle surprise - exactly the website you mention!), and then citing the very same material here on Wikipedia in support of his own arguments, has by some bizarre coincidence, suddenly dropped out without trace from the Wikipedia project.
For what it's worth, the cited page on the Anarchist FAQ is hardly compelling. It is confused, it repeats itself, engages in non-sequiturs, and relies on the unsourced assertion that the anarchist tradition has always been anti-capitalist, and only manages to cite Proudhon (died: 1865) as having anything resembling genuine, unequivocal antipathy to capitalism. Capitalism in 1865 was a very different thing to what we all know and love today. ElectricRay 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it's far worse than he possibly could have imagined. No wonder the movement today has shifted its focus more around capitalism and less around "the State". The latter has been pretty much reduced to a corporate tool anyway. Sarge Baldy 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, because the only thing that can prevent capitalism is the State. When there's no state around, people naturally start trading goods and services, pursue making money, and start businesses and create jobs (as we saw when the Somali government collapsed [28]). So, I wonder how these "anti-capitalist" "anarchists" propose to stop people from engaging in capitalism, short of using systematic coercion against them and becoming a state themselves. RJII 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, because it's not true. You don't have to forcefully ban capitalism, you can simply provide a system where it's nonsensible. No one has to tell the Bushmen of Africa that capitalism is bad, or that they shouldn't practice it. It's a bewildering concept in direct opposition to their basic common sense. And for the record the Bushmen would think the same thing about a "State". Sarge Baldy 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The Bushmen are obviously a stunted civilization. They've produced no significant advances in technology. If a child is sick, for example, they have no medicine for him, but must rely on medicine coming in from the "capitalist" world. Life is short and miserable. What's keeping them from taking part in business and commerce to make their lives better and easier? I don't know. But, I don't think modern people find such an existence an attractive alternative. People today see the luxuries that are available to them if they engage in commerce (like running water, air conditioning, medicines, internet, etc). And, because of their desires for the luxuries avilable, they choose to engage in business if they have the freedom to do so. RJII 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What a loaded vocabulary you have. I don't buy into the typical ideology of development being "good", or "civilization" and "advances in technology" good, so they don't quite work as selling points. The difference between our society and that of the Bushmen is that with the latter you can actually survive without capitalism or those things you mentioned. Just like we can survive today without the new "must haves" developed 5 years down the line. Whatever people might think in the short term, they'll be thinking differently once reality catches up to them. The economy of the United States is not subsistent, hence the need for neoliberal globalization. But there's only so much that can be exploited, and things can only get shakier. A society like the Bushmen can survive indefinitely because they make a point of working in harmony with nature. A city like Los Angeles wouldn't last a day if it weren't for the resources it sucks up from the outside. It's not a very stable system today, but given some time things will really be walking the line. You can try to turn Biosphere 1 into Biosphere 2, but don't be surprised when you find it's incapable of supporting life. Sarge Baldy 03:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, all I have to say to everyone here (except sarge baldy) is "take an anthropology course for crying out loud!". First off, the bushmen aren't a stunted civilization, they are food collectors and are not at all civil (in terms of having a civilization, even a stunted one). And many traditional cultures around the world are choosing to live without those things you are talking about RJII, because they don't want them. And primitive people (primitive not being used as a pejorative) have very effective forms of healing. The Ungovernable Force 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
RJII, if your "capitalism" only occurs in the absence of a state, then it hasn't occured anywhere in a very long time, if at all, and chances are "anti-capitalists" aren't against it. Believe it or not, neither social anarchists nor individualists have spent much time rallying their forces against something that exists, thus far, only in theory, and I don't know a single serious anarchist of either stripe who would be interested in forbidding voluntary behavior not propped up by a state. Social anarchists have trouble believing that folks for whom "capitalism" is the most important keyword are likely to keep things voluntary. Individualist anarchists can't see any other worthwhile risk, but certainly don't want the return of the form of capitalism we have had historically. I can't tell what you want. Libertatia 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that ties in with the implicit point I'm making. If an anarchists is NOT going to forcefully prevent capitalism from happening AND if capitalism contains "hierarchy" in the sense of employees and employers, and differing levels of wealth, then to be an anarchist one has to allow others to organize into "social hierarchy." Therefore, voluntary "hierarchy" is consistent with anarchism, as is every kind of economic system which is voluntary engaged in. The only thing not consistent with anarchism is that which is involuntary. And, I think, the most natural economic system that emerges in anarchy is going to include private property (people naturally want to own the result of labor), trading, business, employees and employers. The only thing that can prevent that from happening is coercion (unless you happen to be a Bushman who prefers to live in abject poverty, according to some people) Sure, some isolated communist goups can occur within a large anarchic system, but I think people really have to put a strain on their natural psychology to consider the result of their labor to be the property of everyone and to make sure that everyone has the same amount of wealth at all times. Anything approaching that state of affairs, apparently, can only happen on a large scale with a tyrant enforcing it because it is so contrary to the human spirit. RJII 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to make pronouncements about "the human spirit," except to suggest that it is probably capable of a whole lot more than we're asking of it right now. But you're still talking about "capitalism" as if its meaning was uncontested, and as if there was a consensus. There obviously isn't any such consensus. And there is no particular reason to believe that, say, short-term profit maximization and current models of competition are any more natural than communal living, or long-term planning (or complex marriage, or. . . .) There is also no reason to believe that the exchange of labor for a circulating medium will necessarily resemble the current, hierarchical wage relation. This is what never got clarified in your back-and-forth with BlackFlag. It appears that by "capitalism" you really mean something very much like the status quo (minus regulation), to which I would have to ask: Can't we do better than that? Libertatia 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
How could the "status quo" remain the status quo if positive regulation ceased? The status quo *is* the result of proactive coercion being used to prevent free-market "capitalism." Without that coercive regulation, there would be a different status quo. What that status quo would be, I don't think anyone can predict with any precision. The question is, IF the anarchic status quo resulted in wealth inequality and "hierarchical wage relations" would you still accept it? RJII 16:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a weird question, RJII. Actually, it's several weird questions. I said, "It appears that by "capitalism" you really mean something very much like the status quo (minus regulation)...," and said it in reference to the continuing lack of consensus about the meaning of the term "capitalism." If, indeed, the "status quo *is* the result of proactive coercion being used to prevent free-market 'capitalism'," and, further, the shape of that capitalism-to-come can't be predicted with any precision, are you really sure you want it? I mean, the new status quo could be a whole lot worse than just inequality and hierarchical wage relations. It strikes me that the an-cap vision being presented here makes the freedom of the market primary, and the freedom of individuals secondary. Traditionally, anarchism, including the various market anarchisms, have seen the market as a means to a good life and just, equitable social relations. Even an egoist like Tucker could embrace the perfectionist philosophy of Greene's Blazing Star. (See Liberty, Sept 12, 1885.) Anarchism has never been "whatever remains in the absence of the state," except perhaps in the minds of some fairly recent claimants to the name. There's a fundamental (or perhaps fundamentalist) unfreedom involved in tying oneself to some non-statist "come what may" that seems totally foreign to everything I know about the living anarchist tradition. Libertatia 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's something to keep in mind. You know, Benjamin Tucker and some others, assumed that in a free market that labor would receive its "full produce." But, that's conjecture on his part. What if that doesn't happen? The labor-value individualists never ask themselves that question. What if they're wrong? What if, in a free market, labor and pay do not coincide? Will they become statists and enforce the labor theory of value? What is really their priority? Fairness or liberty? Whatever happens in liberty should be consistent with anarchism. RJII 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, we're talking. I think you're wrong about whether or not our predecessors asked the question. We can fight about that another time. But the key issue is that not even the egoist faction appears to have thought of "liberty" as merely the absence of coercion. The early mutualists knew that values had to be transformed in order for real liberty to exist, and emphasized justice and equity even over liberty. Proudhon is quite clear on this. And, as I pointed out above, not even Tucker in his egoist period was immune to anarcho-perfectionism. I don't have any desire to be immune. Liberty is, ultimately, a labor. Anarchism is more than just an acceptance of whatever cards the absence of a state deals us. When we get rid of the state, then the fun begins. Libertatia 19:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What a loaded vocabulary you have. I don't buy into the typical ideology of development being "good", or "civilization" and "advances in technology" good, so they don't quite work as selling points.

That's nonsense. You're on the internet. Of course development is good, of course advances in technology are good, civilisation is a loaded word. How the hell else are we going to get off this planet ? Having said that, I think in most civilised countries both running water and medicine are subsidised for those who can't afford to pay. Having clean drinking water is not a luxury.- FrancisTyers 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"You can simply provide a system where it's nonsensible". Well, that's all well and good, but I think the difficult word here is "simply". Bearing in mind (i) you're not allowed to use coercion and you can't require or imply informal social hierarchy of any sort (because if you did, your programme would be no better, in your own view, than capitalism), and (ii) your "sensible" system seems to involve emulating the Kalahari bushmen, everyone curbing their own selfish demands (apropos nothing) to the point where the Tragedy of the Commons is wished away (which is a very convenient piece of wishful thinking!), how do you expect to persuade the whole world to play along - including not just those who like their SUVs and microwave ovens but also people like me, who have thought long and hard about the philosophical problem you're seeking to answer, and have come to the reasoned conclusion that any answer which relies on such wishful thinking is plain wrong - and not just wrong, but daft? This is a fairly fundamental flaw in your argument. If anyone defects from the prescription, the whole theory falls over. By contrast, capitalism (as I use the term - not sure what you might understand by it) is the state to which the society would fall when people aren't playing along. That's precisely the point - it's ... for want of a better word ... anarchy! ElectricRay 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That argument could be applied to your own system as well. What if I don't want your unfettered capitalism? What if I want clean air and water and forests? Anyway I'm not a revolutionary and I've been leaning towards an approach where anarchists take over healthier parts of the land, and allow people to join as they wish. Unfortunately that's a bit too retreatist because isolationism isn't quite possibly when you consider there's a shared environmental system and you'd have capitalist prospectors knocking on your door looking to patent the native plants. Not to mention it condemns everyone else. So sure, it's a problem. And a problem with any system claiming "a better way" for everyone, including mine, and including yours. Sarge Baldy 16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My system doesn't stop you - it simply says your best bet is to buy some forests (don't have the cash? arrange some financing!), and charge people admission to enjoy them. That way you're strongly incentivised to look after the forests (no-one will want to come if you stick a factory in the middle, the rivers get polluted or all the trees die) and if people out there really value the experience they'll come, pay you good money, and enjoy them. These natural resources will be utilised to their best advantage. Everyone wins: you can dictate whatever rules for your propoerty that you like, and anyone coming on board will, by their action, unequivocally accept them all. It might seem like lunacy, it might seem like hopeless idealism, but I don't think it would be at all. In fact, there'd be good money to be made. I know I'd pay for that. ElectricRay 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for banging on, but one other thing, which might just be crucial for this debate. No capitalist I know of espouses capitalism on a moral basis, on the basis it "knows" what is best for everyone, except in the way that evolution "knows" what is best for an ecosystem. Capitalism, like evolution, is nothing more than a blind algorithmic process, which tends to have a certain effect in terms of efficient allocation of resources. It is entirely agnostic, of itself, to "what's best for the society", or even whether there is a society - and to believe that (or to attribute that belief to capitalists) is to commit a fallacy akin to group selectionism in biology. The repeated, algorithmic, interaction of the autonomous bodies (like you and me) that make up a capitalist system tends to relationships and artefacts of increasing sophistication, just as organisms tend to complexity in their natural environment. Capitalism sees the State rather like some well-meaning (or not-so-well meaning) botanist trying to play God - regardless of his intentions, the organisms will, over time, be better suited to their environment if he just leaves them alone. ElectricRay 18:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly we have no ability to communicate. It just seems to me you have the capitalist ideal so built in to you it's now invisible.
Don't think I don't understand anarcho-capitalism, either. I was a libertarian capitalist from the time I was about 15 until not long before my 21st birthday. I even voted Michael Badnarik in 2004 and would have voted for Harry Browne in 2000 had I been a couple months older. Near the end of that stretch, I adopted anarcho-capitalism. Or rather, I adopted the label. I didn't read Rothbard or about Rothbard, I made up my own philosophy extending from the basic libertarian capitalist tenets. I tend to think you need to separate yourself from earlier philosophical ideals to really find one for yourself. One idea I had was that of a plurarchy in which there's a number of competing governments. I didn't realize Molinari had come up with the same idea until years later, and I never understood how anyone could call such an idea anarchy. I rejected that idea as regressive and oppressive and termed myself anarcho-capitalist, by which of course I meant rejecting police forces and government of any kind. I supported theft as a necessary trait of capitalist society. I considered capitalism as a natural model, and identified theft as natural as well. Restricting theft would be unnatural in the same way restricting capitalism would be. If people were under pressure to steal, it would be best for everyone that they do. But I was always openminded regarding revision of my ideas, and only a few weeks in an intro to sociology class I so strongly recognized the flaws of that model I went from considering myself anarcho-capitalist to anarcho-communist in the course of a day (a term I abandoned later, and again a change without actually reading any actual literature). I guess I would have expected to find that degree of openmindedness in other anarcho-capitalists. But instead I see people who treat it as an ideology and hold little real willingness to challenge their own ideas. You're rather more comfortable treating yourselves as right and those who disagree as combatants who you might show the light. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering the competitive ideal of winning found in capitalist ideology. Better to win than be right. Sarge Baldy 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are assuming far too much about what my preconceptions are, and what my beliefs are. I don't subscribe to Rothbard or Nozick, for example, and I certainly don't believe my preferred society is the right one - mny whole patter, if you'd trouble yourself to read it, is that there is NO right one, and my view is no more valid than yours, or anyone else's. What appeals to me about what I see as anarchy is the complete dissolution of concentrated societal power. In a statist environment an individual gives up his ability to act on his values irrevocably to the state. In capitalism he doesn't. I always have the ability to quit my job, sell my stock, go live in a forest, not buy your stuff, buy his stuff, save my money, spent it foolishly, and my small action can have a small impact on any social hierarchy you might have created. But no greater (nor less) an impact than my total value in the grander scheme of the community. Now it might be that everyone in the community sees the world as you do, Sarge, in which case your view and mine are identical: without a state, our interests will be aligned anyway and we'll live in peace and harmony and at one with nature, because that's what each of us values and how each of us acts (but wouldn't that be the case if everyone agreed even with a state?). But frankly, I'm extremely skeptical about that. This is not a theoretical point but an empirical one. For your view to work, everyone has to share your view. Everyone. It can't work if there are a core of dissenters, because they'll exploit the rest. All I am saying is, if those conditions of unanimity aren't met (and I've been around long enough to know they won't be - indeed 5 minutes on this talk page should be all you need to understand that!) your vision won't work. Now you can call me names and put this failure down to my capitalist brainwashing if you like, but I'd be more persuaded if you'd explain how you'll get all these selfish, greedy, disagreeing people to buy your vision. ElectricRay 23:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your criticism, since you seem to find it perfectly acceptable to force anarcho-capitalism on everyone. Like you say, you can't have dissenters. I would dissent in your model, and so would many others. I would find myself quite exploited, thank you. I'm also not sure I can take your opposition to concentrated societal power seriously. If you were to ask any sociologist where the societal power (in the contemporary United States) is concentrated, they would tell you it's in the wealthy, upper classes. The "power elite" (see [29] for a quick overview). You'd have difficulty finding a credible social theorist today who argued differently. As for your concerns I think I already supplied an answer. In short, I wouldn't bother to try. I wouldn't try to force any system on everyone. People predisposed to such a system could join. Others wouldn't. First generation members might have difficulties adjusting to changes, but in time things would smooth out as people (re)learned how to most efficiently work in balance with nature rather than in opposition. And I've already recognized the problems with such a concept: the environment is global. If someone decides to dam a river up the stream, stopping the flow, killing most of the fish, and making the water stagnant, the environment becomes unstable, the culture becomes unstable, and the economy becomes unstable. Likewise if billionaries decide to do some nuclear testing, we might be downwind. If corporations find it most efficient to dump heavily into the ocean, we're affected by the polluted water and lack of safe fishing. If the icecaps melt significantly, we might be swamped, or, if inland, we might have heavy droughts. You can't very well be autonomous when people are playing God around you. So I wouldn't say the model is perfect. I can't even say I wouldn't scrap it. There are weaknesses to any model, and it's good to recognize them and account for them than stop and say "this is good enough" and build it into a fixed ideology. Sarge Baldy 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, if you defect, in anarcho-capitalism, it's nobody's problem but yours. Anarcho capitalism doesn't need a state to gang up on you to keep you in line (as, with respect, anarcho socialism does), indeed it doesn't care whether you're "in line" or not; in any case, because of how the interests are aligned, the blind algorithmic processes will take care of that. Defector strategies (be they of the oppressive or tree-hugging variety) will eventually wither. In Anarcho socialism, the defector (be he an oppressor, a capitalist building a dam upstream, or even the member of the community who wants a bit more water than his fair share) gets a positive advantage by defecting, hence, as you suggest A-S is unstable; in A-C, the defector is at a disadvantage over time, hence it isn't. In the limit, in the short term, A-C is susceptible to domination by a single agency which is so successful it can afford the "expenditure" of repressing everyone else to the point where it is a dictatorship. But only in the short term, unless it leavens itself with a pretty good story to the people about how it is really doing what the people want, and the people, on the whole, buy it - that's called democracy. A-C is also susceptible to the tragedy of the commons, as I have said frequently - but because under A-C the "commons" will tend to be minimised by private ownership (rather than being maximised, as in your account, it is about as good as any strategy for dealing with that conundrum. The part I think you're ignoring is that your account is susceptible not just to cartoon style big bad capitalists, but to the evoluntionary impulse everyone of us has to eat a bit more, breed a bit more, and live in just a bit more comfort. ElectricRay 06:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea I'm describing "anarcho-socialism", whatever that is. I reject any sort of "means of production" and find socialism too similar to capitalism for my own taste. You can't defect in anarcho-capitalism because in anarcho-capitalism there's effectively a state to prevent that from happening. Only a capitalist would have the resources to "legitimately" defect. Anarcho-capitalists force the concept of property on everyone. There's a whole fucking army sitting by ready to enforce it. If you disagree with the idea of property, you're out of luck. You can't just opt out of the system. You can't defect. The capitalist system, like the State, doesn't allow it. If you tried making your home in the forest police forces would tell you that forest was owned by someone and throw you off somewhere.
You seem to take human selfishness as some "innate" function. But if you took even a cursory look at the societies I'm suggesting as a model, you'd see that it becomes quite natural and necessary for selfishness to dissolve. A quick illustration:
In an essay called "Eating Christmas," Richard Lee describes how the African Bushmen demeaned the cow he bought the tribe as a Christmas gift, calling it a skinny bag of bones when it was actually quite fat and ample.
He later learned that the demeaning of this cow's meat was meant to counter his own boasting of the gift he was presenting the tribe. That boasting, with its underlying assumption that one person could control and allocate to others any item of food was antithetical to the social value of sharing in this culture.
In other words, they find it flatly insulting to think you can "give" something to someone when it already belongs to everyone. It's like stealing something and then offering it as a present. In another example given by one of my professors:
Henry Cultee, an elder of the Chehalis tribe, told me that when a guest arrived, his people didn't ask (as whites did), "Are you hungry?" That would have appeared begruding. It would also indicate that you, as "owner" of the food, were deciding who got it and who didn't. Again, any idea of ownership of resources others needed for survival contradicted the social value of sharing. So Henry Cultee's people didn't ask if their guest was hungry, they just brought out the food.
Just as it's natural in a system based on exploitation of the Earth to compete over resources, it's natural for a group with an equivocal relationship to the Earth to not understand property at all. The planet itself becomes an extension of the individual, and the objects of the earth are not seen as "possessed". It would be quite ironic to claim that this form of society, which predominated for literally hundreds of thousands of years, and in some cases still remain, are "unstable". They're clearly anything but. The only instability is when they're distressed by an outward system that's acting completely out of flux. Which is why that outward system could not be allowed to remain. Admittedly, I don't have an anarchist solution to that dillemma at this point. It may work out that I'm flexible enough to support a nonanarchist means of accomplishing an anarchist end. Sarge Baldy 07:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa Sarge. This is very familiar sounding stuff. "It may work out that I'm flexible enough to support a nonanarchist means of accomplishing an anarchist end." Like, for example, supporting a "vanguard" party, with its own hierarchy, which would rule over a transitional state, until the state could be made to "wither away," right? That's the sort of "anarchism" that has kept the statists in control for 4,000 years. The folks demanding the creation of the first pyramids probably reasoned thus. --Christofurio 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. That's what I was advocating. That's exactly right. Because I just love bureaucracy and love the State. By nonanarchist I meant more along the lines of property-directed "terrorism", although at heart I'm a pacifist. I don't even understand why anarcho-capitalists keep trying to link anarchism to statism when they're the ones openly advocating governments, legal systems, laws, and forceable social control. As limited an that approach is, you may as well just call yourselves "anti-tax activists". And just what is the anarcho-capitalist means of establishing anarchy? Voting, like Rothbard? Maybe hoping that everyone will "come to their senses" and decide it's a good idea? Sarge Baldy 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say what you are advocating, I'm happy to let you do so. I mentioned some analogies to what you have said you are advocating. Every statist and bureaucrat may, for all I know, believe himself a "pacifist at heart." And each may be as sincere as you are. But they're all willing to be "flexible," as you indicate is your case. With revolutionaries like this, conservatives seem irrelevant. --Christofurio 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess all I was trying to say is that in the absence of a working anarchist approach it may be necessary to consider others. Better to adopt a nonanarchist means towards an anarchist ends than be successful in the reverse. Even if a miserable failure, at some point there's just nothing left to be lost in trying. As the old adage goes, desperate times call for desperate measures. Sarge Baldy 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Classical liberals think the same way --a minimal state that is a "necessary evil" in order to allow an environment that approximates anarchy --it taxes only as much as is necessary to fund the protection of individual liberty. "That government is best that governs the least." -Thomas Jefferson A state is a "non-anarchist means" but it's minimized. RJII 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, except not quite. Since they're not interested in an anarchist ends. (And for me, that "nonanarchist means" would have to be in the direction of deconstruction rather than construction, since the latter only feeds itself.) Sarge Baldy 04:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I have to read "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" tomorrow as part of an assignment for my anthro class. Here is a link to it in case you want to read it [30]. The Ungovernable Force 04:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Biiiiiig dilemma... What you've described is the Dodo, or the Moa ... fine, and absolutely perfect for its environment ... until someone bigger and smarter, with a different set of values, arrives. You can't provide for a community where there are conflicting values. HUGE problem. And your vague and somewhat euphemistic "non anarchist means of accomplishing an anarchist solution" - "anarchist solution" in particular has an extremely unpleasant ring to it - must involve the inculturation of everyone in the community with the same set of values (and surpirse surprise ... they're YOUR values!). Also, did you not say "elder" of the tribe... sounds like some form of social hierarchy, no? ElectricRay 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course that's not what I meant. The culture stems from the environment itself. The values extend from the environment itself. I nor anyone wouldn't need to define them. They're common sense. As Carol Lee Sanchez said about the indigenous Americans, the groups “prospered more often than not when they "walked in harmony" with each other and their environment”. And as I think I clearly implied, I meant solution to the exterior forces that will try to exploit the group. Surely there is a threat that some group might decide to develop, conquer nature, and exploit its neighbors. But that may take hundreds of thousands of years. The group model itself is historically the most self-sustainable form ever developed, so even though there's a risk of being destroyed, evidence suggests it's at the lowest level of any models yet attempted. I'm not quite sure of the role of the elder in Native American societies, but I believe it involves passing wisdom from one generation to the next. It's unlikely that they self-identify as elders, and more likely that this is a term of endearment used by others in the tribe. I would hardly describe them as having any hierarchical superiority. The Chehalis themselves live in the United States, and not surprisingly were forced to construct their own government, which was established in 1939. So I refer more to those cultural elements of the tribe that remain than the society as it exists today. Sarge Baldy 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If a given value system happens not to be shared by nearly everyone, "It's common sense" is not the most credible thing you could possibly say of it. —Tamfang 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
But that's just the point. It would be shared, not by nearly everyone, but everyone. In the groups I'm describing it is common sense. Common sense because people come to learn that a harmonious relationship with nature works in the best interests of everyone. Rather than trying to reconstruct the environment to serves their interests, they find it more effective, stable, and sustainable to build their own way of life around the environment itself. Sarge Baldy 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See if you feel the same way in 15 years, Sarge. I hung out with a lot of wild-eyed political idealists when I was at university - they're mostly running their own businesses now, 15-20 years later. Conversely, I don't know too many MBA students who are now living in communes. For what it's worth, I think the fallacy you're falling into is directly analogous to the "group selection" one - that people somehow act on the basis of what they perceive to be the best for their group as a whole. It appears that way, but no adaptation that didn't have a predominant personal benefit for the adapter would survive the evolutionary process. This "tyranny of the selfish gene", as Richard Dawkins puts it, and it's a trait we share with animals, trees and microbes. I recommend Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) and Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea; Breaking the Spell) - note that neither of these authors is even remotely capitalistic in outlook (Dawkins in particular is famously a fairly wet Lib Dem), but what they have to say has a direct bearing on any political philosophy which assumes people will see the common sense in acting in the best interests of everyone else over their own interests. Also - and I know he's anathema to you lot, but still: a lot earlier than Proudhon et al, Adam Smith had this to say, and this remains (with Darwin's dangerous idea) one of the cleverest observations in modern philosophy:

by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it. ElectricRay 23:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the cited FAQ page is amazingly weak. We've covered this many times before - just look up "dildo" in the Talk archives. Why dildo? Because the main argument on that FAQ page is: [b]A dildo is whatever traditionally has been considered a dildo.[/b] IOW it uses a totally illegitimate "definition." A good definition needs to have a genus and a differentia. A circular appeal to past usage doesn't hack it. We even used to have a template for this:

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)]
It's true. Nobody knows anarchism like those feisty radicals at Merriam-Webster, Inc. Don't be fooled by actual events or real political platforms. Anarchism isn't what anarchists make it; it's what dictionaries make it. Or it would be, if the rest of the world used Wikipedia rules. Thanks goodness that's not the case. Libertatia 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's best to ignore Hogeye, he appears to be stuck in the middle ages — and I don't know if that is better or worse than the head/ass thing. - FrancisTyers 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Libertatia> "It strikes me that the an-cap vision being presented here makes the freedom of the market primary, and the freedom of individuals secondary." No, you have it backwards. Freedom of individuals is the primary; freedom of the market is simply the application of freedom of individuals with respect to production and trade. Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the assumption that's at work in RJII's remarks to me, which is what I was talking about. Libertatia 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia> "Anarchism has never been whatever remains in the absence of the state" Right. Anarchism is the philosophy with the goal absense of State. Of course, anarchists can have other values, too. E.g. We have various additional values which we want in addition to no state. But statelessness is the primary and defining value of anarchism. Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain that that last statement is defensible, but, then, I don't think dictionaries are the ultimate source of meaning. People make meanings, and anarchists have made the meaning of anarchism. Libertatia 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia> "No capitalist I know of espouses capitalism on a moral basis ..." ??? Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, hell, just about every anarcho-capitalist I know bases it on the NAP (non-aggression principle) except Friedman and Narveson.

  • Firstly, I should be clear you're quoting me, ElectricRay and not Libertatia. Seeing as we're pretty much on opposite sides of the fence (I'm broadly in favour of laissez-faire; From what I can divine Libertatia isn't (apologies if I'm wrong about that)) we should make that point. And I suppose you're right in citing those authors, but in each case their fatal flaw is precisely their attempt to give capitalism, or anarchy, a moral basis. I was stunned when I read both Nozick and Rothbard appealing to some form of natural rights as the foundation for their beliefs. That takes out their middle stump, first delivery, and I can't see how anything they say from then on in can be taken seriously. ElectricRay 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a mutualist, firmly in the tradition of Proudhon and Greene, and committed to equity as well as free markets on a pragmatic basis. Like many of the traditional individualists, I'm not convinced that laissez faire is enough to bring about liberty. That puts us on different sides of a fence or two, but not all of the important ones by any means. Libertatia 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia> "... on the basis it "knows" what is best for everyone." Right. We generally abhor utilitarianism, but of course that is not the only moral basis. We tend to prefer Natural Law rather than utilitarian moral justifications.

  • Again, that was me, not Libertatia. Speak for yourself, old boy - I'm with Bentham insofar as I fully agree Natural Law is nonsense on stilts (well, it is, isn't it... how can anyone seriously contest this?), but don't go as far as to impute any moral basis for societal organisation at all, so certainly don't go as far as utilitarianism. The need for some moral basis is what blights any attempt at governance, be it conservative, marxist, anarcho syndicalist or anarcho-capitalist. If your theory relies on any moral ought, you're sunk. ElectricRay 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia> "Capitalism, like evolution, is nothing more than a blind algorithmic process, which tends to have a certain effect in terms of efficient allocation of resources. It is entirely agnostic, of itself, to "what's best for the society", or even whether there is a society..." Right on. We see society more as an ecosystem with emergent order, as opposed to the statist view of society as a machine to be fixed by some imposed planned order.

Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it gives any village idiot the ability to create a yellow box and put the dumbest arguments into it. It's common for people who are ignorant about anarchism and who want it to mean something they make up to cite some dictionary definition of anarchism to justify their new take on the idea. The fact is that anarchism is much more than a dictionary definition. It describes a global movement of millions of people with a history that goes back over a century. There is a significant body of anarchist works which explain the ideas of anarchism. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, which is a logical extension of the anarchist hostility to the state. While it may be possible to have trade or a "free market" without the state, capitalism requires the state in order to exist. Chuck0 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would capitalism require the state to exist? (Given the common modern definition of captalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market" -Merriam Webster unabridged) RJII 03:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

too quick the click

I meant singular, of course. —Tamfang 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The word 'radical'

I'm trying to fix links that go to the disambiguation page Radical. I cannot find a suitable article to redirect 'radicals' to from here. In anarchism, 'radical' usually means other anarchists, right? The nearest to this is probably Far-left. All there is on radicalism is Radicalism (historical). If I've not missed it, is there any point in starting a new page about radical activism in the anarchist sense, in opposition to liberalism and conservatism? Any suggestions appreciated. --Cedderstk 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Radical just means extreme, doesn't it? one could as easily be a radical capitalist, as a radical socialist. ElectricRay 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggesting changing the links to Extremism? I don't think that captures it. The traditional usage in Europe was 'someone supporting thoroughgoing but constitutional reform', and was solely applied to the liberal left. It then came to be distinguished from liberalism. I'd never heard the usage of the word applied to a right-winger until late Thatcher, and it seemed oxymoronic then to most people and hasn't caught on here; maybe it was the influence of the American meaning. And one might not think it possible to be a radical (in the sense of fundamentalist) capitalist in an already capitalist nation. BTW I for one do see 'anarcho-capitalism' as a contradiction, since enforcing property rights, issuing and maintaining a medium of exchange etc. require and are the raison d'être of the post-feudal State. IMO There can be state without capital, but not vice versa. --Cedderstk 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (signature added by Tamfang because Cedders's two paragraphs got separated)
True. Private control over resources cannot exist without police protection. Coercion must be used to support the system. --88.152.120.125 11:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure they can. Police protection isn't especially effective: I exercise private control by looking after my stuff; locking my house, having an alarm system, having insurance etc. These de facto private controls are all far more important and effective than "police protection". (If they weren't - if police protection really worked, then why would we go to the trouble - and expense - of installing alarms, locks, and buying insurance at all?) As for there being no capital without state - I can only surmise you have a cartoonish, straw man version of capitalism in mind. Rather than defining what anarchism is or isn't, I think some of you lot need to go on a crash course on what capitalism is. ElectricRay 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
But that isn't enough. People need water, food, electricity, a shelter/apartment etc. All this is provided by government operations or social security. --88.152.120.125 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The last time I looked, none of my food, my water, my electricity, my shelter, or my appartment (house, actually) was provided by social security. The same is true for most people. A capitalist society could function perfectly well with out one. ElectricRay 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No one is powerful enough to provide for everything he needs by himself. Therefore there is a division of labor and people exchange products. Of course, there is always a need for a government or a social contract to enforce this division. --88.152.120.125 16:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the need for a contract, for sure. Millions of the little blighters, each of them different, each between different members of the community. But an over-arching social contract, to which everyone is a party on exactly the same terms? Nonsense - to believe that is to lack imagination - no, it's to lack vision altogether. In fact, the folly of that belief is all around us, plain to see: we know that a state isn't a social contract and in the real world, people ignore it to the extent they can get away with it (which rational people don't do to contracts voluntarily entered): they speed, run red lights, don't declare electric goods at customs, buy and sell pirated DVDs, smoke drugs, game social security systems, and in countless other ways thumb their noses at The Man: in short, all the people all the time disobey all the rules they can get away with disobeying. The State tries, but can't stop this activity altogether. This activity is a facet of free market capitalism. It is what people do when you leave them do get on and do it. The state gets in the way, but only because it can. It's a bully; it has de facto dominance. I can't see how this can be self-contradictory, and I can't see how any anarcho-socialism could do anything but, in short order, to collapse into this state anyway (or collapse into totalitarianism). You all can go out hugging trees and living with the Kalahari bushmen - capitalism won't stop you ... but it might say, hey I'll give you a million bucks for your land. And you might not be tempted, but some of your pals at the anarcho-syndicalist commune might be ... and how, without resorting to coercion, are you going to stop them? ElectricRay 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
For many people, I suspect most of the world's population, water and electricity are state monopolies. (In most places where I've lived, they are "private" regulatory monopolies.) Of course this does not prove that such a monopoly is necessary, any more than a state monopoly in religion. — Does anyone know the source of this anecdote? Someone from Britain was invited to talk about free markets in another country, and afterward was puzzled when several members of the audience approached him to say, "I cannot agree with your ideas because I do not like to go barefoot." His host explained that most of the shoes in that country were made in state-owned factories. —Tamfang 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The important thing here is to distinguish between the charge of self-contradiction and the factual issue. Anarcho-capitalists seek to say, in essence, that the provision of food, water, electricity, will work out better in a world without the myth of sovereignty. The thing that distinguishes government from all other hierarchies (including hierarchies that employ violence or its threat in the ordinary course of their business -- i.e. Corleone-style protection rackets) is that government relies upon the notion of legitimacy, a myth of sovereignty ... "the state entitles us to do this." Anarcho-capitalism is the contention that this myth does more harm than good for everyone, and so results in less need-satisfaction of the sorts above listed. Is there a contradiction of terms in any effort to state that thesis? If so, someone has defined terms too narrowly, in order to stint discussion of what ought to be a factual/empirical issue. And encyclopedias ought not be in the business of stunting such inquiries. --Christofurio 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Nicely put, Christofurio. As I say, I think the big issue here is that the anti-capitalists tend to set up, as a straw man, a naive and cartoonish version of capitalism. ElectricRay 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's funny. Most of the anti-capitalists I know set up a historical account of capitalism, and are generally countered with abstractions. Now, traditional individualist anarchists also trade in the (semi-mythic) promise of a really-free market-to-come, but try to call it something different, to avoid confusion. Sheldon Richmond's recent "Capitalism vs. Capitalism" post and its follow-ups address all this nicely. Libertatia 18:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ER, for the kind words. And thank you, Libertartatia, too, for the clarification. I'm always happy to discuss historical accounts of capitalisms (notice I just used two plural words where you used two singular words -- "to avoid confusion.") But in this case I was countering the abstract claim of 88.152 and others that anarcho-capitalism is inherently contradictory with an equally abstract explanation of why it isn't. I wasn't 'countering' particulars with abstractions. I will always try to address anyone on the level of concreteness with which he addresses me. --Christofurio 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There are also articles on Revolutionary and another disambiguation page for Radicalism. Anyone else? What do you mean when you write [[radical]], and what do you expect to see when you click on it? Thanks in advance. --Cedderstk 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone mind answering my question? :) --Cedderstk 22:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You poor old thing - your question did get kind of hijacked, didn't it? You must be wondering what you did to deserve that! I don't think "radical" means "anarchist" in any particular way (to the exclusion of any other extreme form of political stance), so I'm not sure the disambiguation page needs to be directed here, in all earnestness. If someone is looking specifically for anarchism, they're not going to type in "radical" - well I wouldn't, anyway. ElectricRay 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Christofurio> "Anarcho-capitalists seek to say, in essence, that the provision of food, water, electricity, will work out better in a world without the myth of sovereignty."
While most anarcho-capitalists would make that utilitarian claim, the more fundamental contention is that the world would be more moral without "legitimate" aggression monopolies (and the myth of sovereignty which makes such monopolies possible.) Even if a world without statist aggression was not as efficient in some ways as statism, we would still favor statelessness. Hogeye 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"the more fundamental contention is that the world would be more moral without "legitimate" aggression monopolies ..." - I'd consider myself as being mostly sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism, but I'd say that's utter BS. Morality has nothing whatever to do with it. ElectricRay 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you here, ER. I don't consider myself utilitarian because I regard pleasure as an impoverished notion of goodness. I'm a value pluralist as to ends. The end is a world in which all dimensions of goodness are effectively pursued! But as to means to that end, I'm ruthlessly instrumentalist. I think generally capitalist minarchists (Randians and others) are aghast at such pragmatism, but few anarcho-caps are shocked by it. --Christofurio 23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll - Difference between anarchist schools?

There is a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism? Yes or no? There is a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism? Yes or no?

Anarchist-capitalism is a distortion in my opinion. Anarchism opposes the competitive and social darwinist environment of capitalism. It's like anarchist-fascism or national socialism which also a distortion. The fact that the anarchist movement now spans all the political spectrum is suspect to me. --88.152.120.125 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes; Yes Hogeye 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes - Anarcho-capitalism is essentially pure free-market economics writ large; anarcho-syndicalism is essentially re-branded Marxism for people who are still afraid of the communist tag. No idea what anacho-primitivism is. Cheeky, provocative question, by the way. ElectricRay 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Anarcho-syndicalism, in other words the worldview of the old "wobblies," holds that the crucial revolutionary events must take place not in a parliamentary hall but in the workplace. It differs from political communism chiefly because communists generally give "The Party" priority, regarding it as the "vanguard," and think sympathetic labor unions should follow The Party's lead. Wobblies don't give a flying f**k about The Party, and think the struggle for control of the workplace will occur in a decentralized spontaneous manner. ElectricRay has gone a bit too far in underplaying that genuine difference. Still, the answer to your question is clearly yes.
Anarcho-primitivism? That addresses ends not means, and so it is different from anarcho-syndicalism for the simple reason that it's about something different. Assuming that there is a cohesive proletariat class and that it willmake a revolution of some sort, what is the social goal of that revolution? Anarcho-syndicalism as such needn't get specific about that point at all, but advocates of it could, if they wished, also endorse anarcho-primitivism (one theme within the multi-dimensional writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau) as their end.
Interesting questions. Thanks. --Christofurio 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Primitivism is an artistic movement which looks back to early human history for inspiration. I would consider it as a form of reactionary movement. --88.152.120.125 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, an-cap is not anarchism, whereas prim and an-synd are branches of anarchist thought, which do have some major differences, but are still forms of anarchism. The Ungovernable Force 04:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A loaded question, of course. Surely they're different philosophies. That's why they typified distinctly. The question would be whether they're completely irreconcilable. And some are with some others, while many aren't. You could without too much contradiction call yourself a insurrectionary black Christian ecofeminist communist primitivist post-anarchist. And in the case of anarcho-capitalism, of course, there's a widespread argument as to whether it's even reconcilable with anarchism as a whole.. Sarge Baldy 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist schools

The point of the poll above is to find out if there is really consensus that schools of anarchism do not exist. That is the rather absurd claim of the assholes who keep deleting the AnarchismSchools chart. Of course, the real reason they don't want the chart is probably more like: 1) they want anarchism to appear to naive Wiki readers as some kind of unified doctrine, and/or 2) they want to hide/sandbag the schools they don't agree with. - Hogeye

Aren't you supposed to be blocked? Doesn't seem like a good tactic to call people "assholes" when you shouldn't even be editing anyways. The Ungovernable Force 01:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not? I'm already blocked; what possible motivation would I have not to speak my mind? Any incentive to be accomodating went out the window when assholes started frivolously reverting my edits and deleting my graphics. - Hogeye
You expect an anarchist to obey the law? RJII 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL ElectricRay 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As a good anarcho-capitalist, I will respect the property rights of the owner. If Jimbo Wales sends me a (PGP signed) email asking me not to edit his site anymore, I will respect his wishes. - Hogeye
Somebody seems to be using some kind of weird software that's putting in a whole lot of backslashes before every apostrophe or quote mark. *Dan T.* 04:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what would cause that, but I'm seeing it too. I know I didn't add those slashes myself on my post, and I doubt someone went back and did it later. Weird. Anyways, Hogeye, I suggest you consider not making personal attacks and evading blocks. You agreed (implied by creating an account) to abide by the rules of wikipedia as agreed upon by editors. I suggest you consider following those rules. The Ungovernable Force 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like hogeye's sockpuppet did it, intentionally or not. I removed the slashes. The Ungovernable Force 04:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The slashes are caused by Hogeye using a broken open proxy to evade his ban. - FrancisTyers 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"schools" image

Hey Hogeye, have you even noticed that you're using the wrong syntax for the image? An unexplained link is nearly pointless. —Tamfang 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

88.152.120.125 converted?

I'm amazed that 88.152.120.125, whose contributions usually amount to "boo capitalism," should insert a link to that a-c Bryan Caplan! —Tamfang 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism as "perpetual desideratum"

I think the sense of the sentence in the entry is that, since Proudhon understood "anarchy" as a kind of unreachable limit, and came to privilege justice over any of the things that would be balanced to achieve it, he is "more distant" in the later writings, where this is clear, than he is in the writings where he will boldly say, "I am an anarchist!" Since all of Proudhon's work was written before "anarchism" really existed as a movement, there's a bit of anarchronism here, but the phrase is at least intelligible and not particularly inaccurate. I'm not sure the dispute tag is necessary. Libertatia 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why we need a secondary source. RJII 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. What are you disputing, exactly? Libertatia 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm disputing this: "By then Proudhon had distanced himself from anarchism, arguing in The Principle of Federation (1863) that anarchy was to remain a perpetual desideratum." Disputing the source provided indicates that he distanced himself from anarchism. RJII 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no basis for this objection. In The Principle of Federation, Proudhon concedes that anarchy is an unrealizable ideal (i.e. a "perpetual desideratum"). Consequently, as footnote 16 already indicates, in that same work he advocated a confederation of "sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees." That's a direct quote, not a paraphrase. I think it's fair to say that someone who regards anarchy as an unrealizable ideal and who advocates a confederation of sovereign states has clearly distanced himself from anarchism. If you want a secondary source tracing Proudhon's political evolution in this regard, you can read Robert Graham's introduction to the 1989 Pluto Press edition of Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, now posted on the Anarchy Archives website (under "Proudhon Commentary"). Proudhon began to distance himself from anarchism (i.e. a doctrine that espouses anarchy as an ideal) as early as 1852, when he called upon the new dictator, Napoleon III, to continue the work of the 1848 French Revolution in his book, The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d’Etat of the Second of December (extensive selections from The Social Revolution are reproduced in December 2, 1851: Contemporary Writings on the Coup d’Etat of Louis Napoleon, ed. John B. Halsted (New York: Anchor Books, 1972), pp. 236-310). In his 1857 work, De la Justice dans La Revolution et dans l'Eglise, Proudhon wrote what he described as a "decisive concession" in his lengthy section on the state: as history has proven witness, anarchy "has no more reason for being in human society than disorder in the universe" (Proudhon, Oeuvres, nouvelle édition, vol. 8 (Paris: Rivière, 1930), vol. ii, p. 160). If you read Stewart Edwards' Selected Writings of Proudhon, you will see that by the 1860s Proudhon no longer identified himself as an anarchist, recognizing that his theory of federation was based on the continued existence of sovereign states. Robgraham 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that believing complete anarchy is not possible precludes one from being an anarchist. One can be a philosophical anarchist who sees anarchy as an unrealizable ideal, but something that should be a "perpetual desideratum." Proudhon even explains in Theory of Property, I think it is, what he meant by anarchy earlier when he talked about it earlier. RJII 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on the Proudhon Commentary, by the way. Since it's been published we can cite it. RJII 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you're not disputing the accuracy of the citations or the above comments regarding Proudhon's theory of federalism being based on the continued existence of sovereign states, then I think you should remove your "disputed" tag. Some people would go further than the current statement and say that Proudhon had completely abandoned anarchism, not simply distanced himself from it. Liberals, some conservatives, and some Marxists (i.e. those who have given up on anarchy as an achievable goal) would all agree that some kind of anarchy would be an ideal situation. What distinguishes them from anarchists is precisely their view that anarchy is a utopian and unrealizable ideal. To describe them as anarchists would deprive the term of any meaningful descriptive content. Robgraham 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edwards actually claims that the federation of "states" Proudhon advocates in the later works differs very little from the program proposed in General Idea of the Revolution. He follows the common social anarchist line that anarchism proper came with Bakunin and his generation, with Proudhon merely an important precursor. A mutualist reading is that Proudhon varied more in his rhetoric, and in the audiences to which he addressed various writings, than he did in his goals. He pursued grass-roots as well as state-sponsored solutions at various points in his career, beginning with his attempts to first form the Bank of the People as a national bank. As we're presenting the history now, Proudhon is both founder and first defector from the tradition, although the specifically anarchist tradition hardly existed before Proudhon's death. It would be nice to avoid anachronism. Libertatia 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a discussion on the "anarch"

I noticed that there is a definitive discussion on the qualities of the "anarch" missing in this discussion of anarchy. I would like to define the anarch as "that which is the determining drive inherent within the individual." Can anybody come up with a better definition of the anarch than that? I'll wait a few days to change it.

Fight Back! 

jedi

I thought the anarch was simply the absense of an arch. --Christofurio 00:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The abscence of an arch, is a good way of explaining it, but it isn't the whole explanation of it. The internalized ideological and social constructions of the capitalist state is the "arch", and the negation of this is the "an" + "arch". As the internalized state is negated, the natural potential within man comes forth. In other words, without the inhibition of the internalized capitalist state, the full potential of an indivdual can be met, and since the internalized social control of the state is that which inhibits social development, then the "anarch" is the "determining drive inherent within the individual." Maybe I should add the term "uninhibited" to the definition of the anarch, thus making it "that which is the uninhibited determining drive inherent within the individual."

Fight Back! Jedi

Unless you can find an original or scholarly source that would show that the concept of the "anarch" as you define it has even been expressed or used by someone (other than yourself) expressing anarchist views, I don't see why this definition should be added.18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it was either Kropotkin or Malatesta that used the term anarch as such. It just requires me finding the passage. I'm sure it exists, since I did have to read it somewhere, so I'll wait until I find it to make the edits. Should I put the source in the article itself, or should I just quote it here? I don't want to clutter an already exhaustive article.

Jedi

Okay, I'm back. I found the anarch in, of all places, wikipedia!

"The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist..." Ernst Jünger. So, based upon this assertation of Junger, I simplified it to be the determining drive inherent within the individual, because the monarch is the determining drive of the state. Now, before I get jumped on, I'm not saying that the monarch was the ONLY determining drive of the feudal state, as there was class struggle there as well. But, the anarch is the determining drive of the individual. This concept would fit with the concept of the individual struggling against society inherent in anarchism.

Good enough?

Jedi

I'd love to see a reference to 'anarchs' in Kropotkin, Malatesta or anyone but Junger for that matter. And Junger was, on the most generous possible interpretation, at best tangential to anarchism and barely relevant. Or more simply - a raving fascist with no connection to the anarchist movement whatsoever.Bengalski 23:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya bro, but check it. I would prefer to use a fascist source such as Junger due to the fact that anarchy does NOT need to prove itself since it exists naturally in the social order, world around us, and is the basis of the organic universe within which we all dwell. Those who attempted to use and abuse the inherent truth of anarchy, in many ways only validated its essence as truth. I think that Junger's quote is quite succinct.

Having said that, I do understand your apprehension of using an outright fascist source to verify such an integral aspect of anarchist theory as the anarch. Makhno advanced the idea of the individual aspect of anarchism in much of his polemical defence of the platform. The whole argumentation of anarchism provides a great synthesis of much of the streams of anarchist thought coalescing during the movements height. So, what I'll do is use the quote, give the explanation, and then verify the quote with Makhno. Is that cool?

Fight Back!

Jedi

Makhno never used the concept of the "anarch", nor did any other anarchist. They called themselves "anarchists" and did not postulate some kind of superanarchist archetype. You can't verify a quote from a one time Nazi sympathizer by citing something by Makhno which in no way relates to Junger's statement. The concept of the "anarch" simply has no currency in the history of anarchist thought.


I commend those who are participating in this discussion on anarchy for their anarchist principles. Let's analyze your assertation using anarchist principles. I will synthesize the "superarnarchist" idea you are putting forward, and say that the "anarch" isn't the super of, but the essence of anarchy.

Makhno said that anarchy is inherent in people today, and that only (libertarian) communism can bring it out. Malatesta and Kropotkin both said that anarchy exists within the people but that the state inhibits it. All of these said numerous times that anarchy does not need experts, a rational, nor method of analysis since it exists naturaly and only needs to be brought out by directly attacking the state.

A person who is outside of the anarchist thinking and objectivelly states that "anarch is to the anarchist what the monarch is to the monarchist" is making an objective statement as to what the primacy of anarchy is. Anarchy would be a society wholly dedicated to unleashing the latent drive and potential of each anarchists anarch. The sovereign individual will only create a community that has everybody as soveriegn individuals.

How about this for an addition? I'll clean up the language a bit first, but this is the essence of what I propose for an addition.

"Ernst Jünger, a one time Nazi sympathizer remarked that the "The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist..." meaning the determining drive inherent within the individual. Further advanced by Nestor Makhno when he said that "It is on the basis of the will of the individual that the libertarian [anarchist] teaching can be embodied in real life and clear a path that will help man to banish all spirit of submission from his bosom...could only be, for him, a means through which to achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst continuing to develop. " So, in effect, the goal of anarchists was and will be the emancipation of the anarch through the principles, struggle, and eventual creation of anarchy.

I believe that this paragraph should encompass the various streams of anarchist thought, and should easily fit into the introduction.

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/ourtimes.htm for the source material

Fight Back! Jedi

I don't see Makhno using the word 'anarch', or even what you interpret to be the concept of 'anarch'. For Makhno, and other anarchists, anarchy will liberate human beings from 'submission', and enable us to 'blossom' into more fulfilled, free people. Many anarchist thinkers say similar things. (In fact you can find these 'human development' ideas not only in anarchism but throughout socialist thinking. Even Marx famously in his early writings where 'human emancipation' and escape from 'alienation' are key themes.)
The point for me is that, like Makhno in your quote, these thinkers simply talk about 'man' or (more PC now) 'human beings'. This self-realisation through freedom is something that all of us can experience, it is an essential part of our human nature. (Thus characterisation of much socialist thinking on these lines as 'humanism'.) We do not then need to talk about a special new type of being - 'anarch', 'ubermensch', whatever. The 'sovereign individual' to be emancipated is simply human, no more no less. Read Proudhon, Kropotkin, Makhno, Goldman, whoever and I think you will see this is how they think - there are no anarchs, just people.
I haven't read much Juenger but my suspicion is he means by 'anarch' something very different. My initial reading of the quote is very different from yours. For me it reads as anti-anarchism. The quote is contrasting, not identifying, the anarch and the anarchist. Another quote is: "The Anarchist is an idealist; but the Anarch, on the contrary, is a pragmatist."http://www.fluxeuropa.com/juenger-anarch.htm
What is the role of the 'monarch' in 'monarchism'? One monarch, millions of slaves. Juenger wouldn't want to be the dupe monarchist, one of the 'herd' of the slaves - he would hope to be the sovereign individual at the top. I think the big difference between Juenger and anarchism is that he is comfortable with elitism. He wants to be a sovereign individual, but I don't think he cares much if the rest of us are slaves. He is influenced by Stirner, but there is also much of Nietzsche's disdain for the common herd who will never understand the anarch/superman, much less get to be one. With his concept of the anarch he is distancing himself from the 'idealist' anarchist idea that all humans, not just the few, can be emancipated.Bengalski 12:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I am so happy that you pointed out a serious potenial misreading of the concept of the "anarch" to be a person that replaces an anarchist. I thought I made it explicitly clear that the anarch is not a person, thing, or station, but the "inherent potential living within all of us." Malatesta reffered to the "spirit of revolt", but this requires anarchists to fire up through struggle against the state. The monarch is an exterior, hiearchical, state of coercive control embodied in a cult of personality. The anarch is the uninhibited driving desire within a human being. It is implied by the term "id" within Freudian psychology, but only if we interpret "ego" and "superego" to be internalized conscious aspects of the social state.

So, a state of anarchy, I hate using this term to conceptualize anarchy, would be based on the internal drive, the "anarch" being primary to the motivation of all to meet the needs of all. whereas, a state of hiearchy requires an executive to carry out the aspirations of the ruling class to meet the needs of the ruling class.

I should abstain from using "sovereign individual" since it implies bourgeois individualism -- the ideal that you are your own god and all should bow to your will. I meant it in purely anarchist terms as someone who has seized control of their conscious and is able to percieve the state in all its forms and desires to struggle against it.

Does this discussion clear up what I mean by anarch?

Fight Back

Jedi

These are interesting ideas, Jedi. However - just for the limited purpose of writing this wikipedia - what you personally mean by 'anarch' isn't the issue. As far as I can see the term isn't an anarchist one; on the contrary it comes from Juenger, a fascist; in fact he explicitly opposes it to anarchism; and I think he gives it a quite different meaning in his writings than you do. If you want to re-define the word and appropriate it for anarchism that could be an interesting project (though for reasons I gave above, I'm not sure I agree with you), but wikipedia - with its rule against 'original research' - isn't the place to do it.Bengalski 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nestor Makhno is missing from Anarchist Communism

I'm going to put in a few paragraphs from "The Platform" on anarchist communism. I find that it is completely divorced from this vital aspect of Anarchism.

Fight Back! Jedi

All that is necessary in the "Anarchism" page would be a short reference to Makhno. If you want to add a few paragraphs on Makhno, the Platform, and their relationship to anarchist communism, then you should add that to the "Anarchist Communism" page. 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


How about a short reference to both Makhno, the makhnovschina, and the platform. I would suggest using that here since it did illustrate a form of anarchy in action, and was a document based upon that experience. After I type it, I'm sure that you'll guys will make sure that it's unbiased, but I fully believe that it is integral to understanding anarchy as a whole.

There are already two paras on Makhno and the platform in the russian revolution section.Bengalski 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Length creeping up again

Is it time to trim the intro again? Putney debates, Polish nationalists ... really needed in the intro? Also the Proudhon section.Bengalski 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It does seem overly fat. Much of the historical information should probably be moved to the Origins section. Sarge Baldy 23:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some more cuts to the intro:

I changed:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, mutual aid, and self-governance, and the concept of balanced reciprocity.

To:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, mutual aid, and self-governance.

I thought the first version had unnecessary repetition (we also have 'coercive structures' in the sentence above). I cut 'balanced reciprocity' because I don't think it's a concept used by many anarchist writers. All this about 'voluntary association', 'mutual aid', and 'self-governance' is a bit vague and abstract, but at least these three are common themes in the history of anarchist thought: you could find them or synonyms in anyone from Proudhon to today. Balanced reciprocity I think is rather less central.

In the last para I cut the quote: "total communism to zealous individualism. In between are found sundry recipes, from anarcho-syndicalism to anarcho-capitalism."[3] Everyone who has ever edited this page knows that the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism is controversial. I am not saying the article should deny that a-c is a form of anarchism. But given that so many dispute it, we shouldn't have it featured in the intro. Also, the quote really didn't add anything substantial.

I'm still concerned about the Cromwell etc. quotes - these reference 'anarchy' not 'anarchism'.Bengalski 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Yeah, I think that balanced reciprocity probably is something most anarchists would support, but it isn't really an anarchist concept. I learned about it in cultural anthropology, not from anarchist writing, so I think that could stand removal. The Ungovernable Force 18:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with removing the source for anarcho-capitalism being anarchism, is that these sourced get dwindled down and eventually the entire anarcho-capitalism section is removed under the claim from anti-private property types that it's not a form of anarchism --when numerous secondary sources from scholars exist that do regard it as a form of anarchism. I think the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is a minority position among scholars. You have to look hard to find books claiming that it is not anarchim, whereas it's pretty easy to go to the library and find books taking it for granted that it's a form of anarchism. RJII 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're afraid of all the sources being removed, put in somewhere in the reference or ancap section. I agree with Bengalski that it shouldn't be in the intro, at least not without mentioning that it is highly disputed, but then that's just making the length an issue again. As for you're comment on libraries, I've noticed that most books I've looked at on anarchism at libraries (including encyclopedias) present an-cap as either seperate, very unimportant or don't mention it at all. The Ungovernable Force 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wielkopolska Uprising piece restored

I feel the removal of the piece about the Wielkopolska Uprising was a little presumptory. It clear links up with Bakunin subsequently becoming such an ardent anarchist. Of course once one has a grasp of Bakunin's pan-slavism, it is easier to see how Aryan Anarchism could arise.Harrypotter 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon essay

Here\'s an essay from Spunk Library by L. Gambone: Proudhon and Anarchism. Gambone takes the opposite viewpoint from RobGraham - that Proudhon was consistent in his anarchism and never wavered from anarchism. (Although he did change his terminology.) After reading both RobGraham and Gambone, I agree with the latter.

One point of contention is in the interpretation of \"perpetual desideradum.\" Literally, it means \'\'permanent primary goal\'\'. If someone asserts that their primary goal is anarchism, it is rather absurd to claim they\'re rejecting anarchism. Yet RobGraham does just this. Gambone emphasizes that Proudhon was \'\'anti-utopian\'\' - he wanted a practical anarchism. Thus Proudhon wrote about transition programs rather than what things might be like if the State magically disappeared. Contrary to RobGraham, an anarchist can talk about transition programs without losing his anarchist credentials.

RobGraham gives a partial contextless Proudhon quote when Rob writes: \"he advocated a confederation of \'sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees.\'\" The question here is whether Proudhon was writing about the anarchist ideal, or about a practical transition program. While Rob tries to spin it as a final goal, it\'s pretty clear to me that Proudhon is talking about a transition program. Why else would he emphasize that it is not the ultimate goal (\"perpetual desideradum\") but merely a program for the real world.

Unfortunately, I don\'t have a copy of \'\'Principle of Federation\'\', so I cannot judge for myself first-hand. (If someone has a copy, would you scan it in, OCR it, and put it on the web, please? Or send it to me and I\'ll put it on my site.) But my present take is that Proudhon was writing about a transition program, and being anti-utopian, recognized the fact that States exist and will continue to exist for some time. So if I ever get unblocked, I intend to delete the claim that Proudhon abandoned or distanced himself from anarchism.

Another claim made by Rob that I would contest is that federalism is (somehow) contrary to anarchism. Most Proudhon fans would say the opposite, that Proudhon\'s federalism is an essential part of his anarchism. Again, the fact that Proudhon wanted decentralization and federalism before States magically disappeared should not be construed as an endorsement of States. It is merely recognizing reality - shit happens and States exist. Get used to it, and plan accordingly.

Anyhow, I recommend the Gambone essay for those interested in Proudhon. - Hogeye

\"After reading both RobGraham and Gambone, I agree with the latter.\" Hogeye you\'re getting as bad as RJII. On what basis do you choose Gambone\'s \'Proudhon\' rather than RobGraham\'s \'Proudhon\' without reading Proudhon himself?Bengalski 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I\'ve read \"What is Property\" and even have a copy on my site here. I\'ve also read the biography by Hyams. I would like to read \"Principles of Federation\" if I can find a copy. My favorite Proudhon quote: \"Property is liberty.\" - Hogeye

A much more complete reading of Proudhon which emphasizes his consistency and development, is Robert Hoffman's Revolutionary justice; the social and political theory of P.-J. Proudhon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972). I haven't seen anything that deals as fully with the untranslated sources. Libertatia 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How anti-authoritarian to simply remove the link to my essay on Proudhon because some people disagree with it! My essay has numerous references to original sources that clearly demonstrate that Proudhon was never a consistent anarchist and that by the time he wrote The Principle of Federation and On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes he had ceased to identify himself as an anarchist and no longer advocated anarchy as a viable alternative to the state. For an assessment of Proudhon as a democratic socialist rather than an anarchist, with extensive references to the original sources, see Steven Vincent's Proudhon and The Rise of French Republican Socialism. For those of you who read French, the introduction to the Riviere edition of Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century is very instructive. For those of you who don't, try reading Richard Vernon's introduction to his translation of The Principle of Federation (University of Toronto Press, 1979).Robgraham 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Anarchism

Ok, so what's up with this new section? I've never heard of this, it seems way to obscure to be mentioned in this article, especially considering that we are trying to find ways to decrease article lenghth. I mean, I thought we were compromising enough just to have an-cap in here, but what is up with this? Am I just missing something? I'm going to delete this section within 24 hours if there is no objection here. The Ungovernable Force 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You had better "compromise" to allow anarcho-capitalism in the article. Many mainstream sources exist that regard it as anarchism. Don't act like your doing anyone a favor by allowing it in. You must allow it in the article. RJII 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should move it to Aryan Society. It can be linked from List of anarchist organizations, if it is a defunct anarchist org. - N1h1l 12:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because you have never heard of something does not make it obscure? I think you are missing something. Who is this "we" that is compromising by having stuff about anarcho-capitalists which is clearly something quite different. Why bring in this completely extraneous argument. I would have thought developing the article to include a very important movement which existed outside the generally eurocentric purvey of the article would have been warmly welcomed. I find it hard to understand why The Ungovernable Force finds this problematic.Harrypotter 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see the Ghadar party wasn't an anarchist organisation at all - see manifestos and statements here [[31]] - they advocate a democratic republic. Hardayal was one of the founding members, and it looks like he associated with anarchists in the states - but on the web I can't find any references to any anarchist writings of his, or anything substantial about his involvement in anarchist movements. The two links to articles on him from his WP page don't mention anarchism. Harry if you have sources for Hayardal's anarchism, or involvement in an Indian anarchist movement, would be good to see them. I'm all for including non-european anarchist movements, but without more evidence I'm not sure that this is it.Bengalski 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One article on non-western anarchism: [[32]} Also Britannica has an article on east asian anarchism if anyone has access to that. And a reference to a book: Doctor, Adi Hormusji (1964): Anarchist thought in India, Bombay; New York: Asia Pub. House.Bengalski 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my library has that book. I've always been wanting to check it out, but I have a dozen books for classes and a swarm of journal entries to deal with, on top of a few other things I'd been looking at for fun... But certainly there are more notable examples of non-Western anarchism. For instance, we could talk about the Amakasu Incident or anarchism in China. But then we don't even discuss some of the most major Western examples of anarchism, such as the Haymarket "Riot". At this point it would appear to weight the article to include it. Sarge Baldy 00:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Adam's article on non-Western anarchisms doesn't refer to "aryan anarchism." I doubt the other references do either. I think it would be better to include a section on non-Western anarchisms rather than this obscure entry with so far unsubstantiated factual claims.

Well, I think you'll find a whole range of references (I am just listing English language publications and excluding biographies to save space):
Ghadar Heroes: A forgotten story of the Punjab Revolutionaries, Randhir Singh, Peoples Publishing House, Bombay 1945
Ghadar 1915: India's First Armed Revolution, Khushwant Singh and Satindra Singh R & K Publishing House, New Delhi 1966
The Role of the Ghadar Party in the National Movement Gurdev Singh Deol, Sterling Publishers, Delhi, 1969
Indian freedom Movement: Revolutionaries in America Kalyan Kumar Bannerjee, Jijanasa, Calcutta, 1969
Indian Revolutionary Movement in the United States of America L. P. Mathur, S. Chand & Co., Delhi 1971
Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905-1922, A. C. Bose, Bharati Bhawan, Patna, 1971
Hindustan Ghadar Party: A Short History, Sohan Singh Josh, Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977
Ghadar Revolution in America, Anil Baran Ganguli, Metropolitan Book Co., Delhi, 1980
Ghadar Movement: Ideology, Organisation and Strategy, Harish K. Puri, Guru Nanak Dev University Press, Amritsar
And as regards the remark about the website referred to, it very clearly relates to things like Bakunin's call for a United States of Europe at the congress of the League for Peace and Freedom in Geneva in 1867. Look more carefully at what they are saying: revocable delegates, or "Nobody should be compelled to act upon a particular principle and thought." And taking teh references to the Haymarket "Riot" and the Amakasu Incident, these are two incidents which could be compared to Komagata Maru, the Hindu German Conspiracy Trial, the assassination attempt on Lord Hardinge, the Lahore Conspiracy Trial, the Singapore Mutiny, 1915. Aside from these incidents, in the Punjab uprising 42 Ghadarites were sentenced to death and over 200 received long term prison sentences . . . Clearly this was a movement of certain significance, and the claim that it is in some way obscure probably reflects more the viewpoint of those who regard it as such, rather than on how it might seem in the round.
And as regards the suggestion of making a section on non western anarchism, well why not move most of this material onto a new page called Western Anarchism and have done with it!Harrypotter 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Harry, do these books say the Ghadar party was an anarchist movement? To repeat, I haven't found anything on the web that relates it to anarchism. There is not one mention of anarchism on that Ghadar manifestos website. I quote the party statement there: "The immediate object of the revolutionary party in the domain of politics is to establish a Federal Republic of the United States of India by an organized armed revolution. The final constitution of this Republic shall be framed and declared at a time when the representatives of India shall have the power to carry out their decisions. But the basic principles of this Republic shall be universal suffrage, and the abolition of all systems which make the exploitation of man by man possible;...In this Republic the electors shall have the right to recall their representatives if so desired, otherwise the democracy shall become a mockery. In this Republic, the legislature shall have the power to control the executives and replace them whenever necessity will arise."Bengalski 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Please my dear Bengalski, I do not understand why you feel repeating the same thing over again gives it any greater relevance. No-one is contesting that the web is a poor source for material on the Ghadar movement. And if you do not see the relation between the manifesto and syndicalist thought maybe you should deepen your understanding of anarcho-syndicalism and the history of the [IWW]. As you maybe aware, we are not able to place material verbatim on wikipedia, unless we have explicit copywrite permission. However on this talk page a certain amount of direct quotation is possible (taken from Ghadar Movement: Ideology, Organisation and Strategy) :
"During the summer vacation of 1912, Har Dayal was also engaged in vigorous activity, widening the circle of his radical friends among American intellectuals, writing articles and delivering a series of lectures on anarchist and syndicalist moveemnts, one of these from the prestigious platform of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) Movement (p57)
As regards his Yugantar Circular Puri further remarks that this was evidently an echo of the anarchist theory of 'propaganda by the deed' (p58)
Alongside the profession of these heterogenous democratic, syndicalist and anarchist notions, however, any sort of rule by any class of indians appeared a better arrangement than the existing subjugation to foreign rule. (p111)
Har Dayal showed a special fascination for teh Russian revolutionary movement. Addressinga luncheon gathering on the eve of launching of ghadar weekly, he dwelt largely on that movement and claimed that Indian revolutionaries had been the pupils of Russian revolutionaries. His ideals, however, were not teh eladers like Lenin or other Bolsheviks, but the anarchists (p113)
Preaching anarchism was a major charge levelled against him by the US authorities (p114) Indeed he promptly left the USA after he was released on these charges.
I think perhaps two forces are at work here making it harder for you to understand the situation:
a) The Ghadar movement carefully avoided confronting the US state and US racism as they did not want to be molested in there preparations for a revolt in India. Dressing their ideas up as being comparable to the American Revolution, notwithstanding the comments about Bakunin's United States of Europe made above. Or would you likewise seek to strip Bakunin of a place on the anarchism page?
b) There has been a tendency by leninist historians to subordinate the movement to the neccessities of Bolshevik historification (a similar phenomenon happened with Kronstadt)Harrypotter 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just seen the edit by Max rspct - "(xenophobic marxism etc - not notably anarchist sorry deletinh 'aryan anarchism' more advert for far-right)". Perhaps this person would like to explain why they have edited this out with no reference to the talk page, and the basis for their somewhat bizarre comment.Harrypotter 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not. Copy of note to Max rspct:
My dear max rspct I was wondering if you could explain your behaviour. First you remove the section on Aryan Anarchism with the comment "(xenophobic marxism etc - not notably anarchist sorry deletinh 'aryan anarchism' more advert for far-right)",. The section was restored with an addition to the section discussing Aryan Anarchism on the talk page inviting you to explain your somewhat bizarre comment. Bearing in mind Lala Hardayal's prominent position as an academic philosopher and Stanford University, involvement with the IWW and eventual departure from the USA following his arrest for his anarchist activities, your suggestion that the piece is not notably anarchist is hard to understand. This is compounded by your final quip "'aryan anarchism' more advert for far-right". Perhaps you could explain why you regard the self-organisation of migrants against repressive immigration control? For that is certainly a feature of tehir involvement with the voyage of the Komagata Maru. Is it odd that this movement, as with every other anarchist movement, throws up contradictions. I think not! Did not Peter Kropotkin throw in his lot with Tzar and encourage Russians fight Germans as a war against the state. Was not Pierre-Joseph Proudhon a patriotic anti-communist noted for his sexist attitude to women. His anti-semitism is matched by that of the pan slavic nationalist, Bakunin. Skirting around the section on American individualist anarchism for sake of brevity lets dash to the Anarcho-capitalism, the reference to "Steve Booth's work in the UK publication Green Anarchist", the whole section on (New Right) Post-left anarchy, or the puff for the insignificant academics David Graeber and Andrej Grubacic in Small 'a' anarchism. Some how all these escape your attention, and you hone in on this short piece on Aryan Anarchism. Is it too much to ask why?Harrypotter 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Sorry. i'm not a postmodernist. Just because some non-notable, non-anarchist spouted a few lines about anarchism decades ago.. doesn't mean we have a notable belief system on our hands. Stop trolling -- max rspct leave a message 12:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see whether you claim a post modernist identity or not has anything to do with it. Lala Hardayal is notable, was as much an anarchist as Proudhon and Bakunin and more than Stirner and clearly had a big impact. OK, I know the Ghadar were sometimes immoderate in their calls to kill the English and truly they suffered for it. But this is part of the history of anarchism, and if it became instumental amongst Punjabi peasants who had migrated to the Pacific Coast of Canada and the USA, I don't understand why you wish to so unreasonably dismiss it. Surely we want to move towards a more rounded understanding of the concept, rather than remain trapped within a pre-determined framework, whose lineaments are not immediately apparent.Harrypotter 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Added: Anarchism is a form of bottom-up democracy

Please do not remove this claim -- backed-up in the bottom-up democracyarticle -- without some kind of counter-argument.

Skovoroda 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the section on that other page says it contains original research, so that might be a reason. I'm not going to remove it, and I don't really care one way or another, but that is a reason to remove it if anyone wants one. The Ungovernable Force 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just say "Noam Chomsky says it's bottom-up democracy?" Preferably lower down in the article. Bacchiad 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Article too long

This article comes up as 69Kb. Ideally articles shouldn't be more than 30kb (although WP:SIZE allows exceptions, but 69kb is really pushing it). As parts of this article are well referenced, I propose removing all unreferenced claims to the talk page (or a sub page thereof) this could enable the article to even gain featured article status. Comments, ideas, objections (please don't bite my head off, I am proposing this on the talk page rather than just doing it unilaterally :)). Captainj 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about reverts

Posted on User: Harrypotter's talk page by User:Captainj: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Also, if I may make a suggestion? The term Aryan Anarchism does seem non-notable, but perhaps some of the content you added may be notable. Is there no where else you can put this content such as a new article (but please avoid the word "anarchism" in the title). The anarchy page is too long, and adding content which has at best a very tenous link to anarchism isn't helpful. Captainj 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Posted on User:Captainj's talk page by User: Harrypotter: Thank you for taking the trouble to remind me of the three-revert rule. However I find some of the remarks you made on my talk page less than appropriate, and wonder why you chose to make them. You state that the term Aryan Anarchism "does seem non-notable" and even remark that there was no citation on the Anarchism page, when the information was sourced to a book published by the Guru Nanak Dev University Press. You further talk about putting the material on another page, which would indicate that you have chosen to involve yourself in this debate in a somewhat officious manner without looking at the substantial work which has gone into the pages on Ghadar Party, Lala Hardayal, Komagata Maru, Hindu German Conspiracy Trial, Shyamji Krishnavarma, Bhai Parmanand by myself and others. No doubt you are a very busy person, but if you could find a few moments to consider the discussions on these pages before butting in, perhaps you might care to alter your view. Why do you suggest that we should use avoid use of the term anarchism in describing a phenomenon which very clearly is a variant of anarchism. How can this word be avoided, when it is so clearly necessary? No concensus has been reached upon the talk page. What had become clear was that many people have displayed their ignorance on the topic, and even become quite abusive. Indeed I don't know what to make of you remark that "adding content which has at best a very tenous link to anarchism isn't helpful" when clearly the link is very important, even if it makes some "anarchists" feel uncomfortable. Yes it is true that the Ghadar Party did have what could be called an anti-English, or even anti-White attitude, and maybe that is what some English or White anarchists feel uncomfortable about. But perhaps they need to reassess their stand point rather than mobilising an array of forces to prevent the anarchism page from truly reflecting the impact of anarchism amongst Punjabi immigrants to the Pacific Coast of Canada and the USA. Harrypotter 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Posted on User: Harrypotter's talk page by User:Captainj Thank you for your post. I had been assuming good faith, and am still trying, but you are beginning to appear to me as if you might be POV pushing. This article is about Anarchism. It isn't about Ghadar Party, Lala Hardayal, Komagata Maru, Hindu German Conspiracy Trial, Shyamji Krishnavarma, Bhai Parmanand. I have no interest in these articles (though if I get a chance I may well check they are NPOV now). Since Wikipedia is does not self-reference, it would be most helpful to focus on Anarchism, where incidentally I had already posted comments on the talk page under another section - so I did not involve myself officiously. If you are interested in Anarchy it would be helpful to read the other recent comments on the talk page, and not just focus on one part. Any further content, unless it is amazing and fantastic, to the Anarchism page is unhelpful since it is far too long already (see WP:SIZE). The page is 69Kb long, when no more than 30kb is recommended (as I already posted on the talk page). I am really not interested in discussing this further here. The most appropriate place is the talk page. If people haven't been civil to you then report them for violating WP:CIVIL (and you certainly seem more civil than them). I am cross posting this to my my talk page and the Anarchism talk page. Please reply at Anarchism talk if you want to talk about the article, revisions etc. Thanks Captainj 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


This maybe replying to two discussions in one but I hope it makes sense. (Harry, honestly I take your points very seriously and I agree with much of your general approach):

My impression from what I've seen so far (and not having access to the books either on the Ghadar party or on Indian anarchism, I admit I don't have much to go on): Hardayal was involved in anarchist movements in the USA, he was a leading figure in the Ghadar Party and there's every reason to believe that anarchist ideas will have influenced his contribution there. This would be interesting for the article on the GP, and maybe a wider discussion of anarchist influences on other political movements.

However, I don't see anything to say that the GP itself was an anarchist movement. It being anti-white or anti-english isn't the issue. None of your sources Harry say that it "very clearly is a variant of anarchism".

On the particular quotes you provided:

1) as we have discussed before, the IWW itself wasn't a purely anarchist movement. Also, as above, H's anarchist involvement doesn't necessarily translate into GP being an anarchist movement.

2) as also has been discussed before, propaganda of the deed is not a uniquely anarchist concept.

3) 'heterogenous democratic, syndicalist and anarchist notions' - indeed, maybe a movement influenced by anarchism ...

4, 5) again, I'm not questioning that H at least at one point was involved with anarchism. this is some way from being 'as much an anarchist as Proudhon and Bakunin' - anyone can point to texts by P and B that are cornerstones of anarchist theory and major influences on all subsequent anarchists - though maybe you've got a point about Stirner. My view is Stirner wasn't an anarchist, but he needs mentioning for the influence he had on anarchists.

On your two forces a and b these are both good points.

Still, without more evidence I'd peg the Ghadar Party as a movement with anarchist influences (at least from one founder - I don't know about the other leaders), but not itself explicitly advocating anarchism, and with many of its central tenets (eg. universal suffrage) very non-anarchist.

Which leads to CaptainJ's points - this article is already too long for us to start including 'movements partially influenced by anarchists'. Yes. We should maybe create another page (or category?) for that. Including fascist movements with anarchist influences.

I agree with Harry there is a load of other shit in this article that could be cut or moved elsewhere. The detail on amarican individualism and anarcho-capitalism shouldn't be here - but it's here because of edit warring not because of its intrinsic merits. Similarly all this US post-left and 'small a' stuff is overdone. This whole article is far too skewed to the US - even as for US versus much bigger and more notable European movements, and when we come to "non-Western" movements ...

Yes the article needs cutting, but actually there should be more on India, China, Latinamerica etc. All in all I can't really see it going much below 60K, and I don't think that's necessarily a big problem - the emphasis on the USA and anglophonia in general is a bigger issue. As I understand it the 30K idea comes from when there were browsers that couldn't handle more. I think many featured articles now are some way over, and on a topic like this I'm doubtful we'd ever get it down that low. For my browser at least I don't have a problem with the article length - though if genuinely there are people who still have technical problems with the length then yes we should make more effort. Bengalski 00:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank your for your comments. The problems with size is not technically related (even with a dialup downlowding 69Kb isn't an issue for most people). The problem is actually readablity(seeWP:SIZE), this article has accumulated a lot of cruft that needs removing. I haven't seen what you are proposing to add, so I can't comment on it, but I think what needs to be removed are the "small" or "non-notable" ideas, probably those without good references. One example might be the section on the Russian Revolution where I didn't see any refs at first glance (and I'm not convinced about it). A section that could be added is the modern effective anarchy system in Somalia (though I'd be reluctant as the article is already big). Also we could remove tangential content, such as content that is more of historical interest than political (possible to History of Anarchism article). I'm not sure about removing the anarcho-capitalist section, as it is well referenced, notable and does seem to have a strong connection to Anarchy (though perhaps, it, like many sections with other articles, could be shorter). Anyway I'm glad there's a discussion on removing stuff from the page now, even if we can only get it down to 60kb that would be a nice improvement. Captainj 09:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'd go the other way and cut out a lot of the theory. The sections on Proudhon, american individualism, communism etc. could easily be halved by taking out all detailed discussion of theoretical niceties. As it is these sections are too short to do justice to the complexity of the issues, much better just to give a few lines and refer to their own pages. I think a separate history of anarchism article would be a wrong move - you can't have an article on anarchism that doesn't explain the historical development of the movements and ideas. As for the russian revolution, I strongly disagree - this is a watershed event in anarchist history, and the section also covers the theoretical implications in terms of the debate over platformism. On Somalia I disagree even more strongly - all but a few anarcho-capitalists would find the idea of the tribal-gangsterist failed state in Somalia being an 'effective anarchy system' beyond a joke. That includes the Somali refugees I've had the pleasure to know. Though someone did tell me they had met an ex-warlord now working as a hospital porter in Switzerland who claimed to be an anarchist communist.Bengalski 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I think you completely miss the point. Clearly Lala Hardayal was an anarchist. He set up the Bakunin Institute of California. He became exposed to anarchist ideas when he was working on The Indian Sociologist, published by Shyamji Krishnavarma. The printer of this magazine was Guy Aldred, the well known anarcho-communist living in London. His view, a for runner of the views of the anacho-primitivists, is that the society of the Vedas was an anarchist society - and please bear in mind he was a sanskrit scholar - something which he was consciously promoting. Not only was he clearly an anarchist he also was obliged to relinquish his post as a college lecturer at Stanford University and was arrested for being an anarchist in 1914. The only reason he was not deported was because he had stayed a few days over the time limit for a quick deportation. However he decided to leave the USA a few days later to avoid any more harassment. So please stop suggesting that he is not an anarchist when clearly he is. As for the GP, clearly it had several trends, such as the Hindu Fundamentalism of Bhai Parmanand. However the participation of Hardayal was very important and indeed without his anarchist approach their would have been no Ghadar Movement. The disputed section focussed on Hardayal's anarchism and how effective it became with its impact on the Ghadar Movement. Also it is clear that teh actions of the Ghadarites while LH was still involved in San Francisco was directly linked to the International anarchist movement: he had particularly close relations with Russians and Poles. It is also clear that the proposal for "the abolition of all systems which make the exploitation of man by man possible" means something quite different to US Democracy and more akin ton Chomsky's suggestion that anarchism is not a protest against government, but against top-down forms of government. [The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism Noam Chomsky], interviewed by Peter Jay, The Jay Interview, July 25, 1976. As the item was not the Ghadar movement, but Aryan anarchism, which focusses precisely on Hardayal's crucial input into the Ghadar Movement, which was a critical element in the struggle for Indian Independence. I would agree completely that Hardayal's involvement with Ghadar moevement meant that he went beyond the scene of bohemian radicalism to help create a mass movement whereby 8,000 peasants went to India to start a revolution. In this respect perhaps he should be remembered alongside Nestor Makhno even though only were a third the size and were nipped in the bud by the authorities before they could deploy. I think it is important to remember that this article is about anarchism and its effect on the world rather than about anarchism's effect upon itself. No doubt the piece could be written better, and perhaps shortened (as indeed could be done to other parts of the article) or streamlined. but surely that is how we should be trying to help each other improve the article, rather than insisting something is left out because someone thinks its just some right wing advert, or because people were just ignorant about the noteworthiness of the people involved, being unfamiliar with Indian political history. As an encyclopedia article with built in interlinks, I feel it is much more important to create a resource where people can find links to where they can read in greater depth about a particular person or movement.Harrypotter 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Bengalski: I haven't had time to read all the posts, but just a quick note, when I was saying effective anarchy system, I meant a system that was effectively anarchy ("They saw Somalia’s collapse as anarchic" from [33]) (i.e. no government) rather than necessarily an effective system in itself. It's hardly and effective system as your refugee friends testify to, mainly because of the lack of social controls, although it's certainly made huge strides. Economically Somalia is very poor, but three things are surprising, the first is that the distribution of wealth is fairly even (given there are no economic controls) and the second is that the country is not nearly as poor as it was, and the third is that prices etc are very reasonable (again see this Economist Article, it's premium content but if you can't access it, email me and I might be able to help you see it).Captainj 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
An anarchy is not simply the lack of a government as anarchists use the term. The lack of a government can obviously be quite a mess. Anarchists advocate for certain models lacking rule, and practically none of these would include dominating warlords as in Somalia, which is an anarchy in the sense of anomie or in the sense of having a vacuum of social controls, but not in the sense used by actual anarchists. Sarge Baldy 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Somalia Point

Somalia is anarchic, but not an anarchy. It is anarchic because competing claimants to sovereignty and thus to governance are each trying to stake their claim. A society would become an anarchy properly speaking only if and when a sizeable majority ceased to believe in sovereignty as a premise, so no organization could plausibly claim to be the government. --Christofurio 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Max Stirner

Should he really get his own section, and so far up at that? I mean, he didn't even consider himself an anarchist. And he shows up before Bakunin!!! The American Indivualist Anarchist section already lists him as an influence on Tucker - who seems to be the only important thinker he influenced. Isn't that enough? Bacchiad 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it seems a bit odd. I would expect to see Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon first. Is it in chronological order perhaps? An argument could maybe be made for a thread on the European /1st International strand of the movement followed by one on the more Individualist side. Chaikney 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's cos it was done in chronological order. I think for two reasons - there was a broad agreement on presenting the development of ideas in their historical context; but also to cut through the endless debates with US ancap editors over which 'school' is more significant. On Stirner - you're right he wasn't an anarchist, but he did have a significant influence on individualist anarchists, not just Tucker. Eg. the French 'Stirnerite' 'terrorists' like the Bonnot gang, and even in Spain (read minister Montseny in particular).Bengalski 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Stirner had an influence on Emma Goldman as well, and she lectured on his work in her later years. Sarge Baldy 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. I added references to the Bonnot gang and Goldman to his section. Bacchiad 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Somalia?

Isn't Somalia an example of various forms of anarchy (no central government, completely free market) although it has many problems and abuses?--Exander 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Rule by warlords in the absence of a centralised state is not anarchy. --Black Butterfly 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Your empirical point, Exander, might be that efforts to create anarchy risk resulting in a Somalia-type situation. I believe that point unfounded -- scroll up a bit and you'll see why. Or I'll restate it now: the competing factions in Somalia, and in most of the other instances usually adduced for such arguments, all believe in the idea of sovereignty, a state, in principle. And their fight takes place in a context in which that idea itself is generally unquestioned. The fight is largely over control of the levers that myth creates. --Christofurio 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-caps often try to present it as a form of anarcho-capitalism, or having an-cap tendencies. I don't see why they would want to claim it though...The Ungovernable Force 05:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably for a few reasons. One is because it shows that people naturally start trading and profiting (engaging in capitalism) when there is no state around to prevent it --the state had imposed "scientific socialism" before. Also, business is doing well. School enrollment is up to levels where they were when the state provided the education. An airport with multiple competing airlines, etc. Electricity and telephone is provided privately, etc. And, that this is all happening in the midst of violent conflicts and in the one of the poorest locations in the world shows the capabilities of unregulated capitalism. There is a violence problem though. So --that's a dilemma for the anarcho-capitalists. How do you have a free market in defense providers without an overarching protector of the free market for the competing defense providers to operate in in the first place? I'm not sure if the anarcho-capitalists have an answer for that. RJII 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you an an-cap? Well, anyways, it doesn't prove that trade developes naturally, it shows trade developes naturally from the collapse of whatever situation they had before, under the conditions they had. Most of human (pre)history has shown a strong tendency towards collectivism, with the kinds of free-markets advocated caps developing very recently. There was some trade between groups, but the groups themselves often operated under shared distribution of resources and gift economies. If we had to generalize, wouldn't that suggest that free-markets are in fact against human nature? The Ungovernable Force 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never said I was an an-cap. Anyway, if it's true that some state-free societies did not trade amongst each other, did they have any significant advances in technology? If people started trading "recently" then that appears to be a natural evolution of behavior. RJII 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's something that is highly debateable. The fact is, many groups still have not developed this type of society, even though others around them may have. So to say it was a natural evolution, I wouldn't be quite so sure. I think intensive agriculture is more of a cancer, but that's just me. Read Ishmael for more on this view. The Ungovernable Force 06:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If a society stagnates in the hunter-gatherer stage, then perhaps trade is not natural. Once humanity reached a population density greater than e.g. bears, agriculture becomes necessary for survival. For higher standards of living, trade becomes both necessary and natural. - H
Er, I'm pretty confident that hunting/gathering societies have the highest standards of living. I don't know why people assume that GDP and the complexity of a society are equal to its standard of living. Also, I don't know about your idea of causality regarding population density. I'm pretty sure that you have high density because it's more efficient under agriculture, rather than developing agriculture to account for a high density. There's just no reason for a high population density without agriculture. Oh, you're Hogeye. That explains that. Sarge Baldy 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


You can't trust western mass media regarding Somalia. (Or much else, for that matter.) It may well be that people are fighting for the right to join the arbitration/legal system of their choice (Xeer, Sharia, or whatever). Note that, as in Iraq and elsewhere, the USEmpire is managing to make terrorist factions of Islam more popular by intervening militarily - military aid to the non-Muslim faction in the recent Mog fighting. - H

AaronS's claims not matching his sources

User:AaronS keeps reinserting the claim "(Anarchism) has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist, and is to this day" and cites the Encarta article as the source. [34] This article's only mentions of capitalism are: anarchism's rise during the rise of large-scale industrial capitalism; Proudhon describing an alternative to capitalism, and the mention of A/C. It does not support what he posted there. See his post on my talk page. Note that this isn't new for AaronS. In the past, he claimed that an article, clear from its title that it was a critique of anarchy, was written by an anarcho-capitalist. He also thinks "strawman" is a generic catch-all for "argument I deem to be flawed". MrVoluntarist 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say it rose with capitalism, it said it was developed as a reaction against capitalism. "Anarchism arose... in reaction to both the European bureaucratic nation state and the advent of large-scale industrial capitalism." Although to be sure, that's only a reference for anarchism being traditionally anti-capitalist and not one for it being popularly anti-capitalist, which would require a second reference. Sarge Baldy 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't specifically say it is "traditionally anti-capitalist"; just because it "reacted" to something doesn't mean it was against it. Now, it may mean that in this context, but a "here's my interpretation of this source" is not the same as a citation. Unless the source specifically claims what you say it does, ... don't claim it says that! MrVoluntarist 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think there's anything to "interpret" there. If anything it's one of the clearest citations in the whole article. A very common definition of "reaction" is "a reverse or opposing action". Reacting to something is the same thing as reacting against something. Because it explicitly ties capitalism with "the European bureaucratic nation state", it signifies that anarchists reacted similarly towards both these things. You'd have to read the sentence in a way that was grammatically illogical and nonsensible to interpret it any other way. Sarge Baldy 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverse mortgages were a reaction by banks to rising real estate prices. Does that mean banks are against high real estate prices? The point is, if you're going to claim a source says something, it needs to say that -- specifically. Not, "ah, that's what they're getting at, basically." And even if anarchism did begin as a reaction to "capitalism" (and of course, the reader's meaning of that is of course identical to the article's, right?), how does that imply that anarchism was "traditionally" anti-capitalist? If a corporation pays dividends its first year, and then doesn't pay dividends for 20 years, does that mean the corporation "traditionally pays dividends", just because they did so at the beginning. If this is the "clearest" citation ... we've got some work to do. MrVoluntarist 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Man, you sure do keep grudges for a while - whatever makes you happy! Anyway, the article leaves little to be interpreted. For the claim "has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist," we have, in the UK article: "anarchism, as a self-conscious ideology, appeared in Europe during the first half of the 19th century, the uneasy sibling of modern socialism and communism" (here is a definition of sibling for you); "freedom was based on political, economic, and social equality"; and "It was through the First International that Bakunin and others promoted a movement of socialists." From the US article: "grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century." For the claim "is to this day," we have, from the US article: "Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." I don't really think that it's open to interpretation. Thank you kindly for ceasing to revert my sourced edits. :) --AaronS 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems obvious enough that anarchism has traditionally been anti-capitalist and that many anarchists still say it has to be anti-capitalist. I don't think we need to source the most basic and obvious facts. The Ungovernable Force 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not. The past mediators agreed that such a claim would need to be well-sourced. MrVoluntarist 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the use of the word "capitalism" in anything you're citing here. Having a metaphorical sibling relationship ain't gonna cut it. Kevehs/Revkat never allowed that, and neither will I. You don't get to do your creative interpretations on these sources. And so far, your source is the UK version. Don't cite if the UK version if you really mean the US version. Please don't re-insert that bit until until you cite the source that you actually mean, not the one we're supposed to guess you mean, and make sure that says what you claim it does, not "ah, come on, that's the general idea it's sorta goin for.". My not reverting you is to obey 3RR, not because I think youre edit is acceptable. It's one of those Wikipedia rules I like to follow. Another is not to blatantly lie to others, like claim you read an article when you obviously didn't make it through the title. MrVoluntarist 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the "traditional" thing. Isn't something that's been around since at least the 1960's or 1970's (anarcho-capitalism) traditional? RJII 05:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Anarcho-capitalism might have existed since the 1970s, but it's not like it received any sort of attention until the 1990s. When you take a philosophy that's been built around an opposition to capitalism, has organized and mobilized around an opposition to capitalism for over a hundred years, staging social revolutions such as those in Spain and in the Ukraine, it's hard to look at it with any historical honestly and say it isn't traditionally anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There's always the problem with the definition of capitalism. Capitalism hasn't always referred to what it refers to today. For instance, the original individualist anarchists defined capitalism as state-backed prohibition of competition which concentrated capital in the hands of a few. So, anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism with that old definition. I don't agree that there's anything traditional at all about anarchism. It's just a big tangle of opinons and disputes about what anarchism is or should be. That notion that there's some stable thread of tradition seems romantic, but in reality I think it's just a big mess. RJII 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't, particularly. There was at least an attempt to reconcile the individualists with the communists, and people like de Cleyre actually didn't have a problem sitting the fence between them. Today most forms of anarchism are compatible enough to coalition together, even if there is some uneasiness. A lot of anarchists just take it in a general sense, and most take the label "anarchist" over anything more specific. Although you can reconcile some strands of individualist anarchism with anarcho-capitalism, for most anarchists it's an outright polemic relationship. You may as well try to reconcile them with the state. But you're right, there are some pretty murky issues involved. Saying it's traditionally anti-capitalist might be more vague than just saying it was a reaction against capitalism, and strongly maintains those traditional roots. Sarge Baldy 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The MS Encarta articles are clear and leave little to subjective interpretation. The Microsoft Corporation could hardly be considered to be a source biased in favor of socialism or anarchism. It would be an unimaginably mysterious feat of semantic voodoo to claim that the articles do not clearly state that anarchism was traditionally socialist and that anarchism is not "basically anticapitalist" today. And MrVoluntarist, you seem to be confused. I have made it clear which articles I have been citing since the beginning. The UK article establishes the traditional socialist relationship, and the US article establishes that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist" to this day. That's quite clear in the notes section of the article. --AaronS 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying they're associated with socialism is not the same as saying they're anti-capitalist. It might be a reasonable inference, but that's not what your source says. The part you claimed comes from the UK version, in fact does not support that part. Calling A/C "contentious" or controversial or whatever, as opposed to anarchism itself, which "isn't" is also inappropriate. Please find another source for those claims that doesn't require creative interpretation. MrVoluntarist 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
MrVoluntarist, since the beginning of this discussion, you have repeatedly asked me to read the sources that I have been citing. I already did so. After you implied that I had not, however, I even read them again. Since you continue to display some amount of confusion with regard to my use of these sources, the thought has occurred to me that, perhaps, you actually haven't read them. I suggest that you do so, instead of doing a search for keywords. Even though I grabbed the verbatim quotes from the articles that I am using to justify my edits for this article, you still seem to be confused. Allow me to reiterate, then, if you would be so kind. The UK article, without any creative inference (by the way, inference is by nature not creative, but rather logical; so, if you are going to attack my supposed inference, you should attack it on the grounds of logic), establishes anarchism's traditional and historical socialist foundation. The US article, verbatim, claims that anarchism is, to this very day, "basically anticapitalist." I am beginning to question the authenticity of your objections. --AaronS 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
AaronS is questioning my objections' authenticity. That's rich. Now, let's try this again. I didn't say anything about the US version. We'll get to that in a minute. We're focusing on your use of the UK version. Remember? One clause you support with a reference to the UK version. It is a claim regarding "capitalism". There is no statement in the article that supports that specific claim about capitalism. To do so requires an interpretation and an application of external analysis about the relationship between socialism and capitalism. That is not acceptable as a citation of your claim. By the way, I never said "creative inference", only "creative interpretation" and "reasonable inference". It's kind of cute when you totally misread what I write and then ramble on, strutting your compensating-for-something knowledge, attacking something I never wrote. MrVoluntarist 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I assure you, your apparent obsession with me is equally as adorable, and quite flattering. Now, please offer some objections of substance. Unless you think that interpreting socialism and communism as being anti-capitalist is an unreasonable inference based on creative, subjective fancy, I don't see where your objection lies. --AaronS 20:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm only "obsessed" with shooting fish in buckets. Now, if you want to claim the first self-described anarchists were socialists and communists, feel free to cite that source for that end. If you want to add the implications you believe follow from that source, well, that's just not going to cut it. You're going to need to find another source. That's just how it works. Ask an admin. MrVoluntarist 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The source is clear. It is an unbiased and neutral source. Stop removing it from the article. --AaronS 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, again, it isn't, for the reasons given above. Modify the claim or the source. And stop reverting anons for being anons. Just give your honest reasoning -- a tough task for you indeed, Mr "Not reading title = reading entire essay". And whether it's unbiased is a separate matter. It doesn't even say what you want, so its credentials are immaterial at this point. MrVoluntarist 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't think that the UK article says that anarchism is traditionally socialist? Or that the US article says that anarchism is still "basically anticapitalist"? The former is obvious, and the latter is verbatim. You can feel free to modify my edit in a way that you think clarifies what it is trying to communicate, but there is no grounds for removing it completely. --AaronS 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Manner of Organizing Society???

The old version of the article claimed that anarchism is "a manner of organizing society." Anarchism is the opposite - it opposes a planned order in favor of emergent decentralized ("spontaneous") order. Anarchism is a political philosophy, not a planned or imposed order. If there's something anarchists vehemently disagree about among themselves, it's the manner of organizing society. - anon

I strongly suspect this is hogeye. Anyway, it is a matter of organizing society, a philosophy, and a movement. It's many different things. I wouldn't mind presenting it as all three. The Ungovernable Force 18:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I just added a factual dispute tag, so that this can be discussed and to prevent a bunch of edit warring. The Ungovernable Force 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the anarchist. I'm not aware of any communists discussing the spontaneous order philosophy, which makes sense because spontaneous order is supposed to emerge from the bottom up at an individual level without submission to group authority. RJII 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Proudhon wrote about spontaneous order, as the article notes. As for communists, the Infoshop Anarchist FAQ talks about it repeatedly and approvingly in section 1.3. The decentralized entities need not necessarily be individuals - they could be households, communes, or whatever. The key idea is bottom-up voluntary organization rather than top-down imposed organization. Defining anarchism as a "manner of organizing society" in the intro would IMO be likely to confuse and mislead readers. After all, organizing society implies an organizer and a top-down approach. I can see how the phrase could be construed otherwise with sufficient explanation and qualification, but as an intro definition it seems really bad. - anon
Personally I don't read it as implying 'an organiser and a top-down approach'. As you say, there is (so anarchists maintain) also the possibility of bottom-up voluntary organisation. For me, anarchism would mean exactly that - everyone is freely involved in the organisation of their society ('self-organisation'.) On the other hand, if you get strong authoritarian connotations from the phase, then sure let's try and think of something else. Suggestions?Bengalski 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What about using a passive voice, so as not to mislead new readers into thinking there is a planner on high? E.g. Anarchism is a philosophy which envisions a society based on voluntary order rather than imposed order. BTW, some asshole named Sarge keeps blocking me, so I may be prevented from further discussion. Is it usual for outsiders to get blocked like that? Are my comments so controversial? - anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.232.212.134 (talk • contribs) .
It is if you're making personal attacks. It's also usual to ban someone who is a sockpuppet of a banned user. The Ungovernable Force 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Will you please stop reverting this article back and forth. It's hard to tell what the reverts are about and its getting silly. I can't even work out who's reverting and why (there are a lot of anonymous IP edits are they all from one person?). If this carries on I think the page should be temporarily protected, or semi-protected until we agree on content. At the moment, I can't even work out what the discussion is about. Incidentally, if someone has nothing else to do, this talk page really could do with archiving... CaptainJ (t | c | e) 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A discussion was starting above until AaronS started reverting.
A user banned from editing the page has been making edits via proxies. Just look at the user contributions of the anonymous IP addresses. --AaronS 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. The anon poster's objections are wrong, because you think he is a banned user. MrVoluntarist 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Check your snark at the door, and please refer to Wikipedia:No open proxies. --AaronS 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
And how do you know it's an open proxy? And even if so, how do you know it's Hogeye? MrVoluntarist 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that something fishy is going on simply by taking a look at the user contributions of each of the IP addresses. Some of them begin only today, whereas others go back a little ways, but focus only on those articles which Hogeye has had trouble editing. I have a strong feeling that it is Hogeye, because he has done this in the past, and because he is banned from editing this article. Regardless, there is no justification for removing my sourced edits. --AaronS 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Who is this banned user supposed to be? CaptainJ (t | c | e) 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Hogeye. This is typical of his behavior. --AaronS 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, every anon who disagrees with you must be in league with Hogeye. MrVoluntarist 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, but you apparently feel the need to demonize anybody who disagrees with you. --AaronS 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

by Murray N. Rothbard

This article first appeared in The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.

Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.

Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.

And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.

It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.

Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.

If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence – all of which are corollaries of each other – anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."

The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.

Or would they?

Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice – all this in the name of "freedom." The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.

Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources – labor, land, and capital goods – to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about – in vain – to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.

The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.

It is no accident that it was precisely the economists in the Communist countries who led the rush away from communism, socialism, and central planning, and toward free markets. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of anarcho-communism.

The same comment can be made on the widespread belief, held by many New Leftists and by all anarcho-communists, that there is no longer need to worry about economics or production because we are supposedly living in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems do not arise. But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man, we are still living in a world of pervasive economic scarcity.

How will we know when the world has achieved "post-scarcity"? Simply, when all the goods and services that we may want have become so superabundant that their prices have fallen to zero; in short, when we can acquire all goods and services as in a Garden of Eden – without effort, without work, without using any scarce resources.

The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown, one of the gurus of the new "counter-culture":

The great economist von Mises tried to refute socialism by demonstrating that, in abolishing exchange, socialism made economic calculation, and hence economic rationality, impossible … But if von Mises is right, then what he discovered is not a refutation but a psychoanalytical justification of socialism … It is one of the sad ironies of contemporary intellectual life that the reply of socialist economists to von Mises' arguments was to attempt to show that socialism was not incompatible with "rational economic calculation" – that is to say, that it could retain the inhuman principle of economizing. (Life Against Death, Random House, paperback, 1959, pp. 238–39.)

The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.

If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:

In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.

It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization – you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

What is the purpose of putting this on the talk page? --AaronS 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of sourced edits by MrVoluntarist and anon

From the US version of MS Encarta: "...in 1872 the anarchists were expelled from the International. Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." Stop removing the sourced claim that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist" from the article. I note that anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the 20th century, so it is NPOV. --AaronS 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I resolved this beef (I hope) by explicitly citing Encarta for the opinion that anarchism is "basically anti-capitalist."
On another note, can anyone give proof that Ursula Le Guin is an anarchist? My sources say she resisted the label, though she did of course use anarchist themes in her writings (like Heinlein). She did write this: "It is the most idealistic, and to me the most interesting, of all political theories."[35] - anon
Dido for Ward Churchill, so far as I know he doesn't call himself an anarchist (although his views are clearly parallel). - N1h1l 17:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I did read somewhere he accepted the label, though I can't say where offhand. Although that he spoke at the anarchist bookfair in San Francisco is pretty good circumstantial evidence. [36] Sarge Baldy 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no question that he associates with anarchists. When I heard him speak six years ago (to a room full of anarchists) he said that he was a indigenist which he described as "something approximate" to anarchism. - N1h1l 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert Situation

Does anyone feel the need to revert the article as currently written? If so, why? Please give specific complaints. BTW, I finally registered. BillyBong 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Everyone knows you're Hogeye, and it's only that much more irritating when you pretend otherwise. Sarge Baldy 16:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The Ungovernable Force 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I find it interesting you revert the article back to some prehistoric state without justification and in extreme violation of 3RR, ban evasion, and open proxy policies, and then say that people need some form of justification for changing it back to the way it was. Sarge Baldy 18:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You make a claim that I reverted to a "prehistoric state." Please specify the alleged reversion. I don't believe you. I've made various incremental edits, and only reverted when my edits were reverted without reason or discussion. BillyBong 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You're banned, therefore any edits you make can be reverted on spot, no questions asked. The Ungovernable Force 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess that was a false accusation, I apologize. But you rewrote so much, undid some recent changes, and brought back old content to the extent the article was almost completely rewritten, without any attempt at discussion. Sarge Baldy 19:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang!

That's the second time today I accidentally hit save before finishing an edit summary. I just reverted sarge's last edit because the way you did it made it so one template overlaps with another. The Ungovernable Force 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's what happened there. The templates look just fine for me no matter which way they're listed. Sarge Baldy 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
yeah, sorry. And as I said on your talk, I didn't realize there were all the text differences. I just fixed it. The Ungovernable Force 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Phenomena

There seems to be some disagreement about the Cultural Phenomena section. In particular, whether only self-identifying anarchists should be included, or anyone who contributes significantly to anarchist cultural phenomena can be included. Currently, the section is inconsistent. Someone reverted to self-identifiers-only in the description, yet left such non-self-identifiers as Ursela Le Guin, Han Alfredson, Ward Churchill, and (possibly) Robert Anton Wilson among others on the list.

IMO anyone contributing to anarchist popular culture is a candidate for inclusion. Otherwise, let's change the section title to Self-labeled Anarchist Celebrities or something. A lot of anarchist cultural phenomena are put forth by non-anarchists, such as popular songs and groups, and authors with anarchist themes. It would be a shame to have to cut Le Guin or Heinlein. I don't think this section should have a purity test for inclusion. BillyBong 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit flaky at this point, since some people haven't directly accepted the term (even if they've made hints). Maybe we could list authors and other works related to anarchism separately. Although I have the feeling that would get too big (that section already is) and require a separate article. Sarge Baldy 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed at all to deleting the whole section. Especially since we're trying to reduce the article size. BillyBong 19:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NAP and Ancap

In the latest mass revert, the Anarcho-capitalist section was fouled up. All the information explaining the justifications of ancap were deleted, and it went back to a version with ridiculously redundant reminders that ancap is controversial. I.e. twice in the first paragraph, all of the third paragraph, and a link at the end. The controversy should be pointed out, but the whole section shouldn't be dominated by repeated disclaimers. Once is enough, plus a link to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism at the end. So I'm changing the section back to the former version. BillyBong 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess not; it's been protected. Here's the improved version without the repeated disclaimers. It retains disclaimers in the first paragraph and the link at the end. Compare with current version. BillyBong 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

File:Murray Rothbard Smile.JPG
Murray Rothbard (1926-1995)

Main article: Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that promotes an economic system of free market capitalism in which no authority would prohibit anyone to provide via the free market functions that are generally allowed by most current governments to be provided only by state monopoly such as defence of private property (police), legal/administrative institutions (courts) and environment conservation (e.g., U.S. Forest Service). Because anarcho-capitalism does not oppose profit, rent, interest or capitalism, many anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. [1]

Murray Rothbard's synthesis of classical liberalism and Austrian economics was germinal for the development of contemporary anarcho-capitalist theory. Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time). Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman. Some minarchists, such as Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein, have influenced anarcho-capitalism. But most anarcho-capitalists believe that anarchism without capitalism cannot exist, because in the absence of a state authority that would prevent it, capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop in any free society. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."[2]

Anarcho-capitalism is often based on the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), i.e. that the initiation of violence is morally wrong. This is analogous to Just War Theory, wherein aggression is wrong but retaliatory force (in proportion) is permissable. Proponents of this natural law basis for anarcho-capitalism point out that most people agree with the NAP on an individual level, but fail to apply it to governments, thereby giving them a super-moral status. Anarcho-capitalists insist on consistency when applying the NAP. Other anarcho-capitalists justify it instead on a utilitarian basis; monopoly states have the same drawbacks as other monopolies, e.g. expensive poor quality service.

Some anarcho-capitalists, along with some libertarian historians such as David Hart and Ralph Raico, considered similar philosophies existing before Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist, such as those of Gustave de Molinari and Auberon Herbert. [3][4] Both Molinari and Herbert explicitly rejected the label of anarchist, associating it with the socialist factions prevalent in their time. Molinari called himself an economist, while Herbert coined the term voluntaryist.

For more on debate about the place of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Although I added "and scholars" back, since some of the sources given appear to be non-anarchist academics (such as Brian Morris). Sarge Baldy 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Complaints to Sarge Baldy

  1. Why did you revert the newer intro? In the Edit Summary, you wrote, "What made you think you could rewrite the entire article without any discussion?" In fact, the intro was only edited here and there, and there was discussion about the definition at Talk:Anarchism#Manner_of_Organizing_Society, and discussion about the "anticapitalist" citation at Talk:Anarchism#Repeated_reverts_of_sourced_edits_by_MrVoluntarist_and_anon. Why do you get to decide how to define "anarchism," overriding all known definitions? I see no complaints about the newer intro on the discussion page. Is this now Sarge Baldy's Anarchism Page?
  2. Why did you delete the section heading for anarcho-capitalism? Do you really think it should be under "Anarchism and feminism"???

Would you be so kind as to archive this talk page? Thanks. BillyBong 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't been playing with the definition. As I've said, I think anarchism is obviously a political philosophy, AND a means of organizing society. Honestly that was a pretty trivial point to me, but I added it back. But you're right, this does need a new archive. Sarge Baldy 01:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, "Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, Libertarian as Conservative
  2. ^ Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972)
  3. ^ Hart, David Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition Journal of Libertarian Studies, in three parts, (Summer 1981), V, no. 3: 263-290; (Fall 1981), V. no. 4: 399-434; (Winter 1982), VI, no. 1: 83-104
  4. ^ Raico, Ralph Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS (2004).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism/Archive_38&oldid=1034077488"