Talk:Individualist anarchism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proudhon individualist?

The article says "Though Proudhon himself is not always considered an individualist anarchist..." Ok, but who does? Anyone have sources for him being an individualist anarchist? If not, then maybe he should be talked about in an "Influences" section. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The first part of the article seems biased in mostly talking about anarcho-capitalists as opposed to the variety of individualist anarchists. The claim that all individualists anarchists only cherish negative liberty (not true at all) and this part near the end of the beginning:

According to scholar Christopher Morris, individualist anarchism which supports a market society – such as that of Friedman and Rothbard – has had a greater level of revived interest, especially in the United States, than has communitarian anarchism, which is more widespread in Europe.

is pretty one-sided. That's a general description of anarcho-capitalism. Individualist anarchists like Tucker, Joe Hill and Kevin Carson aren't pushing for free markets in the sense that Friedman and Rothbard are. They are all market anarchists but don't believe in the same type of market system or property relations. Friedman and Rothbard have pretty significant differences with Carson, Hill, Labadie, Max Stirner, etc. Full Shunyata (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Hill, whoever that is, and Kevin Carson are nowhere near the level of revived interest in individualist anarchism than the interest in Rothbard and Friedman. Hardly anyone has heard of those people you refer to. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And this would be according to who? Anarcho-capitalism is considered a very small "fringe" philosophy by both anarchists and right-wing libertarians and minarchists. Not to say that it isn't important of course or that it shouldn't be mentioned. But this article really doesn't need to dedicate 3/4 of itself to anarcho-capitalist philosophy, anarcho-capitalism already has its own page. This page should of course go into anarcho-capitalism but it should also focus much on the egoist branch and the self-proclaimed "socialist" branch of individualist anarchism ala Tucker, Labadie, Hill, Carson and such. There doesn't need to be two anarcho-capitalism articles, which this article almost is currently. Also, I've never seen any anarchist authors refer to social anarchism as "socialist" anarchism except for this Geoffrey Ostergaard author used by RJII. An accusation which Tucker and Proudhon would have laughed at since they didn't consider themselves to be anti-socialist at all. As if individualist anarchism is not a form of socialism. Many social anarchists don't even consider themselves socialists. Anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists don't consider their branch of anarchism to be strictly socialism. Anarcho-communists in particular secondarily (as in after being anarchists) consider their philosophy to be a type of communism. Communism and socialism are related but they are not the same thing. Some socialists, suck as Tucker and Proudhon, were opposed to communism. Some communists such as Dejacque, were opposed to socialism, particularly the anarchist socialism of Proudhon and Tucker. The article currently seems to display a profound misunderstanding of the relationship of the individualist and social branches of anarchism and a misunderstanding of the wide varieties of 'socialism'. Nor would most individualist anarchists outside of anarcho-capitalists consider themselves believers in only negative liberty. Tucker certainly wouldn't. Full Shunyata (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think a distinction should be made about anarcho-capitalists themselves. Not all individualist anarchists have the same philosophy, compare the philosophy of Tucker, Lysander Spooner and Max Stirner and they are different. Likewise with different anarcho-communists, such as Peter Kropotkin, Joseph Dejacque, Tiziana Terranova and Bob Black (who implied in one article being a post-left anarcho-communist). Within anarcho-capitalism, there are schools of thought such as the unrestrained propertarian/"rightish" schools of David Friedman and the more leftist/leftish schools of it such as that of Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, Samuel Edwards Konkin III and Karl Hess. Some anarcho-capitalists are Georgists or make arguments in favor of positive liberty and public property, such as Roderick Long (http://libertariannation.org/a/f53l1.html). Full Shunyata (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of the bias I'm talking about:

^{^} The term "individualist anarchism" is often used as a classificatory term, but in very different ways. Some sources, such as An Anarchist FAQ use the classification "social anarchism / individualist anarchism". Some see individualist anarchism as distinctly non-socialist, and use the classification "socialist anarchism / individualist anarchism" accordingly. Other classifications include "mutualist/communal" anarchism.

What on earth? First of all, Tucker and many other individualist anarchist called themselves "socialists". It's not just some spurious claim by the authors of the FAQ. So the evidence from the FAQ is invalid just because a single author, Geoffrey Ostergaard, doesn't believe individualist anarchism is socialistic? One author's opinion hardly validates the claim "Some see individualist anarchism as distinctly non-socialist". One author is hardly "some" people. And what makes this particular author's claim important? Especially important enough to throw the Anarchist FAQ's conclusion (backed by statements from historical individualist anarchists themselves) into question? Bob Black is of the opinion that social anarchism is doomed to fail because some social anarchists have taken in some Marxist influences over the decades. Does that mean his opinion invalidates the claim that social anarchists as being separate from Marxists? That's what I mean about this article. I don't see how from any NPOV standard the opinion of one obscure author/historian validates the use of this "socialist anarchist as opposed to individualist anarchist" lingo. I notice this particular author is referenced in every occasion the article claims individualist anarchism is separate from this improvised "socialist anarchism". Full Shunyata (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that social anarchists don't refer to themselves as "socialist anarchists" as almost all don't consider themselves to be "anarcho-socialists". Some individualist and mutualist anarchists, especially ones from the 19th century, refer to themselves as "anarcho-socialists" or "socialist anarchists". However it's not very frequent since most of them view such a term as redundant. Like "non-hierarchical anarchist". Full Shunyata (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of things in political philosophy don't fit into nice boxes and categories. You just have to indicate what the sources say, even if it includes contradictions, overlaps, or non-mutually exclusive categories. Richard Blatant (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this whole "indidivdualist vs. socialist" thing is artificial because in all my time being an anarchist I've never seen anyone refer to social anarchists as "socialist anarchists" except for that one author. Most anti-capitalist strains of individualist anarchists today wouldn't call social anarchists "socialist anarchists" because they consider themselves to be socialist as well. Some social anarchists, such as post-left, collectivist and communist anarchists don't even consider themselves socialists. Especially post-left and anarcho-communists given that Tucker and Proudhon supported 'socialist anarchism' but opposed capitalism and communism while Kropotkin and Dejacque opposed socialism (as in 'socialist anarchism') and capitalism. I also thought this article could use more input on left-wing anarcho-capitalists who also comprise a significant section of the anarcho-capitalist movement. Like Wendy McElroy, Brad Spangler and Roderick Long. This article kind of gives the impression that all anarcho-capitalists lean towards the right-libertarian strain of thought. Full Shunyata (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of Brad Spangler and apparently he's not important enough to have an article. But McElroy and Long are no different than Murray Rothbard so who is a "right-libertarian" anarcho-capitalist? Richard Blatant (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to find, "right-libertarians" are not likely to be anarcho-capitalists since "right-libertarians" tend to be the limited-government, minarchist wing, not at all anarchist. Right-libertarians would be highly unlikely to describe themselves as any kind of anarchist.Bishop^ (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any bias. Shunyaka's objections are insubstantial. E.g. the classifications of social/individual and socialist/individualist are well documented and cited. The fact that some (like Tucker) used non-standard 19th century definitions of "socialism" and self-referred as "socialist" is irrelevant to the classification. It is not just one guy (Ostergaard) who considers individualist anarchists to be non-socialist - it follows from the standard modern definition of "socialism" as being opposed to private ownership of the means of production. Also, Shunyaka doesn't seem to understand that communism is a type of socialism according to standard definitions. (Also see: The Zaxlebax Problem.)

Richard, Brad Spangler is an anarcho-capitalist (though he prefers the term "market anarchist") who has written a lot of thought-provoking articles, e.g. Market anarchism as stigmergic socialism.

I agree with Bishop, that if one wants to use the one dimensional model, then anarcho-capitalists must be "left." IMO a 2-dimensional model is superior. (Cf: PhilLiberty (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is not just one guy (Ostergaard) who considers individualist anarchists to be non-socialist - it follows from the standard modern definition of "socialism" as being opposed to private ownership of the means of production."

1) What do individualist anarchists themselves think about the issue? A lot of state socialists don't consider anarchists to be socialists of any sort. Including the social anarchists. Should we include that opinion about anarchism in the anarchism article? Non-individualist anarchist opinions about individualist anarchism should be second to individualist anarchist perceptions of individualist anarchism.

2) What is this mythical "standard definition of socialism"? According to the "standard definition of socialism", by which you mean the Marxist definition, anarchists aren't even socialists. Anarchists of any sort. Secondly, there has never been any "standard definition of socialism" within anarchism. Even Proudhon pointed this out:

"[m]odern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number of different schools." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 177]

So this line of "the modern definition of socialism excludes individualist anarchism is an opinion only held by those outside of individualist anarchism. Full Shunyata (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That said, I think the quotes "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession of its own," [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 78] and "[m]odern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number of different schools." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 177] need to be included in along with that bit about some people narrowly defining socialism as a blunt opposition to all private property. A position that no anarchist that I know of would even agree to, not even Kropotkin who argued, "peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate," and "a family inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space... considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom". According to the narrow definition of "socialism" in this article, Kropotkin would not be a socialist.

Bishop rightly pointed out that most right-libertarians don't consider themselves anarcho-capitalists. Another point is that most capitalists would not as loosely and inclusively define "capitalism" as anarcho-capitalists supposedly do as mentioned in this article. Most capitalists outside of anarcho-capitalists attempting to historically link anarcho-capitalistm with the individualist anarchist tradition (as this article and the individualist anarchism on the anarchism page clearly attempts to) would not consider Benjamin Tucker's ideal society to be capitalist. You also said "Also, Shunyaka doesn't seem to understand that communism is a type of socialism according to standard definitions." No, "standard socialist definition" (the Marxist definition) includes a state apparatus owning the means of production and distributing goods. That doesn't include anarcho-communism which believes in no state or central apparatus. Not even a central apparatus within a community. Likewise, that quote from Kropotkin that you can see above certainly doesn't fit within the "standard" (Marxist) definition of socialism. Some Marxists would consider that capitalistic or "petit bourgeois". Anarchists don't define socialism in the "standard" sense. As can clearly be seen in the quotes I provided. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue with you or engage in aggressive editing, I'm just growing tired of these third party opinions.being given so much weight in these articles. And that's just what those are - opinions. Why is Ostergaard's opinion weighted as if it were a fact? Full Shunyata (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't claim to have read all of this discussion, but just to make a point about the Ostergaard ref: Wikipedia articles make claims which are then supported by reliable sources. Ostegaard was a respected academic, and The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought certainly counts as a reliable source. If the reliable source is challenged (i.e. by another contradicting reliable source), we usually change the article wording from fact to opinion. (See the lede of the Anarchism article and its history for this). So if you have an RS that contradicts what Ostergaard says, there is no problem with recasting it as opinion. the skomorokh 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving external links

The following do not belong in external links and should be incorporated as references if necessary:

• A Vindication of Natural Society: or, a View of the Miseries and Evils arising to Mankind from every Species of Artificial Society by Edmund Burke - some regard this liberal essay to be the first to advocate anarchy
• State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ. by Benjamin Tucker (1886)
• Enquiry Concerning Political Justice by William Godwin
• The Ego and his Own by Max Stirner, translated by Christian individualist anarchist Steven T. Byington
• Manifesto by Josiah Warren
• Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren
• Xavier Díez Individualist anarchism in Spain (1923–1938)
• A critique of Individualist Anarchism by Murray Bookchin
• Proudhon and Anarchism by Larry Gambone

Skomorokh 13:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)