Talk:Anarchism/Archive 45

message: she was an individualist first, then under the influence of socialists like emma goldman adopted a more collectivist viewpoint about the same time she began identifying herself as an anarchist-without-adjectives. this is borne out by her own writings and by academia.  
In a 1894 article defending Emma Goldman, she states, "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist." Conversely, in a 1911 article entitled "The Mexican Revolution" she wrote that "The communistic customs of these people are very interesting and very instructive too...," in regards to Mexican Indian revolutionaries. Similarly, she instructs in "Why I am an Anarchist," that "the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry to get rid of money altogether . . . Let them produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternise group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises." That is socialism Debridee. In 1912, of the paris commune she wrote, "making war upon the State, she had not made war upon which creates the State . . . the Commune respected property . . . [and] had left common resources in private hands . . In short, though there were other reasons why the Commune fell, the chief one was that . . . the Communards were not Communists. They attempted to break political chains without breaking economic ones." That shows that in 1912 she identified with socialism. Lastly, imagination debridee, i suspect that you are another thewolfstar clone. Blockader 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Imagine Debridee is a wolfstar sock. It goes without saying (yet we're saying it). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All fine and well, just find (reputable) sources that support your claim. If different sources say different things, it can be added as well. Intangible 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, those are reputable sources my friend. her own writings. she changed throughout her life as people have a tendancy to do. Blockader 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but you try to synthesize her ideas by your own reading. You need a secondary source first, before you can give an example of de Cleyre's own words. Intangible 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then find a secondary source that says she wasn't a socialist. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine the way it is now. It's written in an unbiased way. And she did indeed change her ideas over her lifetime. Her ideas were sometimes somewhat individualist and somewhat socialist. To call her a socialist, though, is incorrect, as this quote "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism" clearly shows. I do think that the current version is the best and not biased in any direction. I don't know what you mean by a wolfstar sock, however..?? Imagination débridée 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whoever you are i am glad someone finely added a section on anarchism-w/o-adjectives. i would've myself but since i adhere to that philosophy i thought it might be inappropriate or biased to insert it into the article. i too like the section as it stands now. as to the qoute you note above i think we would have to know when de cleyre wrote it to understand it in the context of her transitive beliefs but my VDC reader is at home so i can't check it. her later writings tend to reflect a collectivist/socialist tendency but i think her personal beliefs were somewhat a synthesis  of socialist and individualist anarchism. that would be a good sentence for the section but i've never seen a secondary source arguing it. i think her views never reached their full maturity as she died rather young. Blockader 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm glad that I was able to contribute something to this article that is productive. I also am an 'Anarchist without adjectives'. I didn't know it was wrong to add text to an article that coincides with one's beliefs, though obviously it would be wrong if it included unsound or biased material. Imagination débridée 19:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  de Cleyre 

message: Please read this carefully:
"Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check.  Regardless, to these anarchists the economic preferences are considered to be of "secondary importance" to abolishing all authority, with free experimentation the one rule of a free society." Imagination débridée 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody contensts the fact that the rejection of coercive rulership is the central tenet of anarchism;  the debate is about whether or not capitalism is compatible with this tenet.  Anyway, the implication of your contribution—that anarchism without adjectives synthesizes opposing ideologies, from anarcho-communism to individualist anarchism to anarcho-capitalism— is incorrect.  Anarchism without adjectives unites different types of anarchists around their common goal, but it does not attempt to reconcile their economic differences.  It does not assert that all anarchist economic models are faulty in some way, nor does it embrace all anarchist economic models to a limited degree.  It is completely neutral with regard to anarchist economics in order to preclude divisions, neither endorsing all systems nor criticizing all systems. -- WGee 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that it's an attempt to organise all anarchists based upon what they oppose and not to prioritise what most anarchists recognise are theoretical ideas about future organisation. As all anarchists up to the "anarcho"-capitalists opposed capitalism, then unity about opposition to capitalism is a feature of Anarchism without adjectives. The criticism of "anarcho"-capitalism isn't what they propose, but what they refuse to oppose - capitalism. This is not simply an economic argument, but a tactical one. As Chomsky points out, to remove the stage without removing capitalism would lead to an even greater form of oppression than we have now - a return to the inequalities and exploitation of the early industrial era before anarchists and others forced the state (through trade unions, etc) to soften the effects of unrestrained capitalism. Everyone but the most extreme anarchists recognises that, while the state is not desirable, no-one would wish to remove the victories drawn from the state, including restrictions on working hours, workplace health and safety laws, the end of forced child labour, etc. Donnacha 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly true, Donnacha.  To clarify, I said that "Anarchism without adjectives unites different types of anarchists around their common goal...", wherein their common goal is the abolition of coercive authority (including capitalism, of course).  So, in essence, we were saying the same thing. -- WGee 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all the willful misinterpretation of everything around here, I just wanted to shore up the argument as much as possible ;) Donnacha 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The old individualist were referring to "state capitalism" when they said they opposed capitalism. They weren't talking about free market capitalism. It's like saying you oppose communism when the only idea of it you've ever seen was state communism. From that, you can't conclude that someone would oppose voluntary communism (if there is such a thing).Anarcho-capitalism 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since capitalism arises naturally if the state doesn't interefere, then I guess anti-capitalist anarchists are resigned to support an intrusive state forever in order to prevent capitalism. That's why anti-capitalist anarchism is a big joke.Anarcho-capitalism 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalism arises naturally? Really? Sheesh, I must point that out to my friends from the Irish-Mexico group so they can pass it on to the people of Chiapas. They've clearly got it all wrong, what with their anti-state participatory democracy and anti-capitalism! They should, instead, be opting for the great anarcho-capitalism of the brutal, neo-feudal, increasingly fundamentalist Somalia! There's this thing called the real world out there that doesn't tend to act according to any political theories or predictions, you should check it out. Donnacha 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hear, hear. - Peter Perlsø 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bullshit. 'Nuff said. Donnacha 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is undoubtedly "Bullshit" and "nuff said" to those who believe they have a patent on defining certain concepts. - Peter Perlsø 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe anything, however I do tend toward the idea that concepts are defined by those who came up with them, not upstart wreckers like Murray Rothbard. If you want to know what anarchism is, read Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Spooner, Tucker, Goldman, Berkman, Durruti, Malatesta, Chomsky, Bookchin, etc. It's called scholarship, not the nonsense of ignorant US academics or spoiled bloody Danes who don't recognise when they have it good and seem to want the horror that was Thatcherism in the UK. Donnacha 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL! You compain about "upstart wreckers" and then cite that hack Chomsky? You're kidding, right? The rest of your nonsense I'll leave uncommented altough I'll request you start your own scholarship with the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
- Peter Bjørn Perlsø 23:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Té suas ort féin. Final word on this before I start ignoring you like all the other right-wing idiots here - "upstart wreckers" means people who come late to an idea and seek to redefine it to damage it. Thus, a highly respected academic who's steeped in anarchist tradition and who's so influential that his critics resort to meaningless insults like "hack" bears no relevance to the comment. Your English needs work. Donnacha 00:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Childishness. EOD. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 00:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's naive to think that people would not engage in a trade if the state didn't interfere. To think everyone would be content to work without being paid, and share all their goods "according to need" instead of trading is really really naive. Trade makes sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely enough, my politics are largely based on my experience of people. I think I've said before that I grew up in Ireland. I now live in London. I'm a senior trade unionist. I spend my entire life in the midst of people who would prefer a society based on fairness and not on competition. So, it's not naive, it's experience. It's knowledge. You, on the other hand, come across like someone who doesn't actually know any real people. Donnacha 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Capitalism requires a state in order to function. Capitalists understand this, but the so-called "anarcho-capitalists" can't even understand the basics of how capitalism operates. Chuck0 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would capitalism require a state in order to function? Capitalism is simply voluntary trade of good and services, with the goods being the product of labor from transforming the natural resources of the earth into useful things. If there were no state, people would still be trading unless someone, such as "anarcho"-communists, forcefully stopped them. Anarcho-capitalism 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything. That's how capitalism is defined. Capitalism is by definition of "free market" system, meaning system of voluntary trade. Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, in fact, not consistently defined that way, even in reputable dictionaries. Check the OED. In any event, you are so attached to the word "capitalism" that you're twisting and turning to defend it, with the result that you have yourself defined it in at least a couple of ways recently. Libertatia 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED defines it as a system that favors the existence of private ownership of means of production ("capitalists"). However, that's not all capitalism is. It includes trade as well. Without trade there is no capitalism. And without private property there can be no trade.Anarcho-capitalism 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is nothing in that definition of capitalism which clarifies the terms of exchange, the nature of "freedom" in the market, etc. If you want to go with the most "popular" understanding of the term, then "capitalism" for most people is what we have, and what you want to call (with some justification) a "mixed economy." But once you start talking about "capitalism" as something that naturally emerges under conditions of freedom, while at the same time talking about it as an ideal, then, again, i'm not sure what you're defending and what you are against. The traditional anarchist position is that the concentrations of capital necessary to have anything like actually-existing capitalism required a state. (At least anti-capitalists talk about capital in their definitions.) Traditionally, anarchists have not wanted capitalism, because they've been uninterested in elevating capital above labor, talent, etc. It's possible to disagree with the account of the origins of capitalism, and think that things are pretty good, but we need to get rid of the state to make them better. That seems to be one an-cap position, and it's at least coherent. But it is on no firmer ground, and has no broader currency, than the traditional anarchist account. I see you just added a point about "private property." The point is incorrect. All that is needed for trade is some set of conventions about property. Private property is far, far, far from the only workable solution (assuming, for the moment, that it is a workable solution.) Any system of conventions covering possession would also function. Libertatia 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's utterly false that there is nothing in the definition of capitalism about freedom in the market. Most definitions of capitalism point out that it is a free market system. For example, Merriam-Webster.com defines it as "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a FREE MARKET." And, not my point about private property is not incorrect. If you have the right to trade, then that means you a right to private property. What is traded other than private property? Private property means that which is owned by person which he has the right to dispose of as he wishes, whether it is to keep it or to sell it. "Possession" is incompatible with trade. That's why most of the old individualist anarchists didn't advocate trade of land (because of being misled by Proudhon), but supported private property in other products of labor. Anarcho-capitalism 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More bullshit, 'nuff said. Donnacha 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. -- WGee 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess they're dumbfounded. PlayersPlace 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let this soak in

message: For any position within anarchism, you can probably find at least one person who claims that it is not "really" anarchist. To include claims that a school is not anarchist within that school's description is, therefore, unlikely to be helpful. In particular, it strikes me as likely to lead to the he-said/she-said style, where critics of a school add more and more of their criticisms, then the school's defenders respond; that leads to long, unencyclopedic articles and edit wars. So I think it would be a good idea to keep claims that a school is not anarchist out of that school's section. Perhaps an introductory paragraph to the Schools of Anarchism section could mention that no school (with the exception, perhaps, of mutualism) is universally accepted by anarchists as anarchist. The particularly polarised debate, on capitalism and communism, can then be addressed in the Issues in Anarchism section. To that end, I've removed the claims in each school's section that it is not "really" anarchist. VoluntarySlave 03:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that sounds good to me. If there is a criticism of one school then a criticms needs to be allowed for the other schools. Since people delete criticisms out of one school and leave the other, it may be a good idea to take them all out like you say. You mentioned something about mutualism not being disputed, but it has. For example Meltzer says mutualists are not anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with VoluntarySlave on this, also. Sounds like a peace maker and a good solution. Imagination débridée 04:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a "gap" between all kinds of anarchism. Anarcho-capitailsm is different from others just as others are different from still others. PlayersPlace 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't. The gap between anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism is a very different kind. Anarchism has generally been unified on what anarchists oppose and divided on tactics and, ultimately, divided on ideas about future organisation. The latter is actually the least important element, because they're ideas, proposals, guesses, not dogma. "Anarcho"-capitalism is different not because it proposes something different, but what its advocates oppose, or rather refuse to oppose, namely capitalism, puts it beyond the pale for most anarchists. Donnacha 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you defining capitalism?Anarcho-capitalism 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Donnacha and GoodIntentions philosophically but for practical purposes in this article I agree somewhat with VoluntarySlave. As long as the capitalism section in "Issues" continues to reflect that most anarchist writers, schools, and arguably anarchists regard ancap with skepticism than i can live with it. Blockader 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. -- Vision Thing -- 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've only proven that on the talk page the anarcho-collectivists are intolerant of any mention of anarcho-individualism's existence, i.e. anything they personally disagree with.  If we removed all sections of anarcho-collectivist thought, we wouldn't have an issue with classifying them as anarchist either, but my objective is not to erase schools of thought I disagree with.  Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. - MSTCrow 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes about which schools are not anarchist 

message: Article is very bloated. How about splitting into (Anarchism (ie. anarchist origins etc) and Anarchist theory)? -- infinity0 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A split looks feasable at first glance, but I doubt that it is. This article isn't bloated compared to other political movement pages - just take a look at marxism, for instance. --GoodIntentionstalk 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: would a split be beneficial to cohesiveness? i don't think so. actually, for such a bloated political doctrine/movement/ideal i don't think the article is all that bloated. Blockader 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, an article we do still need is anarchist movement. That way we could give extensive coverage of that part of the topic without bloating the main article. Obviously, the two overlap to such an extent that much would have to remain, but it would allow us to trim down those areas without having to worry about any loss of useful information. It'd be nice to have an article focusing on the contemporary anarchist movement, since that's an area that has always felt somewhat neglected here. Owen 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is already (extensive) coverage of this in the anarchism article now. Maybe this is the material that can be split? Intangible 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the article only has a puny overview of anarchism as a movement at present. Not to mention that it stops at the Spanish Revolution. Owen 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spilt 

message: Not a major enough issue to be included in the intro. Many other issues exist; no reason for this to be highlighted. -- infinity0 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. That is the single most important issue. All anarchists oppose the state but beyond that they all advocate different economic systems and that's what makes them the kinds of anarchism that they are. PlayersPlace 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How often do you hear anarchists argue about capitalism? There are far more major issues within anarchism than capitalism. Ancapism is the only "form of anarchism" that supports capitalism, and it happens to have the smallest number of members. Please avoid giving minor opinions WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- infinity0 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its irrelevant wether or not ancaps are many or few, becuase it isnt possibly to find any exact numbers and its possbile to find sources which says that they are many (fx in the US) and sources that say they are few. All this "many X is Z" or "few X is Z" is really not relevant when theres lots of sources who take the ancaps perspective. Its sources that counts here, because its all about verifiability! Unless you can find some source that have counted how many there are then, its a useless debate, and one thats made it, and which makes it, harder to get to any kind of compromise! --Fjulle 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it is the most important division. If this article referred exclusively to anti-capitalist anarchism I would have considered the most important distinction the degree of communality of public space (the continuum running more or less communism-collectivism-syndicalism-mutualism-individualism). As the article stands the distinction needs to be made, but perhaps not in those words. --GoodIntentionstalk 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Economics is the most important area by which various forms of anarchism differ. If it wasn't for economics issues we wouldn't need to have Schools section. -- Vision Thing -- 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic 

message: User:Blockader added two events back from the last 10- years. How are these historical?  Intangible 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Seattle marked a new era in political events and will be remembers as the birthplace of the international movement against globalisation and the Argentinian riots marked the end of the triumphant neoliberalism in Latin America. Both are major events that mark turning points in history and, thus, are historical events. Donnacha 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I thought Intangible's reason for removing them was that they weren't associatted with anarchism, which i disagree with, not that they weren't historical. i do think they can be considered historical events, especially WTO, but no matter what they shouldn't have been removed without some discussion first. i am for leaving them in. Blockader 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Donnacha thinks they are not anarchist events, but anti-globalization events. I think they are not historic events, because: a) the events only happened recently b) there are no sources describing the events as such. Intangible 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop splitting hairs, anarchist and "anti-globalisation" are not mutually exclusive. Anarchists were a major part of the movement worldwide - Reclaim the Streets grew out of the UK's Class War organisation. It was not, and to the extent there is still a movement is not, exclusively anarchist, but it is definitely anarchic in its forms of organisation and activity and includes thousands of anarchists. Donnacha 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If it happened in the past (and was written about) it's historical, even if it happened yesterday. It's called recent history. The Seattle WTO protests definitely had to do with anarchism--they were a catalyst for the anarchist movement and gave us a (relatively) large ammount of mainstream attention. It's even mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on anarchism. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Still are these events "significant"? Searching Google Scholar makes me belief they are not. This events can be added (or discussed) again when the time has come, when historians actually make this notion that they are historical. For now, they think they are not. If you disagree, you would have no trouble finding an article on Google Scholar that says otherwise. Intangible 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Results 1 - 10 of about 3,050 for seattle wto protest." VoluntarySlave 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical events 

message: Someone recently added a link to the Anarchism in Hungary article in the side bar. after looking at the page and its contents i am skeptical about its inclusion. Most of the organizations named on the page seem more facist than anarchist and i think everyone here will agree. One is a neo-nazi movement whose article makes no mention of anarchism whatsoever. Several are movements whose goal is to annex neighboring countries of hungary. one seems to be the conservative counterparty to the socialist party in hungary. another is a group that seeks to refute the outcomes of WWI and II. What the hell? Y'all please look over this article and see what you think. Blockader 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like someone has already deleted most of the stuff i was talking about. Blockader 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism in Hungary? 

message: There simply isn't any debate. Proudhon's mutualism was introduced into the US by Dana in 1848, with Proudhon and his Bank of the People, and then more fully in William B. Greene's mutual bank writings of 1849 (in the Worcester Palladium and the book Equality) and 1850 (Mutual Banking.) Tucker acknowledges that he was introduced to Proudhon by Greene. Greene was also the first to translate sections of Solution of the Social Problem, which are included in all editions published during his lifetime, but missing from a few of the posthumous editions. Libertatia 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.Anarcho-capitalism 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the sentence remains misleading, thanks to Woodcock's considerably less than perfect account. The whole section is largely unsupported generalizations, and the fact that there is apparently little awareness of the first 25 years of mutualism in the US doesn't add much to my confidence. The "citation" about wage levels points to the preface of Carson's book, which is hardly an adequate source for the claims made. I would also like to see some documentation for the claim that Proudhon said property would be "legitimate." Libertatia 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't use the word "legitimate." But he didn't say it would be "protected," which is what I substitute "legitimate" for. But, he did think it would be legitimate. You're not aware that he supported family ownership of land?Anarcho-capitalism 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole question of "property" with regard to Proudhon is, as you know, complicated. I have never found anything in his later writings to suggest he abandoned his philosophical critiques of property, however much he came around to the position of pursuing what property aims at. If, by "legitimate property," we mean equal rights to occupancy and use, that's probably what we ought to say. If there's some evidence for a stronger notion of property, then it needs to be cited. Libertatia 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he abandoned the "occupancy and use" theory. He supported land as "property.": "At first Proudhon argued that the only form of property ownership should be the right of "possession." By this he meant that the land should belong only to those who worked on it, though he did allow the State the right to intervene to insure that the land was properly cultivated by its owners. Later, Proudhon came to consider that liberty could be guaranteed only if property ownership was not subject to any limitation save that of size. This development can best be seen in his posthumously published "Theory of Property", where Proudhon reverses his earlier preference for "possession" rather than "property" as a form of ownership, arguing instead that the individual must be absolutely sovereign over his own land. But right from the first, Proudhon argued in favor of the small farm, one just large enough to support a peasant family. His basic conviction was that the peasant wanted to be able to own the land he worked on, and be free to pass it on to his own children - in contrast to Bakunin, for example, who pursauded the First International to vote in favor of the abolition of the right of inheritance." Edwards, Stewart. Introduction to Selected Writings of Proudhon, page 33Anarcho-capitalism 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stewart says so, which makes him citable, but not necessarily correct. Can you find any evidence in his selections, or elsewhere, to support the claim? In the past, I have cited passages from the Theory of Property which maintain the position that property is inherently unjust, although "in its aims" there is something necessary to liberty. That is a very different position than legitimacy. Libertatia 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to cite Proudhon himself. It's easy to cite him out of context and easy to claim that the person citing him is citing him out of context or that they're misinterpreting. I'd rather leave the interpretation to the experts.Anarcho-capitalism 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The only thing we know with any certainty that distinguishes it from possession is that it is absolute and unjust." (Stewart, 131; Theorie de la Propriete, 128, 129) Stewart's inclusions actually show pretty clearly that Proudhon only embraced property as an naturally abusive force that could be pitted against the similar force of the state. This is in the period where he no longer expected his antinomies to synthesize into something else. Balanced antagonisms, rather than any sort of harmony or justification, characterize Proudhon's latter period. Libertatia 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Does land have anything to do with mutualism anyway? Maybe it shouldn't even be mentioned. I don't see why supporting "possession" or not determines whether someone is a mutualist. Does it?Anarcho-capitalism 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, property in land is the counterbalance to the state. It's just important we characterize Proudhon's understanding of such property correctly. Libertatia 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I output many definitions to the Mutualism article earlier, and I don't think any of them mentioned land. I don't think land has anything to do with mutualism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The land question is extremely important to Proudhon, and to the Liberty group (who consistently advocate occupancy and use). Greene appears to maintain the occupancy and use standard, although the evidence is slight enough to be not worth citing. Anyway, I take it that you don't have any stronger evidence to back up Stewart's claim. I guess I have to dig out my copy of Théorie de la propriété again. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it would be nice to have this section accurate. I figured I would ask before I started to edit. A word to the wise: the secondary sources on mutualism are often pretty awful. Ronald Creagh's book is probably the best-researched and least biased, but it's in French. Libertatia 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I don't trust your interpretation of Proudhon any more than I trust mine. I can find quotes in Theory of Property that back up Stewart's claim, but I don't see the point. For everything Proudhon says it's usually pretty easy to find something that contradicts it.Anarcho-capitalism 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I'm pretty sure you don't have an interpretation of Proudhon that extends beyond the secondary material. Libertatia 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you're wrong. I do have my own interpretation of Proudhon. And, as far as I can tell his philosophy was pretty damned flawed.Anarcho-capitalism 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have another secondary source though: "Proudhon came to doubt whether his previous distinction between property and possession was as useful as he had once thought. He came to the conclusion that 'property is the only power which can act as a counterweight to the State'." Copleston, Frederick. History of Philosophy, page 67-68Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that source does not really support Stewart's much stronger contention. Nobody seems to question that Proudhon made much less use of the property/possession distinction in his writings. The important issue is what, other than his rhetoric (about which he made very conscious decisions early on), actually changed in the later works. Libertatia 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I don't think it has anything to do with mutualism. He was mutualist even when his position on land changed. I think mutualism is about workers' assocations and using labor notes and a mutualist bank. Land is not an issue for mutualism, as mutualism is defined.Anarcho-capitalism 19:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's no wonder secondary sources about Proudhon "were crap." He was pretty incoherent at times, and certainly not a monolith, so his writings left open all kind of different interpretations. That being said, they are on the only crappy thing we can use here at Wikipedia. Intangible 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no prohibition against using primary sources, provided they are clear. We do it all the time, as we should. I think Proudhon's "incoherence" is overstated, generally by people who haven't read much of him, but that's neither here nor there. Libertatia 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm completely open to a better mutualist statement, but we already have too much OR in the entry. Libertatia 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with this (sourced from UK Encarta): "Less productive worker would receive less than more productive one and personal and small-scale property would be protected"? -- Vision Thing -- 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, I don't think it tells us anything very interesting about mutualism, or anything, really, that isn't covered better elsewhere. The Greene quote gives such specific elaboration of the previous sentence, and includes the element of mutuality, which is largely lacking from Wikipedia's treatments of mutualism. I also prefer the fact that the Greene quote is from a text largely available online, so that it's context is accessible to all readers. In general, other encyclopedias seem like the last place we would want to be sourcing from. We all know the "truth vs. verifiability" issues that riddle Wikipedia with information that is "sort of true." All general references tend to generate generalities—and it's a garbage in garbage out situation if we're not careful. When we can use primary sources in relatively uncontroversial ways, that is ideal. The Greene source makes mutual gain an outcome of individualistic actions, and that's the dynamic it's so hard to catch in mutualist writings (really, in most anarchist writings, to one extent or another.) Libertatia 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it's wrong. Productiveness doesn't matter in mutualism. It is the work itself that matters. You can be very productive but if you didn't put much labor into it (say, because you've invented a way to save yourself some labor and be more efficient), mutualists won't pay you much for what you produced. Two people exerting the same amount of labor get the same pay regardless of how productive they are. Another reason why mutualism is ridiculous. I did fix the statement though to make this clear, but I think Libertatia deleted it.Anarcho-capitalism 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of "clarification," as obviously incorrect as it is, won't be missed. Which mutualist can you possibly be misconstruing in this way? Libertatia 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's right. In Mutualism people are paid with "labor notes" are they not? Proudhon said "to each according to his labor." Mutualists think that value is to be measured by the amount of labor embodied in the production of a commodity. If one person is laboring more than another person then he gets paid more. Productiveness is irrelevant to Mutualists. PlayersPlace 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole criticism is simplistic and confused. "Amount of labor" is tough to quantify, except in terms of time, and even Warren, who came closest to a simple time dollar, ended up factoring other elements, such as "repugnance" of labor into the equation. And, as repugnance is individually determined, we're back to a market negotiation. Proudhon does not make the separation between amount of labor and product of labor suggested above, and sets payment by product, rather than time labored. Proudhon, to my knowledge, never proposed labor notes, and Greene certainly didn't. For the self-identified mutualists, the organization of free credit was the important economic goal, and mutual money was based in credit. It was not a labor note. Of the contributors to Liberty, only Andrews seems to have been much of a labor note enthusiast. The Greene quote gives a much better sense of what mutualism was and is about, than fixation on this or that project. Libertatia 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the literature, it appears that most of the enthusiasm for labor notes was actually in Owenite and Fourierist circles, or in non-anarchist cooperative communities such as Kaweah. Warren was a reformed Owenite, and Andrews an evolved Fourierist, so perhaps there's not much surprise that they favored this approach. Libertatia 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bottom line is mutualists think value is proportional to labor. It's the labor theory of value. It's complete bunk. Mutualists think that those who labor more than others should be paid more than others, and vice versa. Output (production) has nothing to do with mutualism. If someone works for 10 hours and produces one widget, and someone works for 10 hours and produces two widgets, they would receive the same income whether in labor notes or normal currency. If the guy above who produced one widget it paid less than the guy who produced 2 widgets, then he's been "exploited." His labor has been stolen, according to mutualists. It's absurd. That's why individulist anarchists today (anarcho-capitalists) discard the labor theory of value and have a subjective theory of value. There is no way to "steal" someone's labor in a free market, regardless of what he's paid. Labor is simply worth what anyone is willing to pay for it. Anarcho-capitalism 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I gently suggest that you read what the mutualists have to say about these issues before you dig yourself any deeper? Proudhon is quite explicit on this stuff in What Is Property? Greene never even approached the position you're describing. I'm fairly certain that anyone presenting your version of "mutualism" in Liberty would have been ripped to shreds by Tucker. I'm willing to bet that neither Kevin Carson nor Larry Gambone interpret the LTV in the way you describe, and I can say with confidence that I certainly don't. How is it that "mutualists" believe this, when there doesn't seem to be a single individual mutualist who held this theory? Libertatia 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fundamental to mutualism. Mutualists have a labor theory of value. In other words, they think value is proportional to labor. People like Kevin Carson think that if the state does not interevene in the economy that prices will match up with labor amounts. When prices are not proportional to labor amounts, then people are being exploited. Part of their labor is stolen from them, and is considered "usury" or "profit." It's like Marxism and "surplus value." If you don't have a labor theory of value then you're not a mutualist. According to Kevin Carson, "most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." Carson is trying to revive the labor theory of value form of individualist anarchism, that has that Marxist-like exploitation theory. It's a truly bizarre attempt, since economics has progressed. There is no such thing as "exploitation" by not paying according to labor. "Exploitation" is an illusion based on a flawed premise...the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalism 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, other than you, is talking about "exploitation" right now? You see some version of the LTV and assume far too much from it, with the result that you ignore the actual positions of all the mutualists. My sense is that pretty much everyone who we would call a mutualist expects cost and price to converge under genuinely free market conditions. But only the most simplistic labor note advocates, who seem to nearly all fall outside the mutualist camp, make, or have made, any attempt to force that convergence. Misunderstanding Carson on this point is particularly inexcusible, as he has written such much on precisely what he means when he invokes the LTV. You may think mutualists are silly for advocating any form of the LTV, but that doesn't mean that they advocate the truly silly positions you attribute to them. The points you raise were raised and answered in one of Tucker's first forays into debate, I believe, in The Index in 1873. Those debates are available online. Libertatia 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying anyone would "force" the expected convergence, but that they expect it in a free market and think that labor is being exploited or stolen when it doesn't happen. If you don't know that mutualists think that when people are not paid according to their labor then they're being exploited then you don't know the first thing about mutualism. Benjamin Tucker says "...Karl Marx's position that the employee is forced to give up a part of his product to the employer (which, by the way, was Proudhon's position before it was Marx's, and Josiah Warren's before it was Proudhon's)." The only way it can be claimed that a person is forced to give up part of his labor is if value is supposed to match up with labor. That is, if you have a labor theory of value. But in reality, no matter what you're paid, you're not giving up part of your labor. Your labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  The latter is the modern individualist anarchist position, that is, the anarcho-capitalist position.Anarcho-capitalism 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the an-cap position really is to say that there is no possibility of injustice under current market conditions, then we can say goodbye to all pretense of an-caps supporting anything other than the status quo. I certainly know an-caps who are not simply blind to the possibility of injustice in the labor market, which is reassuring, however quaint and retro such a position may seem to you. The prediction that cost and price will converge is actually an old classical liberal one, so it's likely that a certain number of an-caps of that variety share it. Anyway...if there is such a thing as obstruction of a free market, then it ought to manifest itself in inequity and injustice of various sorts, unequal bargaining power in the market. Obstruction and deformation of the free exchange of labor will logically result in deformation of wage structures which we might wish to call exploitation. It's hard to see how any anarchist could object to so labelling unfree labor exchange. To relinquish the category of exploitation completely is to relinquish a simple means of characterizing the intervention and unfreedom which we, as anarchists, oppose. Too bad Marx got his grubby paws all over so many concepts, but the avoidance of Marx shouldn't send us running into the arms of the State and its apologists. Libertatia 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No ancaps believe that labor will be paid for with an equal amount of labor in a free market. The fact that they don't is what makes them ancaps and not mutualists. No economist today that I'm aware of takes such a theory seriously. Nor should labor be paid for with an equal amount of labor. Why should it? If labor receives a product of a lesser amount of labor in exchange, that doesn't mean exploitation has taken place as mutualists say. They simply hold a flawed premise that's misleading them. If I purchase someone's labor with a product of my own lesser amount of labor, it doesn't mean I have "profited" or "exploited" as mutualists say. I haven't profited at all. I simply purchased it as a price I thought it was worth. Value is subjective. There is no objectively correct price of anything, and therefore the mutualist (and Marxist) theory of exploitation/profit is pure fantasy. Tucker and Proudhon maybe had an excuse since economics was in a primitive state back then. But Kevin Carson is simply a lunatic. Anarcho-capitalism 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! You really are just a defender of the status quo. Thanks for the clarification. Libertatia 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am not a defender of the status quo. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I support the elimination of the state and a voluntary system where aggression and fraud is illegal, and where private property is only legitimate it if it acquired without coercion or fraud. Rejecting the labor theory of value doesn't make me a defender of the status quo. The labor theory of value is simply wrong, therefore mutualism is a fallacious philosophy. The labor theory of value is misleading some people into thinking that there is something "wrong" with labor not being paid for with an equal amount of labor, but there's not anything wrong with it whatseover. It is not exploitation, it is not theft, it is not usury, it is not even "profit" as it is defined today.Anarcho-capitalism 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, you're not defending the status quo, it's far worse. You're arguing for a return to feudalism and absolute slavery. And stop attributing the labour theory of value to everyone who disagree, anarchist communists recognise that all theories of the value of labour are subjective and thus reject monetarism. Donnacha 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never seen Kropotkin talk of "surplus value"? You can't conclude that there is such a thing as surplus value unless you think the labor theory of value is true. Kropotkin, who was an anarcho-communist, indeed holds a labor theory of value. And yes I agree that anarcho-communists reject money. They won't even allow it for those who want to use it. That can be seen from the experiences of the Spanish "anarchists" who violently confiscated money from innocent people. Anarcho-capitalism 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said, thus narrowing the Socialist conception and the general view of the capitalist system; the surplus-value itself is but a consequence of deeper causes. The evil lies in the possibility of a surplus-value existing, instead of a simple surplus not consumed by each generation; for, that a surplus-value should exist, means that men, women, and children are compelled by hunger to sell their labour for a small part of what this labour produces, and, above all, of what their labour is capable of producing. But this evil will last as long as the instruments of production belong to a few. As long as men are compelled to pay tribute to property holders for the right of cultivating land or putting machinery into action, and the property holder is free to produce what bids fair to bring him in the greatest profits, rather than the greatest amount of useful commodities--well-being  can only be temporarily guaranteed to a very few, and is only to be bought by the poverty of a section of society. It is not sufficient to distribute the profits realized by a trade in equal parts, if at the same time thousands of other workers are exploited. It is a case of PRODUCING THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF GOODS NECESSARY TO THE WELL-BEING OF ALL, WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE WASTE OF HUMAN ENERGY." Kropotkin "Conquest of Bread" - this is not the labour theory of value. Donnacha 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see there, he thinks there is such a thing as "surplus-value." Therefore he accepts a labor theory of value. A subjectivist does not think there's any such thing as surplus value. The value of anything is simply what someone pays for it.Anarcho-capitalism 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The surplus is the difference between what the owner of capital pays the worker compared to the price the owner sells it for. It's not fixed, there's no magic number, it's not the labour theory of value, it's simply a description of exploitation. The basis of anti-monetarism is that monetary value is subjective and thus useless. Donnacha 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is assuming that the worker's labor is more valuable than is being reflected in what he is being paid. And, he thinks this is because they don't have bargaining power. That is clearly a labor theory of value. A subjective theory of value says the workers is always being paid what he's worth. There is no way to overpay or underpay anyone. There is no correct price of anything. You say that "monetary value is subjective and thus useless," but that's senseless, because it is useful because it is subjective. Money allows each person to decide for himself what something else is worth. Allowing subjectivity is essential to individual liberty. Even if you got rid of money, there would still be subjective value judgements when people bartered. Money just makes trade easier. Anarcho-communists want to abolish trade altogether, which makes no sense at all. It's based on a phony "surplus value" theory.Anarcho-capitalism 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am fully aware that mutualists would adjust labor time for difficulty of work. When you're adjusting labor times for the difficulty of the work, you're still basing price on labor; even more so, actually. And, your wrong about labor notes only being proposed by Warren and Andrews. "Social anarchism can be divided into several schools: The oldest of these is mutualism, founded by the man who was first to call himself an anarchist, the Frenchman Peirre-Joseph Proudhon. Under mutualism, the state would be abolished, and factories would be owned and controlled by the workers in the form of producers' associations. Compensation would be retained in the form of labor checks paid to workers by peoples' banks, corresponding to the number of hours they worked." (Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, page 5) And, "...this [Proudhon] proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based no the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged inproduction, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labor checks representing the hours of labor required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as Mutuellisme, all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent." (Kroporkin, Peter. Anarchism) For the individualist with a LTV like Benjamin Tucker, they not only think that labor would naturally pe paid with an equal amount of labor in a free market, but they thought it "ought" to be. If not, then exploitation is taking place, in their opinion. As far as anarcho-capitalism goes, no the state does not cause individuals to be paid less than their labor is worth. An individual is always being paid according to how another individual values his labor. That price is never correct or incorrect. It simply is. Individuals are just as likely be paid less for their labor in a truly free market. Those individuals producing things that the public is losing their taste for would accordingly see their wages being gradually reduced, as individuals customers exercised their subjective value judgements on what was being produced. If the workers wanted higher wages, then they would have to not necessarily work harder, but apply their labor to producing something else. Again, value is in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do with labor amounts. Just because you're working harder than the next guy, it doesn't mean others should pay you more for what you produce if others don't find any use for what you're producing (nor does it mean that your income would rise in a free market). You're simply misapplying yourself. Anarcho-capitalism 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're vandalizing the Mutualism page now. Kropotkin is certainly one of the best secondary sources you've come up with, but the claim about Proudhon looks questionable. The "national bank" would be the Bank of Exchange of 1848, which was to issue a secured currency, based on discounted business paper. The Bank of the People, proposed the same year, also issued a secured currency. All of the claims about Proudhon and "credit checks" seem to ultimately source to either Kropotkin or Marx, and neither of them are particularly clear about their sources. Only on Wikipedia would anyone think this cut it as proof. Libertatia 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not "vandalized" anything. All discussion with you will now cease since you can't have a civil discussion. Bye Bye.Anarcho-capitalism 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, dear. I've hurt your feelings. My apology. I thought someone who called mutualists "lunatics" could take a little push-back. Libertatia 17:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I called Kevin Carson a lunatic. He is not an editor here, but an author. You accused me of having bad faith before on the Mutualist discussion page when all I was doing was citing sources in order to learn how Mutualism is defined. I've had enough of you.Anarcho-capitalism 17:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of mutualism to US 

message: The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article has been changed to say, "However, by using the definition of anarchism, it would seem that true anarchy would be most in line with the anarcho-capitalist line of thinking, in that it allows for a completely free market without any outside regulation." 
This is an unsupported claim and has been erased until such a claim is supported factually in a scholarly manner by a reputible source. Otherwise it is just a mere ideological assertion by Anarcho-Capitalists. Full Shunyata 23:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported Claim 

message: is getting way off-topic and entirely off-the-wall. If you are going to compare anarcho-capitalism to fascist dicators like Pinochet then I guess we can start comparing communist-anarchism to socialist dictators like Stalin. My point is that this whole thing is getting really carried away and into the  realm of the irrational and the ludicrous. And Full Shunyata, will you please stop repeating what everyone says? This page is long enough. Doctors without suspenders 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctors, stop lying. All I said about Pinochet was that he implemented Neoliberal libertarian economic policies and pointed out that his economic system was still very authoritarian (despite Libertarian claims that their system would not be authoritarian) and that his policies also a lot of economic decline in spite of enriching the upper-middle class in Chile. I said he was only a Fascist socially, economically and poliitcally he was a Neoliberal libertarian. He basically used the Chilean State as one large PDA for private enterprises to crush labor rebellions and anti-Neoliberal groups. You shouldn't try to tell me off if you don't even know what was said. Full Shunyata 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, honestly Shunyata, stop calling me names. I'm not a liar. I'll admit that I don't know what the hell you're talking about or why. There's no damned relevance to it. Period. I might as well go off on a tangent about Joseph Stalin and all the false promises he made in the name of socialism before he killed 600,000,000 people. Doctors without suspenders 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling you a liar (actually, I said "stop lying" not "you liar") is not name-calling, it's accusing you of a certain behavior, not calling you out of your name. It is very apparent you don't know what's going on and should just stay out of it since you don't. BTW, Stalin didn't kill 600 or 60 million people. Stalin killed about 7-9 million people as political prisoners. About 15 million other people died in Russia due to famine, bureaucratic mismanagement and the brutality of Industrialization itself. However, if you look back in history, Capitalist governments of the 17th and 18th century killed people up to the millions as well. Many millions of people died in England due to industrialization as well. I don't see what Stalin has to do with me anyway. If you keep comparing me, as a Communist Anarchist to Soviet Socialist dictators, I could start comparing you to Fascist Capitalist dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini. Put down "The Black Book of Communism" and pick up a real history book.  You're a sockpuppet and you're only here to cause trouble. Full Shunyata 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know he's a sockpuppet? Maybe you're a sockpuppet. Can you prove that he's a sockpuppet or that you are not a sockpuppet? Aithérios 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I can prove Doctors without suspenders (she, not he) is a sockpuppet. CheckUser aren't even interested in this user any more, they recommend me to block her on sight and not bother them with something so obvious. The only reson I haven't blocked her (yet) is that so many people are being unconstructive on this poor excuse for a talkpage anyway. But I have to say I wonder about the motives of people who jump in to say she's not. Do you actually know anything about it? Bishonen | talk 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Stalin killed 600 million people? missed that while getting a history degree somehow. Also, why haven't you been blocked yet thewolfstar? Do you have nothing better to do than mess around on wikipedia despite the fact that you're permanently banned?Blockader 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, exuse me. I meant to say 60 million. (After the first million it starts losing relevance, any how.) You kind of missed my point. And, Blockader, please stop these lame accusations. If you can't provide any evidence of this, then just kindly cut it out. Doctors without suspenders 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This debate

message: Is it necessary to have an entire section in this article devoted to Proudhon? Is he really that important? It's redundant because there's a section about mutualism anyway. Aithérios 01:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While discussing the origins of anarchism, it is impossible not to discuss Proudhon, the first self-proclaimed anarchist.  It's not redundant to discuss Proudhon and Mutualism in separate sections, either, because one is a pioneering intellectual and the other is a significant school of thought within anarchism. One section discusses the origins of anarchism whereas the other discusses theories that have contemporary followings. -- WGee 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proudhon

message: Why is Donnachadelong censoring the fact that the "Anarchist FAQ" was written by "social anarchists"? When he deletes that, I delete mention that an anarcho-capitalist wrote "Anarchist Theory FAQ" in order to be NPOV. But then when he puts the fact that the author is an anarcho-capitalist back, I oput back in the the authors of the other FAQ are social anarchists, but then he deletes that fact that the that one was written social anarchists but leaves in that the other one was written by an anarcho-capitalist. Donnachadelong, what are you doing? The "Anarchist FAQ" says: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in."  I think it's important to know what the bias of that FAQ is just as you think it is important to know the anarcho-capitalist bias of the other FAQ. SO, I've put a POV banner on that section until the POV is taken out by either deleting the ideologies of both authors or noting it for both.Anarcho-capitalism 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not in any way "NPOV". Anarcho-capitalists identify primarily as anarcho-capitalists. "Social anarchists" identify primarily as anarchists. I can see how this is upsetting to an anarcho-capitalist, because implying that the descriptor is not necessary seems to imply control over the terminology. The problem being, is that they do, and it's an insertion of POV to overclassify in order to illustrate otherwise. Owen 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that "Anarcho-capitalists identify primarily as anarcho-capitalists." I think most identify as "market anarchists" and "individualist anarchists." For example, the most popular anarcho-capitalist site anti-state.com calls it "market anarchism." And the writers of the FAQ are not referring to themselves simply as "anarchists." They make that clear. They say they are "social anarchists." If the Anarchist FAQ has pro-social-anarchism bias then it should be known, if it is going to be known that the other FAQ has a pro-ancap bias.Anarcho-capitalism 21:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I agree with the placement of the pov tag.  Doctors  without suspenders 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one here cares what you think becuase you are an obvious sock puppet of thewolfstar. you only hurt Mr. Ancap's position(s) becuase your credibility as a banned user is nonexistent. he realizes this just as do the rest of us. leave the sane editors here alone. Blockader 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, congratulations, Blockader, on saying something that was both a blatant lie and extremely insulting at the same time. Maybe you are the one that's a sock. I wouldn't doubt that. And I think Anarcho-capitalism can speak for himself.  Doctors  without suspenders 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censoring what the ideologies of the authors of the FAQs are