Talk:Anarchism/Archive 27

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

message: Hogeye, stop putting biased version of bibliography. @capitalism is small disputed current, "not second leg of anarchism". You can put 1 or 2 @cpaitalist books with note "anarchocapitalist", but not whole new section!
Maybe @communists, @collectivist, @feminists, poststructuralist anarchists, etc. sholud put here their own section of books. This will be the longest bibliography on the wikipedia, I think. --XaViER 12:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine - add more books if you wish.  But don't delete books you consider non-politically-correct. That's about as POV as you can get! Hogeye 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

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

message: I've created a definitions of anarchism article on Wikiquote for reference. This may be good to resolve disputes in the future. Please add any definitions you come across. RJII 18:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, out of all the dictionary, encyclopedia, and luminary definitions, only one (Bakunin's) is anti-capitalist. Hogeye 04:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of anarchism

message: I'm still not understanding the "contemporary anarchism" and "modern schools of thought" section. How new does something have to be to be "modern"? Isn't anarcho-communism, for example, modern?  The dividing line gives the impression that the types above the line don't exist anymore, but it's not true.  There must be a better way of doing things. Any suggestions? RJII 02:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about that?  Libertarian socialists are all anarcho-communists or syndicalists, and there seem to be plenty of those around. RJII 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary anarchism

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

message: Anarchist terrorism should be merged into this. --AaronS 06:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda by the deed 

message: RJ, this isn't even about your POV pushing - but could you not just stop and think a little before you add or make changes to the article? Eg. your work on the international section - a couple of weeks ago you were inserting stuff to show that Bakunin wasn't in the IWA at its founding, which is true but I think not really relevant to the issue as it can be framed in a short space. Now you've been sticking stuff in to say Bakunin was there at the start. Why? And your inaccurate posts about Marx in the international - before he was simply its 'leader', when there was no formal leadership role. Now you're reinserting this in a modified form. Why? 
It seems to me time and again you see something written somewhere on the web - yes, any Marxist tract you find will tell you Marx was leader of the international, without giving any precise details - and decide to shove it in the article. I wish you would first stop, think about it, check it against another source, read the original sources it refers to, or post for discussion on the talk page to see if anyone else knows anything on the subject. Otherwise what happens is - even outside of the edit war on ancapism - you are creating a lot of work for other people just to go and check up after you. Are you doing this on purpose just to make everyone else so fed up of working on the article they give up and leave you to fashion it as you like?Bengalski 19:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: thoughtless editing

message: Hogeye, I don\\\'t think your game-playing is constructive. And it is vandalism. So too is reverting more than 3 times - \\\'simple vandalism\\\' is explicitly defined not to include good faith edits that you feel are POV. I don\\\'t want to play games here, but I do want to get this page working, and if that involves using the wikipedia rulebook I\\\'ll do it.Bengalski 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I\\\'ve blocked Hogeye for excessive violation of the 3RR. I\\\'d have preferred not to do so, especially considering my own interests in the article, but I count a total of 6 reversions in a 24 hour period, and this clearly is a POV dispute rather than \\\"simple vandalism\\\". Frankly everyone needs to assume the good faith of the other involved editors, and assuming anyone else with a differing point of view is a vandal is not going to push the article forward in any way. Sarge Baldy 18:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: \\\"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.\\\" Isn\\\'t making up your own proprietary definition a deliberate attempt to compromise the article?  I think so. You shouldn\\\'t have blocked Hogeye, Sarge. 64.111.105.28 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism, per Wikipedia policy, does not include NPOV violations. Nor does it include what could be considered "bullying" of one group by another. It refers to consensus-level edits used to deface the Wikipedia (i.e. "George W. Bush is a fucken idiot.") Sarge Baldy 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been here for a few months, and it seems Hogeye is still up to the same old tricks - why hasn't he been permanently banned? He's been one of the most disruptive users in the history of Wikipedia and shows no intention of ever changing his ways. --Tothebarricades 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is this guy really notable at all? Webcrawler hits total 76 including a paper that says ". Meulen's monetary economics was original though flawed" . Google get 199 hits... but past the first page (which is almost the same as the first webcrawler page) it diffuses into other H. Meulens. -max rspct 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Muelen is definitely notable. There isn't alot about him on the internet, as the internet hasn't caught up yet. What's on the internet is just one small slice of all the information that's out there in books, journals, etc.  Stuff is constantly being transferred over. As a matter of fact, individualist/panarchist and researcher John Zube, who I recently talked to, is in the process now of digitizing his stuff. RJII 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: "Question2: You imply that there existed some individualist anarchists who engaged in terrorism/propaganda by deed. Can you name one?" (Hogeye)
First of all, when discussing anarchist terrorism you need to bear in mind a couple of things: 
- the amount it was hyped up by anti-anarchist propaganda, and the involvement of agents provocateurs. 
- many of the terrorists labelled as such weren't in fact anarchists. 
- to ask whether they were 'anarchist communists' or 'individualists' assumes these people actually had a well-developed position re. private property, or that they classified themselves in one of these groupings - I doubt that was often the case.
That said, as far as I'm aware the first actual theorist of anarchist terrorism was in fact an individualist, Karl Heinzen, who published a booklet Der Mord (Murder) in 1849. His famous quote is: "If you have to blow up half a continent and cause a bloodbath to destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no scruples of conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is not a true republican" 
Unfortuantely I can't find an online version of it, or of any of his writings. But if we can trust Engels quoting Heinzen - they had a polemic match going, his position sounds pretty similar to classic individualist anti-communist anarchism:
'“By its above-mentioned casting-off of all private property..., communism necessarily also abolishes individual existence.” (So Herr Heinzen is reproaching us for wanting to turn people into Siamese twins.) “The consequence of this is once more ... the incorporation of each individual into a perhaps (!!) communally organised barracks ... economy.” (Would the reader kindly note that this is avowedly only the consequence of Herr Heinzen’s own absurd remarks about individual existence.) “By these means communism destroys ... individuality ... independence ... freedom.” (The same old twaddle as we had from the true socialists and the bourgeoisie. As though there was any individuality to be destroyed in the individuals whom the division of labour has today turned against their will into cobblers, factory workers, bourgeois, lawyers, peasants, in other words, into slaves of a particular form of labour and of the mores, way of life, prejudices and blinkered attitudes, etc., that go with that form of labour!) “It sacrifices the individual person with its necessary attribute or basis” (that “or” is marvellous) “of earned private property to the ‘phantom of the community or society'” (is Stirner here as well?), “whereas the community cannot and should not” (should not!!) “be the aim but only the means for each individual person.”' 
[]
RJ and Hogeye I think feel that terrorism contradicts the basic 'non-coercion' tenets of anarchist individualism. I would say that social anarchism is as much against violence and coercion as individualism. In theory, violence is a wrong against the core principles of either account. But there are differing views amongst anarchists of all types as to how far violence can be a justified or necessary evil. Within anarchist communism, there are plenty who hold that violence is justified under no circumstances whatsoever, and the large majority of communist theorists have condemned acts of terrorism.Bengalski 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're quite wrong to say that "social anarchist is as much against violence and coercion as individualism." You can say, well it's the bad image the collectivist anarchists have because of a few violent acts, but the philosophy of violence is coming from them mouths of theorists. Where do you see individualist anarchist theorists advocating throwing bombs and causing "massacres"? From Godwin and Proudhon on down through the Americans labor-value individualists, not only did the theorists oppose terrorist acts, but they even opposed revolution. Bakunin opposed Proudhon because the latter was for working apart from government and going into competition with it rather than taking it head on violently. This theme is expressed over and over with the American labor-value individualists. They mission of the individualists was to educate through philosophy (hence individualism is referred to "philosophical anarchism" and "scientific anarchism") and establish mutualist institutions and communities to bring about a gradual change to where individuals would eventually shake off government. Proudhon said it would take hundreds of years even. Now, I'm not saying in order to be an individualist anarchist, you have to oppose violent revolution against a highly oppressive government; I know that the American individualists supported the right of revolution in some cases an looked with great favor upon the American Revolution. I'm just talking from an historical viewpoint of the labor-value individualists theorists, it was not about violence at all, and it certainly wasn't about blowing things up and harming people. The Euros came to the U.S. and started blowing things up and the American individualists wanted to distances themselves as far as possible from the philosophy of "propagana by the deed."  RJII 15:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: I'm familiar with individualists anarchists that are not American, but it's the type of individualist American developed by the Americans that is the most notable (not that they were the only ones who held it ..many Euros theorists also came to hold it). Where do you see Proudhon advocating violent anarchist revolution in General Idea of the Revolution? Bakuinin opposed Proudhon because he wasn't into revolution, and his Mutualist followers opposed Bakunin for favoring it. "[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation"  Where do you see Proudhon advocating violent revolution? RJII 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another quote from Gambone's essay which you're taking as a full and accurate summary of Proudhon's life's work? RJ I'll make you a deal (voluntary contract) - if you read an actual book by Proudhon, cover to cover, I'll read a book by Murray Rothbard.Bengalski 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't you read the Proudhon book too? RJII 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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