Talk:Anarchism/Archive 25

message: Hey, I just created a  portal.  Who wants to help develop it?  Should we create a  project for it?  Marc Mywords 10:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting a portal

message: I think that all versions that are presented here give a clear view of the different anarchisms. [Libertarian socialism] is the only type of anarchism I've ever experienced, although I've met many people who adhere (or at least talk about) the other philosophies presented here. I think, on balance, and with the warning about the topic being in dispute, this is a wonderful example of Wikipedia's repository of knowledge.68.226.183.58 04:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite interesting, not a waste at all 

message: The list of schools was getting really out of hand.  A lot of the so-called schools were sub-branches of the main schools, or issue-oriented combinations like anarcho-feminism and green anarchism.  So I fixed it.  It used to be this way a few weeks ago, until someone changed it without discussion.--216.118.117.90 02:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue and Movement Anarchisms 

message: Can an administrator with some technical knowledge fix this somehow? --Tothebarricades 08:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Administrators only have access to maintenance functions. You could try locating a developer, but it'd probably be easier to report the problem on this. Sarge Baldy 09:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported this here, so we'll see if it finally gets dealt with. Sarge Baldy 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bug 

message: I haven't read all the debate on this page and haven't the time to but this statement is pretty inappropriate to put in the introduction:
"While anarchism is primarily viewed as a negative " ... (- opposition to compulsory authority)
It's a somewhat controversial statement anyway and a huge generalization which depending on how a question regarding the subject was posed to people could result in a different answer. I think that it needs to be put lower down the article and reworded and backed up. I don't think sweeping generalizations like this are particlarly educational or helpful myself.
:I'm not sure what your complaint is but it looks like you're taking the term "negative" to mean a bad thing. If so, that's not it's used. A negative view is one that says how things should NOT be. A positive view would be how things SHOULD be. But, it's probably not a good choice of wording due to this kind of confusion. RJII 06:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  badstart 

message: Max, why are you deleting the entire anarcho-capitalism section? Let me guess. You don't feel that anarcho-capitalism is "true anarchism." Keep your POV to yourself. This article needs to stay NPOV and not make such judgements. I can find sources for every kind of anarchism on this page that says each kind is not real anarchism. Just note that it's the POV of people that it's not real anarchism, like is mentioned for each of the other schools of thought, and that should be enough.  RJII 04:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, why is it "NPOV" to judge that it is a form of anarchism, and "POV" that it isn't? Clearly that's a matter in dispute. It's your POV that it is, because you consider anarchism a philosophy built off simply terminating systems of government. It's the POV of Max and a number of other contributors that anarchism is any philosophies designed to terminate social hierarchies. Neither POV is "neutral", however delusional people might be on the topic. It's understandable that you feel your POV is the "open-minded" one because you opt for a meaning reflecting a broader group of philosophies. But of course you're also limiting the definition of anarchism to your own perception so as to conveniently include philosophies you like to consider anarchism, so don't pretend you don't come across as close-minded to a lot of people yourself. All edits are POV. / 63.162.72.90 04:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's right I didn't! I am not sure having pics of the main 'players' in the history of anarchism neccessarily helps the article. especially as so many bods have been involved in anarchism. Perhaps they should be just left in the biographies. Other types of pics may better for the article. -max rspct 00:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Max_rspct's deletions

message: Not many people are posting there, and I feel it's relevant. 
Please begin deliberation, for I feel this issue is actively hindering the use of the template. 
Lockeownzj00 09:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Issues 

message: The article is so full of factual error and is so biased that I think we should just start over. Delete the article, and write it again--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 12:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about this myself. There's a lot of structural issues that I think are terribly problematic, like how this article is divided into "schools" rather than individual issues, making everything appear much more divisive than it really is. Short of a rewrite this article is pretty hopeless, and I don't know if even that would help. Sarge Baldy 19:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Name one factual error and one bias.  Feel free to discuss them on the mediation page. MrVoluntarist 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is this another case where someone is flabbergasted to find out that many anarchists support private property and a market economy? They don't teach you that in collidge do they? RJII 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a case where people are flabbergasted that limited possessions which cannot earn you any money whatsoever are presented as equal to capitalist property. Funkybeat 02:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where it does that.  It just uses language people are familiar with to refer to things.  The average person (you know, those unwashed masses Wikipedia is intended for) doesn't make the nitpicky, unclear possession/property distinction that traditional anarchists do.  What Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, etc. supported would be referenced by ordinary people as a form of property.  Nor is your characterization of the individualists' position even accurate.  They supported markets.  Markets are relationships in which you make money by selling things you produced with the intent of exchange rather than personal use.  They clearly did not limit their support to "limited possessions which cannot earn you any money whatsoever". MrVoluntarist 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Private property" does not mean "capitalist property" ..whatever that is. Private property just means that which is owned by an individual, as opposed to being owned by a government or a community in collective. Tucker refers to it as "private property"; Spooner refers to it as "private property." Anarcho-capitalists also believe in private property --individual ownership of things. Whether you like it or not, this is significant similarity between classical individualist anarchism and modern individualist anarchism (anarcho-capitalism). Anarcho-communists oppose private property. And, whether you like it or not, that's a significant difference. This article is abundantly clear on the question of profit in regards to classical individualism and anarcho-capitalism. From your statements on the mediation page, you seem to think that if classical individualists oppose profit that they oppose private property. That's an error in your reasoning, apparently due to the fact that you just don't know what private property is. Classical individualsts and anarcho-capitalists both favor private property. Spooner explains what is meant by private property: "...the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." Anarcho-capitalists believe the same thing. RJII 04:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Individualist Anarchists believe that you should only own what you could put into direct use and nothing more. For example, you can own enough land, if you are a farmer, to farm yourself and you can only own the tools you can use yourself. Capitalists don't know this restriction and promote that one should be able to own property that one does not actually use him or herself or that he did not produce himself. THIS is the distinction that firmly separates Individualist Anarchists and these capitalists. --Jazz Remington 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That holds for land, but not for the produce of labor. Classical individualist support a right to own all' the produce of one's labor and accumulate it if one wishes. They do not believe that others should have a right to take your produce from you without your consent just because you're not using it. Land itself is another story, as it's not the product of labor --but even then, that holds for most of the classical individualists, rather than all of them. For example, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews supported ownership, purchase, and sale, of unused land. Anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard argue that one can't come to own unowned land unless they occupy or use it: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." So the difference between the classical individualist and modern individualists (anarcho-capitalists) on land is not that clear cut, but on the produce of labor it's the same. RJII 00:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Jazz Remington, I seriously don't know where you're getting this.  Of course individualist anarchists believe you have the right to make tools you have no possible use for and exclude them from people who are unwilling to pay.  In other words, they support a market in tools.  Do you not know what a market is?  Like I said above, in a market - even a barter market - people produce things they have no personal use for but know that other people might have a use for, and demand that they be paid for things they have no intention or even ability of using.  Think about a butcher, a baker, a candlestick-maker on the market.  They produce more carved meat, bread, and candles than they could use in a lifetime.  They (as market participants) only give them to people who are able to pay.  Individualists are 100% cool with that.  Please, learn what individualists actually support before arguing for the insertion of errors into the anarchism article. MrVoluntarist 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Individuals don't have to let others take or use the tools and machines they've built when they're not using them --because they were built through labor --they're considered private property. Otherwise, you would be talking about something like communism, rather than individualism. RJII 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Claiming that "anarcho"-capitalists are similar to individualist anarchists on the basis of support for "private property" is tenuous at best.  Individualist anarchists support private property only in the sense of "possession determines ownership".  If someone else possesses it, you don't own it.  This is functionally equivalent to the communist anarchist position on possession. Chris Acheson 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not arguing for errors of any kind to be placed in this article. If I were, I would support "anarcho-"capitalism!  I was arguing that there IS a distinction between Individualist anarchist property rights and capitalist. Individualists are against rent, interest, and profit. Capitalists are not. That is the main distinction between the two that proves they are not the same. --Jazz Remington 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do rent, interest, and profit have to do with property rights? That doesn't have to do limiting property rights on things; it has to do with which things may be property at all. That which is produced by labor is private property; that which is not, should not be property. For most of the classical individualists, if government stops protecting that which shouldn't be regarded as property (land), then rent, interest, and profit would not be possible, due to increased competition in the market. That is not a limitation on property rights, but on what may be property --if you can't own land, then, logic necessitiates that, you can't rent it out. If government is not protecting banking monopoly, then, due to competition, you won't be able to lend out your capital for much, if any, interest. (Though if you do need some capital for a project, you can borrow some at the local mutual bank from other owners of capital with no interest due above that which is necessary for transaction costs, etc. And, this is only made possible by compeition of the proliferation of banks since it would no longer be necessary to get a charter to start one).  That's the classical individualist position. RJII 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Jazz, I'm tired of this.  Why don't you define for me what you think a "market" is and we'll go from there (if you're going to ignore my analysis of markets). MrVoluntarist 02:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we just delete this article and just start over? 

message: An anonymous IP used the edit comment:
(Revert from Dtobias and RJ11's anonymous and fake accounts used purely for POV vandalism.)
If this is attempting to state or imply that my account is "anonymous" or "fake" or "used purely for POV vandalism", then this is total bullshit.  I've always used the same account, with a username based on my real-life name, and have used that account for a variety of edits of which only a small fraction have anything to do with the current "POV war" over anarchism; and I don't consider any to be vandalism. *Dan T.* 16:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 532.401.21.431 is my real name. =( MrVoluntarist 12:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of "fake accounts" 

message: In the "Modern Anarchism" section there appears the following:
:According to anti-capitalist anarchists, such standpoints would put Proudhon and other individualist anarchists at odds with modern capitalism, even though Proudhon and other individualist anarchists were vigorous proponents of the free market system.
I'd like to delete this phrase -- and rephrase what I think was the author's point -- as I believe it creates a false dichotomy. We really need to settle on the issue of "economic reality" vs. "economic tool." A "free-market" by itself is simply an emergent property of transactions between consenting parties -- might I add, an inherently anarchistic social property. "Capitalism," in the general sense, is simply the private ownership of "capital" by a party.
My argument -- an argument I have seen posited by many others on this discussion page, either explicitly or implicitly -- is that "free-markets" and "capitalism" are not mutually inclusive; that is, one does not necessarily imply the other in either direction. Hence the existence of what I've seen referred to as "state capitalism." It can be argued fairly that capitalism is more conducive to the existence of free-market social properties, but that's as far as one can go: the property-ownership rules of "modern capitalism" -- see excerpt above -- may in fact by unconducive to free-market properties.
I find the rhetoric as demonstrated above to be dishonest. I'm going to delete it now, and if anybody would like to see it remain, please revert; however, back up your actions with arguments.
PS: Can we learn to use the "carriage return" button a little more often? That first paragraph in "Modern Anarchism" was downright unreadable.
Ciao. --TelemachusSneezed 21:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. That was a problematic sentence. I disagree that capitalism is the private ownership of capital. The individualist anarchists support private ownership of capital. I think what makes a system capitalist is that profit is involved, in addition to private ownership of capital. But, you are right that "free market" and capitalism are not synonymous. A free market can be any system of trade that's devoid of coercion  --capitalism or mutualism (the economic system of the labor theory individualists). RJII 00:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalism is free from coercion? I disagree. The Mutual aid of Kropotkin et al ... is much more notable than mutualism (The mutualism article is mostly written by RJII). Why are you trying to replace the former with the latter RJII (and don't harp on about anarcho-communism being separate from anarchism as much as anarcho-capitalsim .. as this your warped postmodern thinking all over again) -max rspct 10:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you trying to credit me for writing most of the Mutualism article, but I did not do so. RJII 13:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well U started the article Mutualism (economic theory), and at least 80% of the edits are by you. I suppose your talking about wordcount?- max rspct13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the article. It's quite possible that 80% of the edits by me since I'm a perfectionist and fine tune my edits a lot, but I definitely did not write most of the material in that article. I'd say maybe 30%-40% at the most. RJII 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free-markets" vs. "capitalism"