Talk:Anarchism/Archive 28

message: In the discussion of black anarchism, "However this does not indicate that he would sanction the collaboration of some white national anarchists with openly racist and fascist groups like the British National Party and the Eurasians."
Unfortunately, dictionaries give contrary definitions of sanction. Sometimes it means an "authoritative permission or approval," sometimes it means a penalty -- perhaps, in a situation like this, a boycott as a "sanction". The ambiguity of the word combined with my own ignorance of this particular writer/activist, leaves me confused about this sentence. --Christofurio 13:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sanction" has contradictory meanings

message: Anyone have a Wiki-legal picture of Proudhon?  We lost our last one. Hogeye 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: wHy are you rving the anarchism page using a IP address instead of signing in? -max rspct 17:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proudhon picture 

message: We're back to deleting schools of anarchism we don't agree with. Note  that I can do this without reverting! Hogeye 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No were not.. You can't just go about "replacing a school I do consider anarchist" and declare that this is an 'edit war' - thats POV . Anarcho-capitalism is not sourcable as a school of anarchism - I have never seen any reference to a notable academic or historical book. You and RJII have consistantly used the article as a political campaign since JUNE -max rspct 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism according  to virtually all dictionaries, most encyclopedias, and even the majority of anarchist theorists. And you know that good and well. Hogeye 18:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries? (*snicker*) --TelemachusSneezed 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Only if you pre-define "anarchist theorists" to include "anarcho-capitalist theorists". Chris Acheson 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to Tit-for-tat 

message: Proudhon was not an "Anti-collectivist"... Proudhon opposed authoritarians such as Jacobins and corporate robber-barrons. Proudhon was most definatly a socialist, and the definittion of communist you are using is always the bait-and-switch cold war version (in which all communists are described as authoritarian with no anti-authroitarian counterpart that preceeded them.)
:Not true. Proudhon was an individualist. He supported private property (individual ownership of the produce of labor) and opposed communism vehmently. That's why Dejacque admonished him in a letter, saying: "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." Anyone who thinks Proudhon was a collectivist really has no clue. RJII 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You really have a lot to learn. The individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists," but by that they didn't mean socialized or collectivized property as it means today. As Benjamin Tucker said of Proudon (whose philosophy he was thoroughly acquainted with, as he translated his works), "Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing....though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few." Why are you arguing that Proudhon didn't support capitalism? No one is claiming that he did. He supported the produce of labor as individual property, as well as man-mad means of production as individual property, supported money, and supported trade. Though those things are found in capitalism, that alone isn't sufficient for capitalism (unless you think capitalism is a non-profit system). Proudhon was mutualist --the economic system supported by individualist anarchists. Read up on it. Mutualism is not the same as capitalism', thought it has many similarities, it also has essential differences. RJII 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You don't know what you're talking about. I never entered anything about Bastiat, Ayn Rand, or Bryan Caplan in the article. Bastiat is mentioned in the mass of text you deleted from the Prouhon section, but I didn't put it in. RJII 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Radical Mallard (and Max_rspct), why are you deleting the description of Proudon's philosophy. You said in your edit summary that it makes him look like a capitalist. What does it matter what it makes him look like? His philosophy is what it is. He wasn't a capitalist --he opposed profit. And, he wasn't a communist --he opposed collective ownership, supported private property (individual property), money, and trade. He opposed title to unused or unoccupied land (which he called "property" early on). He was an individualist market anarchist -of course there is some resemblance to capitalism. RJII 21:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proudhon's Anti-Capitalism

message: It has been suggested that "Anarchist terrorist" be merged into this article. Shouldn't it be the other way around, as not to make this page too big? Kaliz 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anarchist terrorist" merge 

message: Having considered how best to develop this page, I would strenuously argue that it would be better to have a short page with many links, whereby interested readers could access proper information about their interests rather than creating a third rate high school essay which then becomes a political football for different anarchist factions whose most shared characteristic is their sectarianism. Harrypotter 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the length of the text 

message: Anarcho-syndicalism needs only one section. It had  two - one in history and a nearly identical  one  in Contemporary Anarchism. I deleted the latter. Hogeye 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How were they nearly identical? Anarcho-syndicalism remains the most popular form of anarchist organisation (with tens of thousands of paid up members in Spain for instance), so it needs an entry in the contemporary part. I agree any duplication between the two sections should be deleted - as I have done before. Bengalski80.102.32.21 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-syndicalism 

message: This anarcho-capitalism... Is it not just a variety of minarchism ? Whats the difference? If Robert Nozick is cited as being within the minarchism field of thought... is it not the true inheritor (and only identifiable, notable, and contemporary) variety of right-wing libertarianism? I reckon that most neo-liberal conservatives (and many Gordon Gekkos) would idenitfy themselves with this. -  max rspct leave a message  22:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Minarchists are a subset of libertarians. They don't think defense of liberty and property can happen without taxation. They attempt to approximate pure libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalists are absolute libertarians. RJII 23:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Minarchism is definitely more notable. Statism is a lot more notable than anarchism. Way more people support the existence of government than oppose it. RJII 14:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Minarchism]]

message: As great a fan as I am of Hakim Bey (I've taught TAZ in a college course), it's unclear in the article what his picture is doing in there.  The main article text doesn't place Bey anywhere, so the portrait just "floats".  The fact he's listed in the references at bottom isn't really enough.  If we are to keep Bey's picture in the text, we should really have at least a sentence about him within the article (presumably in the post-left section, though maybe the Pomo one... there's some sense to either). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: post left would make sense, and that's where the pic is anyways.  funny that there isn't a pic of him in his article, but i'll go put it there.   --Heah talk 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hakim Bey picture