Talk:Anarchism/Archive 20

message: If you want to talk about Anarcho-Capitalism (A-C), make sure you take a look at past discussions about it. Same goes for other controversial topics.--albamuth 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archives 

message: Once the current protection regime is over I propose that the article be made a lot smaller and new articles based on the various sections be created.  I started this before the current flare up with Major conflicts within anarchist thought, however the page I made is now not linked.  This is a project which I hope to see you all be interested in :).--harrismw 01:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break up the article (it's too long) 

message: Usage of terms such as capitalism, individual anarchism, and so forth need to be consistent with what other articles define them as. So let's take a moment to see what the other articles say:
* The anti-capitalism article says about anarchism: Anarchism argues for total abolition of both the state and the capitalist economy, as well as all other forms of coercive hierarchy.
* The capitalism article readily admits that there are different definitions of capitalism but goes on to say: In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined largely through the operation of a "free market" rather than by centralized state control (as in a command economy).
* The individualist anarchism article says: Anarcho-socialists often note that Spooner, Tucker, and Stirner all rejected some principles of capitalism, while anarcho-capitalists observe that they also rejected some principles of socialism, particularly collective ownership. Tucker referred to himself as a socialist, defining it as "the claim that labor should be put in possession of its own".
Note that the third article, on individualist anarchism, says that the individualists rejected some notions of socialism, and some principles of capitalism. However, if capitalism is an economic system in which private ownership and operation of property is done for profit, then is it not accurate to say that the individualists were anti-capitalist? For the record, I have had no hand in editing any of those three articles at all. --albamuth 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well known that the 19th century individualist anarchists opposed capitalism (capitalism being a complete set of characteristics). But what's the importance of that? Anarcho-capitalism, which is a modern form of individualist anarchism, doesn't oppose capitalism. Just because those anarchists oppose capitalism it means you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist? Where is the logic in that? Anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism oppose private ownership of capital. Does that make individualist anarchists not anarchists because they support it? All anarchism does not embrace collectivist economics. Where is the absurd idea that you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist coming from? All anarchism does not embrace collectivist economics. Benjamin Tucker, the 19th century individualist anarchist, even went so far as to say that those who oppose private property are not anarchists. We could listen to him and refuse to allow all the anti-private-property schools of thought to be listed as anarchism. That would be just as arbitrary as doing the same for a school that favors capitalism. Individualist anarchism is in its own class, just as anarcho-capitalism is. But, that doesn't make them not anarchism. Opposition to private property doesn't make one an anarchist any more than opposing capitalism makes one an anarchist. RJII 05:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All anarchism does not embrace collectivist economics. Where is the absurd idea that you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist coming from? Collectivist economics -- what do you mean by that term? My point is that opposition to the system of capitalism does not hinge on whether or not a person supports collective property. Rather, as the capitalism article clearly states, it is a system of economics in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. The crucial point here is that it is done for profit, with no other purpose in mind (hence my statement earlier that capitalists are only interested in making money). If instead you are referring to an ideology of economics in relation to the Statem (that some would say leads to a "better" society), then perhaps you are talking about classical liberalism (to which Rothbard is clearly opposed). --albamuth 17:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think private property is? It's everything that is not collective (or community) property and that is not government property. I'm not saying that the 19th century individualist anarchists were capitalists, but like capitalists, they rejected the idea of collective property, in favor of private property. (Benjamin Tucker: "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny. I . . . maintain that ‘the community’ is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogatives beyond those of the individuals themselves.”) Tucker's position was that those who opposed private property, such as anarcho-communists, were not anarchists. The same type of thing is being done with a rejection of anarcho-capitalism, by the collectivists. But, if this article is to be NPOV, then it has to rise above these disputes. The common definition of anarchism says nothing of private property and nothing of capitalism (Merriam-Webster: "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.") This article should not be POV. It should not take Tucker's position that you have to support private property to be included as a type of anarchism, and it shouldn't take the communist anarchists' position that individualist anarchism and/or anarch-capitalism are not types of anarchism. The communists should not be allowed to confine the definition of anarchism to suit them. RJII 00:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (RJII I assume you posted that?) Anyhow, you say, It should not take Tucker's position that you have to support private property to be included as a type of anarchism, and it shouldn't take the communist anarchists' position that individualist anarchism and/or anarch-capitalism are not types of anarchism. Yes, I agree with you, the definition of private property (as opposed to personal property is not the issue. However, it is the intent and usage of private property that separates capitalists from anti-capitalists. Please, see my response in the preceding section. --albamuth 19:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The connection between the 19th century individualists anarchists and anarcho-capitalists is that they both support private property (including capital) and oppose collectivism, and both support a market economy. An anarchist that rejects private property (individualist property) is a collectivist anarchist ; one who supports it is an individualist anarchist, hence the title. Therefore, anarcho-capitalists is a modern form of individualist anarchism. For example, Wendy McElroy is a self-described modern individualist anarchist who supports capitalism. As far as anarcho-capitalism not being significant, that's just false. The philosophy has been around since the 50's, and it comes up on Google 42,100 times. What does it take for something to be significant? RJII 19:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Given that part of the definition of capital is its ability to produce further income, (i.e. interest and profit), it is pretty easy for anyone who has read a single individualists to see that they did not support capital as anarcho-capitalists do.  Further, individualists did not believe that a market such as the anarcho-capitalists advocate would be a free market.  So what you end up with is only a single similarity here, that they both opposed collectivism.  But opposition to collectivism does not an anarchist make, more so, it does not make one an anarcho-individualist.  Don't you feel the slightest bit ashamed in ascribing anarcho-capitalism to the tradition of individualism when the individualists flatly denounced captialism?  Doesn't it make you feel like you are doing something slimey when misrepresenting this to wikipedia editors and readers?  Kev 00:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Self-Consistency Argument

message: I tried to read that last section, but it started to hurt my eyes. Plus I got the idea that I was reading utter nonsense. Proudhon wasn't anticapitalist? And I suppose Augusto Pinochet was never a dictator? American footballs are spherical? Can someone summarize the arguements made thus far in point-counterpoint form? Sheesh. --albamuth 00:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: In a capitalist state there will always be a ruler, so it can not be anarchist.
anarcho-cap. would just make it easier for corprations to screw peaple over.
These ideals are what the republican party is for, not anarchists.
you are just a libratarian not an anarchist.
:Anarcho-capitalists want a stateless society with a capitalist economic system.  Corporations would be innocuous without government privilege. Hogeye 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "anarcho-capital"