Talk:Anarchism/Archive 44

message: It's fun discussing Proudhon, Goldman, de Cleyre, and Stirner ... but what about the article? Does everyone agree that consensus among editors on the definition of anarchism is impossible? If so, how shall we proceed?
# Unlock the article and continue the edit wars.
# Keep the article locked as is.
# Lock the article with a neutral disambiguation page of some kind.
# Seek binding(???) arbitration.
# Other?
Hogeye 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already admitted that your goal is to disrupt the editing process as much as you can until you get what you want: a neautral disambiguation page, catered to your opinion regarding divisions in anarchist theory. --AaronS 21:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, unless I've missed it, Hogeye still hasn't provided a reliable source for his claim that anarchism is commonly defined in  two different ways. VoluntarySlave 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? I, and others, have cited numerous dictionaries and luminaries for the anti-statist definition.E.g.  Here's Tucker:  "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." Also see Wikiquote and Onelook. Various people have provided sources for the anti-state plus anti-capitalism definition. Half this page is providing quotes and arguing about which def is the right one. Both definitions have been amply sourced, and both definitions have editors championing them. It is clear that there are at least two reasonable definitions. Hogeye 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that's enough, though. Your proposed disambiguation page asserts that there are two, and only two, primary definitions of anarchism, which are separate and incompatible with each other. That is, your claim is that the word anarchism has two meanings, not that there is one meaning but a disagreement about how that meaning should be expressed. To claim that the word has two distinct meanings, without a source, is OR. To make a disambiguation page when there is disagreement about the meaning of the word is a POV fork. VoluntarySlave 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with VoluntarySlave here. Besides, wikiquote is not a legitimate source (especially considering all the debate we had about that page here on this talk page). I think your the main contributor there as well, which was one of the main issues. And like Aaron, I honestly can't assume good faith on your part here. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just the individual definitions that need sourcing. It's the claim that the word "anarchism" has two (or more) different meanings. The obvious interpretation of the diversity of definitions is that the definition of "anarchism" is controversial, not that there are two different (and equally well accepted) definitions. But the latter is what your DP says, so that's what I'd like to see a source for. I'm not at all convinced, by the way, that the disagreements that occur on this page are due to defining the word "anarchism" in different ways. VoluntarySlave 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to . . . state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations . . when one examines the writings of classical anarchists . . . as well as the character of anarchist movements . . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." ("Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed no. 45)
Unsurprisingly, he also notes in that essay that "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. The reason we are having this discussion is because Rothbard decided to call his ideology "anarcho-capitalism" in the 1950s and so ignore the whole history of anarchism. Personally, I think (like most anarchists) that we should stick with the traditional definition of anarchism as anti-state and anti-capitalist. "Anarcho"-capitalism should be mentioned as a form of anarchism, but in addition it should be clear and obviously stated that most anarchists reject the claim. BlackFlag 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus is Impossible 

message: I'm seeing major straying from civility, especially under the "Unlock the article?" section. Calm down people. Take a deep breath and then see if you can be civil. Otherwise, I'm going to start handing out blocks again. There's just no reason to get personal here. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for being harsh with my words, before, but I would appreciate it if there wasn't so much equivocation going on in the discussions. --AaronS 05:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calm down people 

message: Wikiquote's article q:Definitions of anarchism has been moved to q:Anarchism. Although a redirect exists to allow the current WQ box link in this article's "External links" section to jump to the current article, the box link itself should be simplified to "", either by a sysop or when this article is finally (or even temporarily) unprotected. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the fix. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should fix Wikiquote link 

message: If the page ever gets unlocked, this is for that time (just to get going a bit further in discussing something out of the present discourse). In reading the Origins section of the anarchism article, its references and the Origins of anarchism article ive come to the conclusion that the perspective on Taoism and Stoicism is really quite onesided. Most of all in the Origins of anarchism article, but also, especially when considering Taoism, the Origin section. The reference to the article which compares anarchism with taoism is both critical and optimistic as to how much these two have in common. Fx the article states that Tao te Ching is viewed by the Chinese scholar D. C. Lau as having "a primarily ethical rather than mystical or philosophical import, and which does not question the concept of political rule. In his view, passages concerning the sage or ruler apply to any follower of the Tao, but are also specific references to an enlightened and skillful “ruler,” in a quite literal sense.". I think it would be to take the source serious in all its perspectives if we where to put a line under the Tao and Stoic part of the Origins section in the Anarchism article which states that the comparison between Taoism and Anarchism is a controversy. In the Origins of anarchism article there is need of a view of the bigger picture in details, something which would be too long for the Origins section. About the Stoic Zeno, ive got some objections which is nothing but a reference to the views of Zeno in regard to metaphysics and ethics. I havnt got a source which actually contests the comparison of anarchism to stoicism in Zeno, but i have some objections myself. If i find any source that backs me up ill put it here. --Fjulle 12:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchism in Taoism and Stoicism

message: With thewolfstar sock attacks thankfully gone for a few days and now Hogeye indefinitely banned (barring a few sock attacks), can we now agree to unlock this article (keeping it protected from sock attacks)? There are a few bits that need redeveloping, Kropotkin should be reinstated and, looking back, GoodIntentions' suggested Guideline to Capitalism and An-Cap  poll was supported 7 to 5 (counting Hogeye's vote, but not the Wolfy's "Rule by Secrecy" sock).Donnacha 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need to rework the article back to the version that was approaching a compromise between editors who disagree with each other. I'm particularly interested by the suggestion that we use Colin Ward's model from Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction to shape the article. Either way, work needs to be done. I won't be involved in it, but there are those who would like to be. With the most troublesome and disruptive users dealt with, I'd support unlocking the article. --AaronS 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we unlock the article, shouldn't we deal with  and ?  The former seems like a sock puppet of the banned —they both have access to a comprehensive library of anarcho-capitalist literature, and they both keep trying to alter the lead of anarcho-capitalism to define it as a form of individualist anarchism.  The latter, DTC, seems like your typical RJII sockpuppet, for obvious reasons. -- WGee 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HaHa. I don't have an access to a "comprehensive library of anarcho-capitalist literature." I have access to a library (and a great online search engine), don't you? If you pay attention, no sources I reference are from anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. There are two main kinds of anarchism, social anarchism and individualist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is not social, but individualist.Anarcho-capitalism 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are just equivocations. I have long suspected DTC of being a sock puppet of RJII, because they have the same styles, make the same points, and try to make the same changes. TheIndividualist was a sock puppet of RJII; he admitted that. User:Anarcho-capitalism does not seem to have the same style as RJII. --AaronS 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't thing Mr. Ancap is anything other than who he claimed to be at the beginning, someone recruited off a list. His recent bad habits have clearly been influenced by thewolfstar socks and Hogeye. I'm hoping that the end of the recent rubbish means we can return to reasonable editing. Donnacha 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Same here, an-cap is either A) Not a sock of a blocked user or B) Is doing a good job of changing their style to hide their identity. I'll assume good faith and go with A. Seems like a unique user to me. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think ancap is a sock at all but remain unsure of DTC. i also think Ward's format in AAVSI would provide a better layout for the article. Blockader 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What bad habits are you talking about? I hope your insults aren't a "bad habit."Anarcho-capitalism 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Donnacha, and I don't mean to be unfriendly, but, Anarcho-capitalism, you're a little quick to make comprehensive, controversial generalizations. My only concern is that we do a little more comparing of notes on the talk pages, try to head off the madness before it starts. Libertatia 00:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone else here says controversial things as well. I don't check to see if what I say is going to be controversial before I say it. I say what I think is true.Anarcho-capitalism 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But wikipedia aint about the truth, its about verifiability. Might be that all this truth seeking lights up more fires than good is! After all this isnt the place for abstract philosophical discussions. --Fjulle 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything tends to become more polarized along with the presence of disruptive editors/socks and the bickering that ensues. people of all viewpoints become both more aggressive and defensive and generally less likely to compromise or admit mistakes. i trust that much of that sectarian behavior will diminish now that the article is no longer under immediate attack from unreasonable parties. Blockader 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notified Woohookitty that there appears to be a consensus that the article should be unlocked. -- WGee 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure we should unlock yet. This page is generating an archive a fortnight... We should first make a compromise of some sort, then we can unlock. This is one case where we need three parts prudence for each part action. --GoodIntentionstalk 01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it matters much? I mean, the problem here is that we can't keep the page protected forever but on the other hand, I don't see alot of compromise here or attempts to get along. Just in this section, we have bickering. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not much hope for this article, no. But I'll continue to attempt to reach compromises, because I'm stupid that way. --GoodIntentionstalk 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all we can do. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to unlock

message: Wherein each interested party, being a Wiki editor of good repute, gives a short overview of how he/she would like the article to look. --GoodIntentionstalk 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say why I think this is a good idea: to allow us, all with clearly divergent views, to voice our vision in an uncontested, open manner and through this sharing allow ourselves to reach an agreement. I sound like a preschool teacher, I know, but I gotta be polite sometime. --GoodIntentionstalk 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to removing Tucker, Warren and Spooner. If Kropotkin and his ancom are discussed, then Tucker and his individualist anarchism should be discussed. It is not merely history either. There are a few individualist anarchists who still subscribe to the labor theory of value. Kevin Carson is one.Anarcho-capitalism 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike your tit-for-tat objection, but the latter sounds fair. If the tradition of AIA still exists, then it should be represented, but since it's become such a small field I'd think a brief overview of all current anarchist individualism could do it justice. Warren, Spooner and Tucker can have places in the Figures of Anarchism section with my blessing. How would you like this article to be, AC? --GoodIntentionstalk 02:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AIA exists mostly in the form of anarcho-capitalism. I think each kind of anarchism should be discussed as much as it takes to make each kind understandable. Each kind should be criticized as well. Right now only the individualist anarchisms are criticized. Anarcho-communism for example should have a few lines under it criticizing it, to be fair.Anarcho-capitalism 02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not call an-cap an extension of AIA, which is why I'd give it a seperate mention as a school, but that is a different discussion. I do not think each, or any, school should be criticised, and I've always removed such sectarian attacks on sight. However, saying that the majority of anarchists do not recognise an-cap isn't a criticism, not in the "Rothbard considered Tucker a flawed economist" sense. No one can deny the gulf between socialist anarchism and an-cap, which is what the section says in all fairness. --GoodIntentionstalk 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an "extension of AIA." It is AIA. AIA is just individualist anarchism in America. Tucker's is one form, Spooner's is another, and Rotbhard's is another.Anarcho-capitalism 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree, but that's another matter. How would you like to see the layout of this article, AC? We might disagree in our approach to politics, but we agree on how Wiki should be and that's all that's important here so i'd like your opinion. --GoodIntentionstalk 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any point of making any elaborate plans. It's not like we're on the editorial board of Encylcopedia Britannica and a final version is going to get printed. This is Wikipedia and there's never going to have a stable article. Let's not pretend it's something that it's not.Anarcho-capitalism 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I would like this article to say 

message: I've been thinking recently that it's not really correct to call anarcho-syndicalism a school of thought, it's a form of tactical organisation to achieve collectivist or communist anarchism, not a distinct principle. It was a development of previous forms of organisation that came with the development of the labour movement, not a break from past ideas. Any thoughts? Donnacha 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its true that anarcho-syndicalism is not mutually exclusive of other schools and that one might be a ancom, ancol, etc and simultaneously be a syndicalist. that seems to be the case most often actually. however, i am unsure of removing or even moving the section as it is a historically and currently important aspect of anarchism and could, I believe, be considered a school of thought (just not a mutually exclusive one). Maybe it would be best to note this particular aspect of ansynd in the section. Blockader 15:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've been meaning to correct that. Not all individualist anarchists are market anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-syndicalism

message: I don't have the sources, and not really the time, to do this now, but I think it's a good idea: someone, write up a paragraph describing in short the reason there is tension between the social and individualist schools. In this way we can remove the ugly "Other anarchists think this anarchism looks funny" paragraphs from the schools pages. Be sure to mention that there are people on all three sides (social, indiv and without-adjectives) who think that everybody can more or less live together in peace. Good idea, huh? --GoodIntentionstalk 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of dovetails into my suggestion that we have a paragraph on attempts at synthesis. Donnacha 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues: Social and Individualistic Anarchism 

message: I'm not comfortable with this statement in the ancap section: "Through these two qualities this is a capitalist school of thought." What makes anarcho-capitalism capitalist is that is supports private ownership of the means of production and a free market.Anarcho-capitalism 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be both and socialist. Like Proudhon. You can remove the sentence, I placed it there in an attempt to make the position clear. I pulled back at describing an-cap's stance on profit, because that probably is a larger can of worms than I have an appetite for. Without that qualification that sentence doesn't explain much. --GoodIntentionstalk 04:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the modern definition of socialism you can't. Socialism is defined a state or community ownership of the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, you accept a narrow "modern definition" of socialism. On the other hand, you and all the other "anarcho"-capitalists seek to redefine the definition of anarchism to mean its opposite. Ironic, no? Donnacha 08:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many, many ways to socialise the means of production. The question is a bit broader than you make it out. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individualized (private) means of production is the opposite of socialized means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to go into it, but it really isn't as simple as that. You can have individual ownership of socialised means of production - it depends on the type of ownership in that society, of which there are a broad spectrum. You are looking at only two forms of ownership - exclusive (capitalist) and communal (communist). Syndicalism would have the syndicates own the MoP, and that would be socialist, even if each person has a specific private share of the syndicate he is a member of (why co-operatives are, or are able to be, socialist in a capitalist economy). Mutualism and AIA take place in and around the possession form of ownership, where whoever has something in his hands owns it. This is also socialist - only exclusive ownership, where someone in New York can own an Angolan goldmine and can only lose ownership by selling it, excludes any form of socialism. Only in capitalism is ownership such a pivotal factor in society, that is what capitalism is. Under socialism man can not be divorced from his labour, under capitalism his labour can be bought from him. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to Tucker, Spooner, as AIA, then that's not true. They don't support "possession" ownership except for land. Any other means of production is regular ownership, with no requirement than you keep your hands on it. If someone builds a machine or factory, or post office as in Spooner's case, it is his whether he leaves town or not.  And Tucker supports purchase and sale of labor. "Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism." -TuckerAnarcho-capitalism 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd do well to consider the context and material circumstances wherein AIA was developed, that of a homesteading and artisan culture. Doing so, you might see the problems with your arguments. BTW, saying "he didn't support 'possession' ownership except for land" is a bit like saying "he didn't support slavery except when using non-Europeans". --GoodIntentionstalk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "In No 121 of Liberty, criticising an attempt of Kropotkine to identify Communism and Individualism, I charged him with ignoring 'the real question of whether Communism will permit the individual to labor independently, own tools, sell his labor or his products, and buy the labor or products of others.' In Herr Most's eyes this is so outrageous that, in reprinting it, he puts the words "the labor of others" in large black type. Most being a Communist, he must, to be consistent, object to the purchase and sale of anything whatever but why he should particularly object to the purchase and sale of labor is more than I can understand. Really, in the last analysis, labor is the only thing that has any title to be bought or sold. Is there any just basis of price except cost? And is there anything that costs except labor or suffering (another name for labor)? Labor should be paid! Horrible, isn't it?" -TuckerAnarcho-capitalism 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So his argument against communism was that the individual could get divorced from the product of his labour? And you're using this against what I've told you? --GoodIntentionstalk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In capitalism, the individual is not divorced from the product of his labor. What are you talking about?Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So since you say "Under socialism man can not be divorced from his labour, under capitalism his labour can be bought from him," does that mean Tucker was a capitalist?Anarcho-capitalism 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because Tucker stipulated a wage that is materially equivalent to working on MoP that the worker himself owns. Any other wage would be exploitative. There's also the small matter that he viewed himself as a socialist, and he was in quite a good position to know. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tucker did not oppose people working on the means of production owned by others. That was permissible, and he didn't see anything wrong with it. Anything contractual is permissible in individualist anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to reread Tucker. For Tucker, much was permissible which he nonetheless opposed, because Tucker was so opposed to imposing standards. Later in his life, when it became clear to him that simply removing bars to voluntary trade might not overcome artificially concentrated capital and its social power, he became discouraged. But, when it comes to goals and ideals, recall that Tucker's defense of wages was not a defense of the power of employer over employee. He wanted everyone equally at risk in the marketplace. This is, I think, one of those places where capitalists and traditional anarchists (including the American individualists and mutualists) part company. Libertatia 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No he was not, because socialism wasn't defined as it is today. Today it means collective , or state, ownership of the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifies as capitalism 

message: This section needs expanding as the ideas contained within both ideas have origins in the early days of anarchism. I just wanted to check that no-one has an objection to me adding that Emma Goldman was the first to outline radical feminist ideas and that Kropotkin equated racism with the exploitation of the working class (I'll get good quotes to do so)? Donnacha 10:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds excellent to me. Blockader 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminism and anti-racism

message: Does anyone else have problems with the "capitalism" para in the issues section? It is suprisingly less informative and shorter than the "communism" para in the issues section, despite the fact that far more anarchists have fundamental qualms regarding capitalism as opposed to communism. the paragraph is primarily devoted to explaining aspects of capitalism that mutualists and indivdualists don't have a problem with. it currently reads:
:Most anarchists traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also seek rejection of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative. For mutualists, this opposition does not include opposition to the product of labor or capital goods ("means of production") run by individuals, but only "usary," i.e. rent, interest, and profit from other's labor. Thus individualist anarchists, even those who are not anarcho-capitalist, support individual sovereignty, free trade, free competition, and private property, like in mutualism and homesteading.[31][66]
I remeber this section being substantially better in the past but can't find it in the history, which only goes back to august. Blockader 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note Mr AnCap is even disputing the definition of profit, calling it Marxist. To say that labour is only worth what people are willing to pay for it is capitalist and thus POV. You don't apply pro-capitalist arguments to a definition of opposition to capitalism. Donnacha 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with saying they oppose "profit from other's labor" without explaining that. "Profit" is not used in the normal sense. "Profit" according to the way mutualist uses it refers to not paying someone according to the labor theory of value. For example, you can "profit" by not paying someone enough for mowing your yard (with "enough" being what the labor theory of value prescribes). The labor theory of value is outmoded and few recognize that definition of profit except Marxists. So, it needs to be explained.Anarcho-capitalism 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only out-moded to those who reject socialism, people like yourself. It's a fundamental part of union negotiations the world over. As every kind of anarchist other than your oxymoronic so-called anarchism is socialist, you are pushing your POV on this article. So please quit. Anarchists oppose profiting from another's labour. Full stop. Anarcho-communists go the whole hog to reject all kinds of payment and purchase because it's impossible to work out. Donnacha 16:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that labor is only worth what people are willing to pay is today's mainstream view in economics, so you are the one who is POV pushing. -- Vision Thing -- 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oho! So, anarchist definitions are now defined by the mainstream in economics, are they? Ooops, we got it wrong, the mainstream disagrees. Oh look, the mainstream view of politics is that you need a state, you mean we've got that wrong too? Oh, deary, deary, me, what a silly idea anarchism is, eh? Donnacha 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say "X" in some article and you aren't using that word in accordance with mainstream definition you must acknowledge that. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you make an encylcopedia article you need to write it so at least most people understand it. In mainstream thought it's not even a coherent question of whether you are "profitting from another's labor." You don't profit at all when you pay someone for their labor. You just pay for it. There is no supposed objective value that if it's not matched then anything below it is profit to the person paying for the labor, except according to Marxist-like theory. That is not how "profit" is defined today by the average person. Why do you have a problem with explaining what it means?Anarcho-capitalism 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You profit from someone's labour when you make more out of it than they do. If I give the man on my right £10 for something he's made and sell it to the person on my left for £15, that's profiting from another's labour. It's the only definition I've ever heard and I'm not a Marxist. Donnacha 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the normal definition of profit that you just gave. But that's not how mutualists are defining profit. Mutualists think that there is some objectively correct price for labor and that if you pay less than that then you're "profiting" or committing "usury." If the labor theory of value says the guy mowing your yard should get $20 for it, but you give him $15 then you have profitted, according to their definition. They thought you would have "stolen" 1/4 of his labor from him. Marxists understand this has having to do with "surplus value." The one who is paying labor is taking the "surplus value."Anarcho-capitalism 16:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why anarchist communists reject the labour theory of value, as I've pointed out. However, Proudhon also argued against profit, but on the straight-forward basis I've given. So you're not correct. Some mutualists may have thought that there is an objective price, but not all. Donnacha 17:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proudhon also subscribed to that labor theory of value. It's the basis of mutualism. Without it, there really can't be mutualism. A mutualists that didn't hold the labor theory of value would actually be an anarcho-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Referring to 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)..." -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty or Authority.Anarcho-capitalism 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The "objective price" concept sounds something like the just price theory, a discredited ancient and medieval notion that things have some kind of intrinsic price (perhaps ordained by God Himself) independent of crass human considerations such as how much anybody is actually willing to buy or sell it for. *Dan T.* 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.Anarcho-capitalism 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalism in Issues

message: Why does Kropotkin get his own section instead of being discussed as one of several anarcho-communist theorists in the Ancom section?Anarcho-capitalism 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a sub-section, that's why it's in smaller text and indented in the contents. Donnacha 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like it. Maybe "Peter Kropotkin" can be made smaller so it looks like one. Right now it looks Kropotkin is different from anarcho-communism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with ancap's change to heading. Blockader 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: the authority section is rediculous. huge qoutes from polemicists that give no overview of authority as an issue within anarchism. the problem is that authority is not really an issue within anarchism but was one of Hogeye's ridiculous attempts to justify his own stance and "research." I think the whole section should be scrapped. Blockader 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The reason I put the Rothard quote in was to offset the Chomsky quote. I say delete the whole thing or move it to Criticisms of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original quote was clearly from an anti-left perspective. I put the Chomsky one in to balance it, to prove a point. The section should be deleted (it's not us who keep putting it back in). Donnacha 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always a bad idea to edit something to prove a point. Instead, everybody just delete the ridiculous section until it says something useful. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: its just another section with massive edit war potential but little actual forebearence on anything. Blockader 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually pretty much the only decent section in this article. Hell, it is even from scholarly journal. I do not see any anti-left perspective here. All was fine until someone added the chomsky bit, which was clearly based on a original research reading of what chomsky was actually saying. Intangible 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mere fact that Tolshoy sought authority in divinity, means that authority is an issue within anarchism. Intangible 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. Tolstoy was a Christian, he was of the "No masters but god" persuasion. Good for him. Christian anarchism is fine, problems only come about when religious people seek to turn the state to their purpose. Even monarchism would be fine in an anarchist system, if a group of people voluntarily decided to elect a king - no problem, as long as they were free to unelect the king if they so wished, or individuals were free to leave the monarchy and he didn't attempt to expand his granted authority beyond the group that elected him. Donnacha 23:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kropotkin

message: I stumbled across this discussion page and I've found the arguments so good it has compelled me to read the article. Schnizzle 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments 

message: "Now there is another STRAIN OF ANARCHISM which is concerned only with, which really gives no weight to notions like equality, solidarity, and so on. That's the RIGHT-WING ANARCHISM and that's an extreme form of authoritarianism as far as I can see. It's perfectly obvious that under the formulations of someone like, say, Murray Rothbard, you will get such inequalities of power that it would be like living under Ghengis Khan or sometrhing like that." -Chomsy interviewed in "Language and Politics" by Carlos-Peregrin and Noam Chomsy, page 153 (my emphasis)
"That's a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, in the English speaking world and the United States. One dream of anarchism - and the only kind that survived [in the U.S.] - was ULTRA-RIGHT ANARCHISM...For years, the only journals I could write in were ultra-right libertarian journals because we agree on a lot of things...There was a left anarchist movement, too -the working class movement. They were pretty much destroyed by force. That's when people like Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were jailed and thrown out of the country. So the working class, LEFT LIBERTARIAN movement was mostly smashed but the RIGHT LIBERTARIAN movement was applauded...Lots of anarchists are much confused by this. The United States has a tradition of individualist anarchism." -Noam Chomsky, in Chomsky on Anarchism, page 215 (my emphasis).
Anarcho-capitalism 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i just explained my stance on your talk page. those are chomsky qoutes but not the one being cited. in the one being cited he does not consider ancap bonafide anarchism. in the neither quote above does he mention capitalism at all. i think it entirely possible that he may not have a clear position on this or perhaps he has changed his stance over the years. maybe a note that said, "Chomsky's position on this is considered by some to be unclear." i dont know. Blockader 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interview with Chomsky in Zmag. The second question and response are of interest. Chomsky says "The individualistic anarchism that you are talking about, Stirner and others, is one of the roots of -- among other things -- the so-called “libertarian” movement in the US. This means dedication to free market capitalism, and has no connection with the rest of the international anarchist movement. [...]But US and to some extent British libertarianism is quite a different thing and different development, in fact has no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny. That is radically different from other forms of anarchism." Basically, it sounds like he considers it anarchism to some extent, but doesn't particularly like it and says it's not connected with traditional anarchism. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky again 

message: There are probably not two more terms loaded by vagueness and ambiguity these days than "neo-liberalism" and "globalization". One is not trying to indulge to much "anarchist language" into this article, please. Furthermore, is this actually an issue in Anarchism? It probably should be put under "Recent Developments within Anarchism". Intangible 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue does not mean bone of contention, race and gender are also under issues. As for the terms, globalization is far from anarchist language, it's the term used by its proponents. Anti-globalization, on the other hand, is a dispute term (applied by the critics of the movement more than its proponents), which is why it's preceded by the "so-called". As for neoliberal, it originally said capitalist until one of the ancaps changed it to neoliberal. That's not an anarchist term, per se, it's a Latin American term used by Bolivarians as much as Zapatista followers. It's only recently been used much in English. Donnacha 00:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  globalization 

message: Outside of academic discussions, web warriors and circle-jerks, does "anarcho"-capitalism exist at all in the real world? I'd like to see any examples of real world action, activism or even organisations that prove it's more than the deluded fantasies of American right-wingers. Despite the claptrap by right wingers above, proving the existence of real anarchist movements worldwide is easy. So, I'm challenging the web-warriors - prove you exist outside your colleges and computers. Donnacha 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does any kind of anarchism exist in the real world? No. It only exists in people's minds.Anarcho-capitalism 01:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And was that question asked for any other reason than provoking more hostitlity? Certainly not very helpful or conducive to friendly or productive collaberation. Aside from that, I exist outside a college or computer. Is that proof enough for you? Imagination débridée 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a straight-forward question as an alternative to the sectarian nonsense posted above by Ancaps. Anarchism exists on a small scale in squats, in some co-operatives, in non-hierarchical organisations, in mutual aid associations, in democratic trade unions, for a short time in protests, in TAZs. The seeds of the future are being planted now and have born short-lived fruit before, from the Ukraine to Catalonia, from Israel to Korea. These all existed openly and consciously under the banner of anarchism. It's a living, breathing tradition with a powerful and meaningful history. So, I return to my question, does "anarcho"-capitalism have anything to compare? Where are the self-identifying "anarcho"-capitalists other than in right-wing university courses and on the web. I'm honestly asking, because I've seen no evidence of anything more than that. Donnacha 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does "anarcho"-capitalism exist?

message: I have here a source saying that Proudhon calling himself an anarchist was a jeu d'esprit, although this notion might be attributed to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenko. Any thoughts? Intangible 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some don't think he's a real anarchist. Albert Meltzer, who is a source used in this article for anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism, says that Proudhon is not an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursors of Anarchism, Godwin, Proudhon and perhaps Hegel. None of these was in fact an Anarchist though Proudhon first used the word in its modern sense (taking it from the French Revolution, when it was first used politically and not entirely pejoratively). None of them engaged in Anarchist activity or struggle, indeed Proudhon engaged in parliamentary activity." Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, page 12 (same guy who is used as a source in this article for ancap not being anarchism).Anarcho-capitalism 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, Meltzer is illogical, anachronistic, and partisan. This is the sort of argument engaged in by all factions who want to inherit anarchism from Proudhon, but at the same time to claim that only they are really anarchists. Proudhon was, in fact, a revolutionary, but the revolution of 1848 was not quite the revolution that he was looking for. He was elected, as an opponent of the Provisional Government, in a by-election, and his proposals during the short time he served were mainly of a fairly libertarian character. Libertatia 02:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you agree with him or not, he's still a legitimate source so you shouldn't be removing it. I don't remove sources from people claiming anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Should I?Anarcho-capitalism 02:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about whether or not I agree with him. It's about whether a single, obviously partisan criticism of the guy acknowledged by virtually everyone as the founder of the modern anarchist tradition is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Meltzer's claim is obviously far outside the mainstream. His support for it involves an obviously non-standard use of the term anarchism. His definition is barely useful, because it is circular: anarchists do anarchist stuff, and organize with other anarchists. It's as if nobody could be an anarchist until there was some sort of mass movement, and a dogma agreed upon. It's weak and unhelpful stuff, the inclusion of which will force us to deal with even more weak and unhelpful material. Libertatia 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll post it again, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Meltzer's entitled to his opinion, and his definition of anarchism as a movement may exclude Proudhon, but this article represents mainly the evolution of anarchist thought, not the movement (a failing of the article, btw) and thus Meltzer's comment is unreliable. This constant attempt to bolster the "anarcho"-capitalist position by unduly highlighting divisions and disagreements within the real movement is tiresome. Donnacha 13:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Meltzer's comment is unreliable. It's a real position. Some think that if you're not involved in the so-called "movement" that you're not a real anarchist. Why would his opinion be reliable on anarcho-capitalism not being anarchism but not for Proudhon?Anarcho-capitalism 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People, believe it or not, are not simply reliable or unreliable in a blanket sense, however much Wikipedia's source policies may encourage such simplistic thinking. Libertatia 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "reliable" on Wikipedia just means it's an actual source. It just mean that there's an actual record that that is someone's opinion. Wikipedia is not about whether those opinions are true.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that you disagree about reliability. If you would like to go on record that you do not care about the accuracy of the articles, then that would at least get a little truth on the table among editors. But, honestly, taking the approach that anything published under conditions that Wikipedia recognizes as "legitimate" is appropriate for inclusion is the death-knell of any accuracy or coherence in the articles. One of the dubious beauties of Wikipedia is that it is always possible to game an article into nonsense. We could probably, following the rules to the letter, get the majority of articles on the site tagged as contested or unreliable in some way. A far more interesting project is to actually make articles which are accurate despite the weakness of Wikipedia standards. Libertatia 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's anything I understand about Wikipedia, it is the basic idea that it is not so much about what is true but what is true about what others have said is true. Note that when I put the source in I didn't use it as a source for saying that Proudhon is not an anarchist. I used it as a source saying that Meltzer says he's not an anarchist. There is a difference. He's a relatively notable anarchist so I think his opinion matters.Anarcho-capitalism 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [edit conflict intervened] Oh, c'mon. Do you think his opinion matters? He's a social anarchist sectarian who thinks an-caps are imposters. All the twisting and turning doesn't change the fact that you are introducing a highly controversial minority position into the article. And your championing of "notability as an anarchist" as complete justification is just the sort of thing that can come around and bite you (and the article) on the hind end. Undue Weight is also a Wikipedia policy, and one well worth following in cases like this. Libertatia 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please read the policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. And it's far more than just a few anarchist theorist who reject "anarcho"-capitalism. Most simply ignore it - Bookchin never mentioned it not because he accepts it, but, because it's so far beyond the pale of what he considered anarchism, it doesn't bear mention. Avrich has one footnote mentioning it to explain Sternerites. There's nothing in Guerin's classic anthology "No Gods, No Maters". I could go on and on and on, but I'm not going to. Donnacha 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ALL anarcho-communists reject anarcho-capitalism. That's because they're anarcho-communists. But they don't all say that it's not a type of anarchism. Only a couple say that.Anarcho-capitalism 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because his opinion on "anarcho"-capitalism is the same view as many other anarchist scholars, thus it's not giving it undue weight. His view on Proudhon is highly contentious among anarchist scholars, thus it's unrepresentative and not necessary. Read the policy, please. Donnacha 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No his opinion that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is not the same view as many other scholars. It's him and may one or two other anarcho-communists and that's it.Anarcho-capitalism 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proudhon 

message: I'm taking this page off of my WL. It's a waste of time to try to police this page. I have better things to do. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thanks for trying anyhow. i thought you were fair and evenhanded. Blockader 16:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: At least it would be private policing.Anarcho-capitalism 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at this page its hard to tell if anybody lives up to being private, thinking and all!
Well, Anarchism has gone days without any dispute disclaimer tags at the top now.  That's more than I ever expected. EbonyTotem 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyway