Talk:Anarchism/Archive 31

message: <TABLE BORDER="3" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="12" ALIGN="center" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
		
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=240><B>Anarchist Schools</B>
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=140>Anarcho-Socialist
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=140>Individualist (labor/value)
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=140>Anarcho-Capitalist
		</TD>
		</TR>
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Is land legitimate private property?
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">No
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes, if it's occupied;<BR>No, if it's unoccupied.
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes
		</TD>
		</TR>
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Are man-made capital goods<BR>legitimate private property?
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">No
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes
		</TD>
		</TR>
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Is it immoral to collect profit<BR>from capital and interest?
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes.<BR>It's criminal and<BR>should be expropriated.
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Sort of.<BR>It's a vice, but<BR>shouldn't be prevented.
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">No.<BR>It's permissable,<BR>and generally a virtue.
		</TD>
		</TR>
	</TABLE>
Hogeye 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's highly debatable.  From what I've read, Proudhon's possession property would satisfy all three mutualist positions. But due to Proudhon's quirky terminology (particularly using "property" to mean only sticky property and refusing to acknowledge that possession as he defined it was a form of property), it is understandable that some might misinterpret his position. Basically, Proudhon says that land is the collective property of all, but individuals can and should have disposition over it qua possessions. Thus superficially using Proudhon's terminology he's collectivist; but in modern parlance he's clearly for private property. Hogeye 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of Property Systems

message: I feel, and have felt for quite some time, now, that many of the claims that RJII and Hogeye have been making, as well as the sources that they have been pointing to, have involved some form of original research (see WP:NOR). It seems like some of their claims are akin to, Well, I understand that this is what is popularly believed, but I can show you through careful study and quotation that what is popularly believed is wrong and what I believe is right. As I have done before, I commend RJII for his passion for the subject and the effort that he has put into this article and related articles. As soon as I have more time, I will post some examples of statements that I feel are original research, but I wanted to give a heads-up and was wondering if anybody else felt the same way. --AaronS 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that you aren't very knowledgeable about individualist anarchism. RJII 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Original research? I'm directly quoting sources. And, what "popular understanding" are you talking about? As far as I know, I'm not saying anything that anyone moderately familiar with individualst anarchism doesn't already know. RJII 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A good example of an unacceptable source is An Anarchist FAQ Webpage. It presents an extremely sectarian and biased view of anararchism. Much better is the academic Anarchist Theory FAQ which uses the broad definition of anarchism and has an even-handed point of view. Hogeye 19:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Just as another consideration, the Library of Congress  does not qualify any of Murray Rothbard's works under "anarchism". (This categorization does, of course, exist: see Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin or Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin). However, as I have not actually read these works by Rothbard, I don't know if they were where he most strongly formulated the notion of anarcho-capitalism (perhaps he did so in peer-reviewed journals left unpublished). For that matter, no academic libraries I checked classify his works this way. This is suggestive that neither academia nor the federal government consider his works as representing anarchism. Sarge Baldy 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the LOC have a text on Anarchism? In the case of Soviet Union, the whole article is based on LOC text to overcome POV disputes such as these. The LOC is usually a fairly neutral sources. - FrancisTyers 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A text? I'm not sure how you mean. Although I see now that the LoC stores anarchist texts under HX 1-970.7 "Socialism, Communism, Utopias, Anarchism" . Note that this is the same schema followed by many (most? all?) academic libraries in the nation (including Oregon State and the University of Washington). Sarge Baldy 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A/C and libraries 

message: Why the dichotomy between individualist and collectivist? Where do you draw the line? - FrancisTyers 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some clear lines. For example, collectivists think that land is owned by everyone in common. Individualists definitely don't. Collectivists oppose private property. Individidualists support it. "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." -Clarence Swartz.  Collectivists tend to speak in terms of the group, community, or classes. Individualists deny that the community is an actual organism. For example, Tucker says: "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 prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves." (Liberty VI, October 17, 1888) I'm talking about the most popular form of individualist anarchism here --the American tradition. But, Stirner also says that society is a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own) Also, he believe is private property but is much more radical than the Americans --he says something can become property just by taking it ("mixing of labor" doesn't even enter the picture) --there are no moral restraints: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." Individualists also embrace competition, while collectivists talk more about cooperation. RJII 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note again that these are broad generalizations. By individualist, RJ means American individualist anarchism. Some collectivists argue rather than the land being owned by everyone, it is owned by no one (many green anarchists would not consider humans having any more right to the land than animals, plants, or even rocks). There are also a number of anarchists who fall between individualism and collectivism (I lean in this direction), which although less prevalent, is an attitude strongly represented in postanarchism. Sarge Baldy 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly borderline cases, but it does not follow that the line (the distinction) is meaningless. In some important ways, mutualism is on the line between socialism and capitalism.  See the Comparison of Property Systems chart above. Hogeye 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General suggestion 12 

message: Ok, here I am looking for: 1. Sources that state most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy, 2. Sources that state any philosophy which holds the state to be an unnecessary evil is a form of anarchism, regardless of economic preference, 3. Sources that state Anarcho-Capitalism is very little more than an obscure philosophy with little influence on any significant mass movements or ideas, unlike anti-capitalist anarchism which has held a visible position as a political movement
Please attempt to find sources from reasonably impartial sources. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries of political philosophy, textbooks etc. Feel free to provide sources of varying ages. A range would be good. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: As we saw in Wikiquote, Bakunin was one of a small minority of theorists who defined anarchism as socialist. Most other theorists - even the socialist ones - did not define anarchism so narrowly. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right ...anarchism arose out of the taking liberalism (individualism in person and property) to the extreme. Anarchism was initially radical liberalism. Then, Marxist and collectivist influences came in and anarcho-communism and syndicalism became popular. But, liberal anarchism never went away. It continued on outside of mainstream anarchism, and continues today (both with labor/value individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism). And, anarcho-capitalism is the most popular form of liberal anarchism today. RJII 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is denying the influence of liberalism on anarchism - and indeed on socialism in general. Liberalism as a political movement came first, and was a direct influence on all socialisms. That anarchism's particular emphasis on freedom came from, and as an extension of, liberalism you'll find is agreed by communist anarchists too - off the top of my head I'd point you to Rocker's 'Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism' which is big on this. What is highly questionable is your theory that there was something separate called 'liberal anarchism' which lives on in ancapism.Bengalski 20:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it whatever you want. "Liberal anarchism" isn't a term --it's just a shorter way of saying "Anarchism based on the liberal principles of individual autonomy and private property." This includes that labor-value individualists and the subjective-value individualists (voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists). RJII 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: One way you could test for notability is by putting the anarcho-capitalism article up for a deletion vote on the basis that it's not notable. RJII 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a notable philosophy (therefore it should not be deleted), but it is not a notable anarchist philosophy/part of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable Force 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Encyclopedias (freely available on the net)
*1910 EB: (note: article written by anarchist P. Kropotkin) 
"As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility"
:Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: As we saw in Wikiquote, Bakunin was one of a small minority of theorists who defined anarchism as socialist. Most other theorists - even the socialist ones - did not define anarchism so narrowly. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right ...anarchism arose out of the taking liberalism (individualism in person and property) to the extreme. Anarchism was initially radical liberalism. Then, Marxist and collectivist influences came in and anarcho-communism and syndicalism became popular. But, liberal anarchism never went away. It continued on outside of mainstream anarchism, and continues today (both with labor/value individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism). And, anarcho-capitalism is the most popular form of liberal anarchism today. RJII 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is denying the influence of liberalism on anarchism - and indeed on socialism in general. Liberalism as a political movement came first, and was a direct influence on all socialisms. That anarchism's particular emphasis on freedom came from, and as an extension of, liberalism you'll find is agreed by communist anarchists too - off the top of my head I'd point you to Rocker's 'Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism' which is big on this. What is highly questionable is your theory that there was something separate called 'liberal anarchism' which lives on in ancapism.Bengalski 20:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it whatever you want. "Liberal anarchism" isn't a term --it's just a shorter way of saying "Anarchism based on the liberal principles of individual autonomy and private property." This includes that labor-value individualists and the subjective-value individualists (voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists). RJII 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1) Sources saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism

message: Onelook
Wikisource definitions: 
Suggestion: I think we should put all relevant definitions and citations directly on this page. Then we have all the evidence gathered here, and can discuss particular sources individually. I have moved general discussion below.Bengalski 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2) Sources saying anarchism is anti-statism regardless of economic position 

message: The burden of proof should be on notability. I can't list any sources that say that my pet dog isn't notable... that doesn't mean he his. Just my thoughts on it though. --FluteyFlakes88 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One way you could test for notability is by putting the anarcho-capitalism article up for a deletion vote on the basis that it's not notable. RJII 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a notable philosophy (therefore it should not be deleted), but it is not a notable anarchist philosophy/part of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable Force 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3) Sources saying anarcho-capitalism is not notable in anarchism 

message: :I think 'impartiality' here needs discussion. Particularly on point three - I don't think anyone is interested in anarcho-capitalism except ancaps, perhaps their right-libertarian allies, and anarchists fuming against them.
:And on the other points, most of the recognised histories and texts on anarchism I know of are written by anarchists. I think we need to include here as impartial to our dispute any anarchist thinkers and historians who are recognised as anarchists by all parties.Bengalski 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impartiality

message: I think we have to very careful here how we use dictionary definitions. 1)I am not saying they are not relevant at all, but it is a big leap from 'we should consider how dictionaries define the term anarchism' to 'we can deduce everything about what is essential to anarchism, or who is an anarchist, from dictionary definitions'. 2)We have to remember context - if a point about anarchism has rarely, and only recently, been disputed then it is not surprising it isn't explicitly dealt with in a brief definition.Bengalski 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: value of 'definitions'

message: Wikipedia, and the net in general, suffers from a systematic bias (concentration of rich white anglophone geek editors) []. This is by no means unrelated to the unnaturally high presence of anarcho-capitalists.
The article needs to reflect what anarchism means in the world as a whole, not just the english language internet. In particular, we have to make an effort to bring in sources from other languages, countries and continents.Bengalski 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: systematic bias

message: Wikisource definitions: Very few define anarchism in regard to any given economic system. Various anarchists have various ideas for economic systems in anarchy and opposition to various systems, but few define anarchism itself in regard to an economic system. RJII 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not just dictionary definitions. The Wikisource defintions include definitions from anarchists themselves. Few define anarchism itself in terms of an economic system. RJII 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What the hell are you talking about? Those are directly quoted definitions of anarchism. And, no I have had no part in "dominating" that article. You are really going off the deep end. RJII 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking at the history there is a good deal of reverts of anti-capitalist definitions and quotes. I didn't pay attention to who was involved, so I am not accusing anyone of "dominating", nor am I even saying that the people taking the anti-cap defs out were wrong (I wasn't paying much attention), but there has obviously been a debate there about this as well. The Ungovernable Force 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you refrain from ad hominem attacks. I'm not "dominating" that article. And that quote from Tucker should definitely be deleted. It's not a definition of anarchism. RJII 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "Wikiquote is not a reputable source"? What are you saying? Wikiquote is not the source. The definitions ON Wikiquote are the sources. And, they're reputable. Those are direct-quoted explicit definitions of anarchism from anarchists, as well as from mainstream reference sources. RJII 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't give me that crap. It's not a matter of me "allowing" anything. I've had with you. I'm now covinced that you're not operating in good faith and will dismiss any source that disagrees with your POV. RJII 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't addressed his concerns though, and they are legitemite. You need to present more than a few quotes by anarchists, because any of us can find a million contradictory quotes from anarchists (and "anarcho"-capitalists) proving our points, but when it comes down to it, there need to be less biased sources to define what is and is not anarchism (considering this huge level of controversy). And you seem to be the one operating in bad faith, far more than aaron anyways, who has not made any attacks on you (other than the word "dominating", which he apologized for). You are now attacking him and questioning his good faith. I think he has done a good job of remaining polite. He is not just dismissing any sources, he is dismissing first person sources, which makes some sense. Even some of the things I've posted wouldn't really be reputable and I knew it, but I needed to balance out your first-person quotes with some others. Now that the first-person/second-person argument has become important, I think we should stop using anarchist philosophers' own ideas of what anarchism is (or at least decrease the level significantly) and focus on academic description of the philosophy and movement (and more than a few sentence dictionary defintion of course, which does not show much at all). And last point, the sources in wikiquote obviously represent one side of the debate, and is quite POV itself. If this page ever gets cleaned up, I think we should then focus on npov'ing the quote page by balancing out the conflicting definitions. The Ungovernable Force 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what you just said about sources is what I was trying to say, you just said it better than I could. I know they're not unreliable, but anyone can say anything, and they won't necessarily fit in with academic standards of what is and is not a particular philosophy (let's take anarchism for instance). And yes, you're right, they can't talk back, which makes it even more important that we use more than just first person quotes. And you're right, no one is perfect, not you, not not RJII, not Hogeye, not me. Not even Emma Goldman (well, maybe Emma). I do think RJII went too far though with his last post, and I hope he can apologize like you have. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bull. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. RJII 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wikiquote page

message: Please refrain from commenting below for the meanwhile. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some possible policy

message: Feel free to suggest possible compromises below. Please keep discussion out of this section. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some possible compromises

message: Feel free to add suggestions and comments about the article in its current form. Please keep discussion to the discussion area. I've numbered the list to it makes it easy to refer to. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, these people are not anarchists they are fascists. As I think you well know.Bengalski 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't have fascism without a state. Fascism is the sacrifice of the individual for the state. It's collectivism enforced. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" -Merriam-Webster "For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." -Mussolini ""If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." -Mussolini  RJII 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I already gave you one for anarcho-capitalism --Carl Levy. RJII 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General suggestions and comments

message: RJII, according to the encyclopaedia article you are citing, which is apparently written by Carl Levy, the schools of anarchist thought are: (A) Mutalism, (B) Anarcho-Communism, and (C) Anarcho-Individualism. Levy only states that anarcho-capitalism exists as a "reborn" modification of the less-radical individualism found in the United States. It is also unclear as to whether or not he equates anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism: this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism.  This shows that anarcho-capitalism exists in the United States and was has roots in American individualism; it does not substantiate the various claims made in the article
*that anarcho-capitalism currently exists as 1 of 3 schools of anarchism, opposed to syndicalism and communism, as suggested in Hogeye's "Chart of influences";
*that anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchist thought, as suggested by Hogeye's edits in the anarchism template;
*that individualist anarchism is also known as "liberal anarchism", as suggested by the heading of the subsection, or that they are in any way equivalent;
*that anarcho-capitalism is the most salient and prevalent example of anarchism today, as is suggested by its highly conspicuous placement under the contemporary anarchism section as the first example of contemporary anarchism;
*that anarcho-capitalism warrants more space and attention than all other examples of contemporary anarchism;
**No personal offense meant here, but this seems a little childish to me. What does it matter whose section is bigger? Whatever it takes to explain something is how many words it should take. For example, I could write a more effective single pargraph than what may take an entire page for someone else to state. Bigger is not necessarily better. I couldn't care less whose section is bigger. RJII 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he's equating anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is pure libertarianism. And, he saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism  --what I've always been saying. RJII 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If anarchism is the same thing as anti-statism, then it should be possible to merge the two articles together. However, if you attempted that I'm sure you'd find consensus suggests otherwise. Sarge Baldy 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchism, as far as I understand it from various sources, is the opposition to aggression (or coercion) in favor of voluntary relations. Opposition to the State is merely a side effect of that more foundational position. RJII 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, could you please provide sources for the above assertions? --AaronS 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims needing sources 

message: I'm handing over this mediation to User:NicholasTurnbull who will I hope do a better job of it than I have done. My apologies to everyone, but I just can't keep up. - FrancisTyers 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I certainly have learned a lot. --AaronS 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Handing over

message: Can we edit the talk archives? Just wondering. The Ungovernable Force 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure you can. You may not get a reply though. RJII 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random question