Talk:Anarchism/Archive 34

message: George Woodcock, author of the most widely read English-language history of libertarian ideas, devotes a whole chapter to 'The Family Tree' of anarchism and examines claims of influence and/or sympathy in the work and lives of Thomas Jefferson, the Levellers of Cromwell's England, Chinese philosophers such as Lao-Tze, and many others. Organised Anarchist movements have appeared in most if not all countries of the world and any complete history of anarchism would, from their own statements, have to include the likes of Oscar Wilde, Tolstoy, John Cage, George Orwell, Ghandi, Noam Chomsky, Michael Foucault and Germaine Greer. 
Does anyone have a copy of Woodcock's book? I have it at home but not here, could we compare his "tree" with Hogeye's perhaps? - FrancisTyers 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is in Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements?  - N1h1l 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The book is available online at Questia , but you need an account. - N1h1l 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodcocks "Family tree"

message: I noted in the anarcho-capitalism section that it's "sometimes regarded as a form of individualist anarchism." Infinity deleted it. So, I added it again with 2 sources. Infinity deleted it. So I put it back in with 4 sources. Infinity deleted it. His explanation was "wow, RJII, you must be right, you found 4 people who say that out of 6 billion in the world! seriously, spamming sources doesn't prove your point." It certainly does prove my point. It looks like Infinity is becoming another AaronS in his refusal to accept sources, no matter how many are provided, and no matter how qualifed. This is exactly the kind of disruptive editing we don't need on Wikipedia. RJII 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the kind of think I'd tend to start and RfC or arbitration over, or whatever the next step is. MrVoluntarist 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That may be a good idea. I've been harrassed enough with bogus and vague arbitration cases, intended for nothing but harrassment and censorship. One with clear refusal to accept sources would be legitimate and straightforward. RJII 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mainly because I engaged in a few "personal attacks." Big deal. That's nothing compared to censoring sourced information, as you and Infinity are prone to doing. RJII 03:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting sourced information isn't necessarily any more POV than adding it. Although honestly I'm baffled about some of these efforts, such as AaronS's effort against the term "liberal anarchism". I actually find that term much more appropriate and informative than "American individualist". While other anarchists see themselves individualists in some sense, no one else would want to associate themselves with liberalism. Sarge Baldy 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from back in the days of the old anarcho-communists. As Murray Bookshin says: "Anarcho-individualism was largely marginalized by mass socialistic workers' movements, of which most anarchists considered themselves the left wing. In an era of stormy social upheaval, marked by the rise of a mass working-class movement that culminated in the 1930s and the Spanish Revolution, anarchosyndicalists and anarchocommunists, no less than Marxists, considered anarcho-individualism to be petty-bourgeois exotica. They often attacked it quite directly as a middle-class indulgence, rooted far more in liberalism than in anarchism." They refused to acknowledge, though it's true, that anarchism actually was originally derived by radicalizing liberalism. AaronS is taking the old anarcho-communists for their word that liberalism can't be anarchism. As a result, he fears that noting that individualist anarchism is radical liberalism creates a link with anarcho-capitalism which he DOES recognize as being liberalism (though not anarchism). The old arguments against individualist anarchism, he wants to make now against anarcho-capitalism --that it's not anarchism, but liberalism --this is a common attack from the old-school communist anarchists, or those with communist/sympathies, today. RJII 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I won't deny that anarchism was rooted in liberalism. I think The Politics of Individualism does a good job of spelling out that anarchism was basically liberalism that rejected "instrumental individualism" (although the American individualists brought it back in their own movement). Sarge Baldy 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I can understand attacking it as a neologism, but I don't understand what anarchists outside of the American tradition have ever embraced the term "liberalism". And actually now that I think about it, I suspect a number of them wouldn't have wanted have liked the term either. Certainly almost all of them opposed some elements of social contract theory, such as marriage. So maybe it is best that we avoid the term. Sarge Baldy 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a "word." It's just a shorter way of saying "Individualist anarchism derived by radicalizing the classical liberal doctrine of laissez-faire in individual liberty and economic freedom." That terminology is used even less. But, of course we know this is just a smokescreen. I stated the reasons you opposed the term above. RJII 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I wouldn't call American individualists particularly laissez-faire economically. I see their liberal twist as being a belief in social contract theory and competition, and even that was fairly limited in its extent. Sarge Baldy 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me interject here that, IMO, neither individualist anarchists like Tucker and Spooner, nor economists like Bastiat and Molinari, are proponents of the social contract theory of the origin of the State. All those preferred a conquest theory, as detailed by e.g. Herbert Spencer. In general, liberal anti-statists preferred the external conquest theory to the social contract theory. Just FYI. Hogeye 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Social contract theory, if you're talking about Rousseau's idea of a social contract, is collectivist, not individualist. It says that an individual should submit his will to the "general will." In fact, Spooner's No Treason is considered a classic argument against the social contract. What do you mean they're not laissez-faire economically? Where do they advocate government intervention? "The only true believers in laissez faire are the anarchists." -Benjamin Tucker RJII 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question is, where do ANY anarchists argue for government economic intervention? Since your point had no meaning to me I took it to mean support for a "free market". If the economic system is based on a labor theory of value, it clearly isn't "free", it's intentionally restricted. As for social contract, I mean it in the sense that people are seen as capable of making binding contractual arrangements. Although now that I think about it, maybe it's only anarcho-capitalists that are really fervent about that. Sarge Baldy 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you think they wouldn't allow profit to be taken. Well, that's not true. They think people should be allowed to contract in whatever terms they wish and no one, including government, should forcefully prevent that. If I want to hire you to work at a rate that gives me profit and you agree to it in exchange for getting the job, for someone to interefere with that would be violation of the right of contract --which the individualist embrace as the highest law. It's just that they thought the ability to profit would be negligible in a laissez-faire environment due to increased competition. Benjamin Tucker says: "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right [ethicality] of usury" -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty I,3.  Profit is exploitative, but it should be allowed --the state should not interfere. But, again, it's the state's fault for making profit possible through interventionism. The problem is not the capitalist (owner of capital), but government for giving the capitalist privilege through interventionism. "Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital." -Benjamin Tucker RJII 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't ever accuse me of being benevolent and humble. RJII 05:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infinity's rejection of sources

message: Not long ago I thought anarcho-Georgism was pretty much extinct.  Maybe not - check this out:
Geoanarchist links
:Good point.  Carson, an anarchist, is sympathetic to Georgist ideas.  Also, in Kyriazi's book, he refers to opposition to the state as "anarchism". MrVoluntarist 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geoanarchism 

message: In case anyone has missed it, there is a straw poll on Hogeye's tree here. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing more worth saying about it.Bengalski 11:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I wouldn't accept any tree, even if I'd designed it myself. So I don't see a reason to discuss "changes". Sarge Baldy 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. I wouldn't accept any tree, even if I'd designed it myself. So I don't see a reason to discuss "changes".Harrypotter 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All I was rejecting there was your absurd tree.Bengalski 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't characterise the vote as over by any means. - FrancisTyers 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "division" is contrived. Having a mass movement to support your philosophy certainly does increase its notability -- but that's not all that is important, and most of the people here aren't emphasizing that aspect of notability. There are various factors that go into philosophical notability: whether or not most people have heard of it; if it is an offshoot or branch of another philosophy, whether or not most people who have knowledge of that philosophy have heard of it or accept it; whether or not most scholars have heard of it or accept it; the number of reputable books that have been published about it; the number of well-known or relatively well-known philosophers or people who support it or accept it; whether or not it has a notable following; whether or not it has historical significance; etc. Please don't trivialize this discussion. --AaronS 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fine set of factors. Now, if you wouldn't mind, would you please apply them to a) Wolff's philosophical anarchism, and b) geoanarchism, and let me know whether you consider these to be philosophically notable? Perhaps your evaluation will surprise me. Hogeye 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oxford English Dictionary's search results for geoanarchism: There are no results. What? No dictionary definition? It musn't exist, then. --AaronS 03:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree Poll 

message: Perhaps we should have a tree or chart comparing individuals by their relation to nationalism, or religion.Harrypotter 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It also should show anarchism's relation to eating people. Anarcho-cannibalism  is a criminally overlooked but vital part of the anarchist movement. Sarge Baldy 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is indisputable that Georges Bataille's acéphale secret society is a major (if unboxed) influence on contemporary anarcho-cannibalism, and you would have an arrow up his arse obviously from Nietzsche (Ayn Rand well to one side, brandishing a whip). The question is whether to take the arrow through Foucault or directly from Bataille, and whether indeed the Fijian anarcho-autoctho-cannibalistic tendency bypasses the main chain of linkage straight into the NEFAC.Bengalski 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also add a Z dimension to the tree, to represent cosmic influences. It is well-documented that Alfred Jarry's communications with Buddha and the Invisible Pink Unicorn provided much of the emphasis for the strongly political work Ubu Roi that defined the anarcho-absurdist wing that eventually cumulated into mainstream anarcho-cannibalism. Sarge Baldy 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought you guys were serious at first. I was getting ready to create an anarcho-cannibalism article. Adding new kinds of anarchism to Wikipedia is a hobby of mine. RJII 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Surreal humour| Let a Hundred Trees Bloom]] 

message: I just finished reading the first-ever anarchist essay, "Vindication of Natural Society." It is really quite excellent, and makes many of the same points modern anarchists like us make.  I cut out some of the obscure and outdated parts, and a section detailing ancient wars, and made a Hogeye Condensed Version.  So, I invite those who want to know more about anarchism to check it out. I invite comments and typo corrections. BTW, it contains one of the best anti-war rants you'll see anywhere! Hogeye 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's certainly better than "stealing oil from bad people is okay, but the Iraq War is bed because it's stealing oil". MrVoluntarist 20:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." -Max Stirner RJII 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vindication of Natural Society 

message: Okay, since some accuse me of coming up with obscure variants of anarchism, let me really do it!  I give you ... Heathian anarchism. I promise I won't put it on the tree.
"Spencer H.  MacCallum's  The Art of  Community is well calculated to disquiet Professor Chomsky.  This is the  first systematic presentation  in  print of  what might be  calIed the  "Heathian"  sub-variant  of  anarchism,  after its  creator, Mr.  MacCallum's grandfather, Spencer Heath.  The  Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned  by  single private corporations, which  would  own  and rent out  the  land  and  housing over the area, and provide all  conceivable  "public services":  police, fire, roads, courts,  etc.,  out  of  the  voluntarily-paid  rent. Heathianism  is  Henry Georgism stood on  its head; like George, Heath and  MacCallum would provide for all public services out of  rent;  but  unlike George, the rent would be collected, and the land  owned,  by  private corporate landlords rather than by  the  government,  and  the payment  therefore voluntary  rather  than coercive.  The  Heathian  "proprietary community" is,  of  course, in stark contrast to the scruffy egalitarian com-  mune dreamed of  by anarchists of  the Left." - Murray Rothbard, The Libertarian Forum, Vol. II #18, Sept. 15 1970
Hogeye 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heathian anarchism 

message: A dildo is defined as what has traditionally been considered a dildo.
Actually, that's almost right. Or at least, almost the way contemporary philosophy of language might see things: our understanding of meaning and definition have in fact moved on from Plato and Aristotle. I think if anything fits Wittgenstein's theory that meaning comes from use (in 'language games'), and that bearers of a name may share family resemblance rather than be susceptible to an axiomatic definition, then a term like 'anarchism' is it.
Philosophical Investigations 43:    For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language. And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer.
PI 67. And for instance the kinds of number form a family in the same way. Why do we call something a "number"? Well, perhaps because it has a-direct-relationship with several things that have hitherto been called number; and this can be said to give it an indirect relationship to other things we call the same name. And we extend our concept of number as in spinning a thread we twist fibre on fibre. And the strength of the thread does not reside in the fact that some one fibre runs through its whole length, but in the overlapping of many fibres.Bengalski 10:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing where meaning comes from and what is a good definition.  Circular self-referential statements are, of course, unsatisfactory definitions. Hogeye 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all - to define something is just to explain its meaning. See the last passage cited above. You really could do with moving on from Aristotle - though I think you would have felt very much at home as a  scholastic, adding geoism because it aesthetically completes your categorical schema is just the kind of thing those monks were into. Wittgenstein´s point was that your method just doesn´t work except in very limited cases - this isn´t one of them. However it may sometimes serve us to introduce a restricted definition in order to serve a ´special purpose´ - (though I would think that this in fact generally changes meaning). Let´s continue that last quote from Wittgenstein: ´´...we can draw a boundary - for a special purpose. Does it take that to make the concept usable? Not at all!  (Except for that special purpose.)´´ Unfortunately your special purpose in defining anarchism in the way you like is not to help explain what anarchism means, but to push a POV.Bengalski 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it can do that much harm to have a chart. Anarchism is confusing and it helps to relate the various sections in some way. Currently the chart puts a dotted line connecting ancap to individualist anarchism, which I am fond of. I think another way of solving this dispute would be to replace the dotted line with a solid one, and also adding American Libertarian Party, or some other non-libertarian socialist organization, at the top as a secondary influence on ancap. I would then define mutualism as "Socialist Market" "Rather than "Market Distribution" and add the question "Profit?" as a question separating mutalism and ancap. Geoism would be best included as a subcategory of ancap just as communist is a subcategory of social. It may also help to draw a line from social to mutualist, although only if sources are found indicating a connection between worker associations and collective ownership. CJames745 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. The dotted line does make the chart much more reasonable to me. In fact, I'd probably be willing to include this chart in its current arrangement. Just as long as the chart makes clear that it's referring to economic systems as they're used in anarchism. I don't want it to imply a reduction of anarchism to economic positions. Perhaps it would be better placed in anarchist economics. Also I'm not exactly sure I like the wording "Collective ownership of the means of production", possibly because "means of production" hits me as "factory" and I would think it more reasonable to backtrack to a pre-industrial stage. But on the whole I'd put my support behind this chart in its present state. The theorist "tree" (below) is out of the question, though. Sarge Baldy 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dildos

message: of course  there should be a paragraph  or two about Murray Bookchin in the section on ecological anarchism 
--Vindheim 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eco-anarchism: Murray Bookchin 

message: People:	People:	People:	People:
 Noam Chomsky
 Murray Bookchin
 Howard Zinn	
 Kevin Carson<BR>
  Joe Peacott<BR>
 Larry Gambone	
 Fred Foldvary
 Harold Kyriazi
 Debbie Clark	
 David Friedman<BR>
 Wendy McElroy<BR>
 Hans-Hermann Hoppe<BR>
 Jeremy Sapienza<BR>
 Anthony de Jasay<BR>
Info:  	Info:  	Info:  	Info:
An Anarchist FAQ
Anarcho-syndicalism 101	
Individualist Anarchism<BR>
What is Mutualism?	
What Is Geolibertarianism?	
Anarchist Theory FAQ<BR>
Zines: 	Zines: 	Zines: 	Zines:
indymedia.org<BR>
Infoshop.org & 
Forum<BR>	
Mutualist Blog<BR>	
Thomas Paine Network	
LewRockwell.com<BR>
Strike the Root<BR>
Anti-War.com<BR>
Misc:  	Misc:  	Misc:  	Misc:
Anarchy Archives<BR>
Spunk Library<BR>
Anarchism Web Site<BR>	
The Memory Hole<BR>
Mutualist.org<BR>
 Individualist Anarchist]<BR>	
Geonomy Society
School of Living<BR>
HenryGeorge.org<BR>	
Anti-State.com & 
Forum<BR>
Against Politics<BR>
Molinari Institute<BR>
:Back to this trash, eh? Sarge Baldy 08:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, post-lefties are generally socialist, so they belong in that category.  The socialist greenies should go under socialism; the mutualist greenies under mutualism, and the geoist and capitalist free-market environmentalism greenies under capitalism. All we need to know is their de-facto economic position; we don't care if they're so confused/anti-intellectual that they themselves can't say where they stand. Hogeye 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the case of primitivists, where there is no articulated "economic system", then what? If they desire an end to industrial production, I assume they intend to have no formalized economy. - N1h1l 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I think it is a pretty major flaw in the chart. Some anarcho-primitivists might believe in a subsistence economy, but I think most believe in nomadic hunting and gathering rather than a more complex agricultural-based system. You might even say they believe in a pre-economic social organization. And judging from Hogeye's comments, he has no idea what he's talking about. Sarge Baldy 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they generally intend primitive tribal communalism - that would be socialist. 70.178.103.141 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was similiar to Sarge Baldy's - hunter/gather societies would not seem to have any formalized economy at all (perhaps only informal trade and barter networks?); thus it would be rather odd to categorize primitivists on the basis of economic theory as the chart above attempts. - N1h1l 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People and zines 

message: Out of curiosity, where exactly would you suggest that post-left anarchists and green anarchists/primitivists belong? For example, John Zerzan, Peter Lamborn Wilson, Bob Black and publications like Green Anarchy and Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed? They are anti-capitalist yet individualistic in nature and hostile towards left-anarchism; however, none of them identify as mutualists. IMO, the chart above seems ill equipped to deal with many contemporary anarchist thinkers of this nature. - N1h1l 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, post-lefties are generally socialist, so they belong in that category.  The socialist greenies should go under socialism; the mutualist greenies under mutualism, and the geoist and capitalist free-market environmentalism greenies under capitalism. All we need to know is their de-facto economic position; we don't care if they're so confused/anti-intellectual that they themselves can't say where they stand. Hogeye 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the case of primitivists, where there is no articulated "economic system", then what? If they desire an end to industrial production, I assume they intend to have no formalized economy. - N1h1l 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I think it is a pretty major flaw in the chart. Some anarcho-primitivists might believe in a subsistence economy, but I think most believe in nomadic hunting and gathering rather than a more complex agricultural-based system. You might even say they believe in a pre-economic social organization. And judging from Hogeye's comments, he has no idea what he's talking about. Sarge Baldy 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they generally intend primitive tribal communalism - that would be socialist. 70.178.103.141 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was similiar to Sarge Baldy's - hunter/gather societies would not seem to have any formalized economy at all (perhaps only informal trade and barter networks?); thus it would be rather odd to categorize primitivists on the basis of economic theory as the chart above attempts. - N1h1l 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-left anarchists & primitivists

message: When making a list of anarchist links, I noticed that there was no anarcho-capitalist FAQ.  Sure, there's a wonderful Anarchist Theory FAQ by Bryan Caplan, but that's about anarchism in general.  So, drawing upon my Wikipedia experience, I created one.  Please make comments or suggestions on my Talk page. Behold! I give you ...
The Anarcho-capitalist FAQ
Hogeye 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "standard jargon" you mean "ignorance of how words are really used by scholars." It's a fantasy land. --AaronS 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that on Wiki, you can't use various terms accepted by scholars, such as: "collectivism," "individualism," "socialist anarchist;" nor can you use "socialism" except in the antiquated 19th century sense. (E.g. "Individualist anarchists are generally not socialist," is true, but wouldn't fly here on Wiki.) Hogeye 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalist FAQ 

message: Socialism                                         	Anarchism                                              	Anarchism                                              	Anarchism                                              	Anarchism                                                 	Anarchism                                                  	Anarchism                                                  	Capitalism
Socialism                                         	Social Anarchismpublic ownership of means of production	Social Anarchismpublic ownership of means of production	Social Anarchismpublic ownership of means of production	Social Anarchismpublic ownership of means of production   	Individual Anarchismprivate ownership ofmeans of production	Individual Anarchismprivate ownership ofmeans of production	Capitalism
Anarcho-communismmoney not used                   	Anarcho-communismmoney not used                        	Anarcho-syndicalismlabour centered                     	Collective anarchismmoney used                         	Mutalist anarchismpublic institutions, market distribution	Mutalist anarchismpublic institutions, market distribution 	Anarcho-capitalismunregulated market,profit allowed        	Anarcho-capitalismunregulated market,profit allowed
Anti-capitalistCapitalism is coercive/exploitative	Anti-capitalistCapitalism is coercive/exploitative     	Anti-capitalistCapitalism is coercive/exploitative     	Anti-capitalistCapitalism is coercive/exploitative     	Anti-capitalistCapitalism is coercive/exploitative        	Anti-capitalistCapitalism is coercive/exploitative         	CapitalistCapitalism is freedom                            	CapitalistCapitalism is freedom
                                                  	                                                       	                                                       	                                                       	                                                          	                                                           	                                                           	
Infinity0 talk 16:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I thought you meant why I was using that phrase. Infinity0 talk 19:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Anarchist communists don't buy into LTV. They reject value entirely in place of a need-based gift economy. Sarge Baldy 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editable Table 

message: 
Infinity0 talk 14:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'we invent ideologies and theories which rationalize our beliefs into neat and orderly systems that are capable of explaining anything, because they omit everything which their premises cannot explain.' Herbert V. Guenther
This template talks about the ideologies, not the people. But meh, why should I care? I'm only trying to find a way for everyone to help, instead of just RJII and Hogeye, who had been monopolising the editing of the chart. Infinity0 talk 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind. I figured out how to change it. Thanks for the help. RJII 04:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Here, then, was the difference between Bakunin and Proudhon, a division marked by the Revolution of 1848 itself. Proudhon was religious, Bakunin was atheistic; Proudhon advocated peaceful evolution, Bakunin appealed for immediate violent insurrection; Proudhon relied upon the middle class, Bakunin tried to rely upon sections of the workers; Proudhon preached producers' co-operative and mutual harmony of all propertied interests, Bakunin spoke against private property and for Communist collectivism; Proudhon calculated on using the State for his Bank, Bakunin demanded the State's immediate abolition; while Proudhon denied the value of any organizational discipline whatsoever, Bakunin organized a tightly disciplined conspiratorial clique for the seizure of power...It was then that Bakunin averred in his letters that he had become a Marxist, but a Marxist in "economics" and not in "politics.""  RJII 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Bulletin de la Fédération Jurasienne was an organ of Collectivist Anarchism. At bottom there is no difference between “Collectivist” and “Communist” Anarchism."  RJII 05:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Anarchism of Stirner and of Proudhon was completely individualist. Bakounine did not want individualism, or to speak more correctly, one particular phase of individualism. He was the inventor of “Collectivist-Anarchism.” And the invention cost him little. He completed the “liberty” Utopia, by the “equality” Utopia. As these two Utopias would not agree, as they cried out at being yoked together, he threw both into the furnace of the “permanent revolution” where they were both at last forced to hold their tongues, for the simple reason that they both evaporated, the one as completely as the other."  RJII 05:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is from the most informative source I've found: "Collectivism, unlike Proudhon's Mutualism or Marxism, was not a well developed theory, the product of a single mind... collectivism often was so sketchy in details, and some of its advocates disagreed among themselves over various points."  RJII 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism table