Talk:Anarchism/Archive 48

message: The linked page defines social control very broadly. Gift-giving, boycotts, not talking to rapists, etc. would be 'social control.' Jacob Haller 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Control

message: sorry to disrupt the debate, but why are there two pages on anarchism? anarchy also talks about the same thing... it has less info, but probably a few points worth merging into this article. am I missing something?--naught101 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current edits on anarchy seem to be addressing the duplication, however slowly. Libertatia 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Agree: keep separate, but add clear links and theory of difference: thanks for the clarification. but there are no links that I could easily find from [anarchism]] to anarchy. a link probably needs to be made in the intro somehow, and also in the Template:Anarchism sidebar has no link to the anarchy page, which seems illogical. the difference between the two also needs to be made clear (the monarchy/monarchism separation is something that most people would understand, and would probably serve well). cheers. --naught101 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already made these suggestions, and its mainly anarchists who oppose such links.  Please help out if you can, thanks --Urthogie 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am an anarchist. And I am careful about how anarchy/anarchism/anarchic/anarchist est is defined in wiki projects. But even I see no reason to keep the two articles separate Randy6767
*Keep separate. I too am an anarchist (wooah, flooood!), and there is quite a difference between anarchy and anarchism - that of anarchy as a violent chaos and anarchy as an anarchist society. As the first usage is unfortunately quite common, it needs to be adressed - preferrably in it's own article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are you suggesting that 'anarchy' is always the result of an anarchist's intentions?Tamira C. 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No.Randy6767 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Anarchy]] into [[Anarchism]]?

message: I removed the statement that anarcho-capitalism is also known as market anarchism. Mutualism, in any form, especially the Tuckerite form, is market anarchism. We could split "Anarchism and the Individual" into two sections, one with Stirner, and one, "Market Anarchism," with mutualism, ind. anarchism in the United States, and anarcho-capitalism. Jacob Haller 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a legitimate source for Tucker being a market anarchist? I didn't think so. "Free-market anarchism" almost always refers to Rothbard's or Friedman's philosophies.Anarcho-capitalism 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Molinari's Institute's explanation of market anarchism includes the following: The first explicit defender of Market Anarchism was the 19th-century economist and social theorist Gustave de Molinari. The idea was taken up by the individualist anarchists, particularly those associated with Benjamin Tucker’s journal Liberty. More recently, Market Anarchism has been revived by a number of thinkers in the libertarian movement. The terms “anarcho-capitalism” and “voluntary socialism” have both been associated with the Market Anarchist tradition.  Roderick Long is certainly one of the authorities on this issues, with credibility among mutualists and an-caps alike. Libertatia 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "This volume honors the foremost contemporary exponent of free-market anarchism. One contributor aptly describes Murray Rothbard as 'the most ideologically committed zero-State academic economists on earth'." (Lawrence H. White in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XXVIII, June 1990, page 664) Anarcho-capitalism 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Tucker was a market anarchist because he supported market provided defense. It's just that free-market anarchism usually refers to Rothbard's philosophy. When most people see "free-market anarchism" they understand it to mean the philosophy of Rothbard or Friedman. Tucker's philosophy is usually simply referred to as "individualist anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Long (and others, such as Brad Spangler) are pretty clear in their use of "market anarchism" to include a wide range. Carson explicitly identifies himself as a "free market" anarchist. In agorist and mutualist circles, the broad definition appears to be standard. I think Long's endorsement is sufficient to make the point, but, for all the reasons that it has been possible for an-caps to conflate anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism, it is hard to claim that they are suddenly cleanly separable in this instance. We should eliminate any special pleading in the entry. Libertatia 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the older sources (e.g. Kropotkin's article; Rothbard's explanation for coining "anarcho-capitalism," etc.) discuss "individualist anarchism" where we might expect "market anarchism." The newer term has two advantages; it doesn't implicitly include non-market egoists, and it doesn't implicitly exclude non-egoist pro-market anarchists, like Greene, and iirc, Andrews. Are there any scholarly sources which, implicitly or explicitly, define market anarchism while excluding mutualism? Jacob Haller 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at least for Proudon's mutualism. All the definitions of market anarchism I've seen in scholarly sources say market anarchism is a philosophy that supports replacing the defense functions of the state with market provided defense. Proudhon never advocated that as far as I know. Benjamin Tucker was a market anarchist. It's debatable as to whether he was a mutualist, since he wasn't strict Proudhonian. It's just that free-market anarchism in scholarly sources always refers to Rothbard's or Friedman's philosophy, not Tucker and his friends.Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is whether, as the Wikipedia entry puts it, those "institutions necessary for the function of a free market" are to be supplied by the market itself. That seems to be the case with the Liberty group, with Carson, with range of positions currently represented in the Movement of the Libertarian Left. The differences between the mutualism of Proudhon and Greene, and that of Tucker, were primarily not economic. Libertatia 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tucker wrote (1899, The Attitude of Anarchism Toward Industrial Combinations): "Free access to the world of matter, abolishing land monopoly; free access to the world of mind, abolishing idea monopoly; free access to an untaxed and unprivileged market, abolishing tariff monopoly and money monopoly, – secure these, and all the rest shall be added unto you. For liberty is the remedy of every social evil, and to Anarchy the world must look at last for any enduring guarantee of social order." Jacob Haller 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Anarchism again 

message: The reference to Lysander Spooner's book "Poverty: Its Illegal Causes And Legal Cure" (currently reference #64) is producing a broken link.  I don't understand why.  Perhaps someone who knows how to do so can fix it and remove this segment from the talk page.  I have put this at the top in anticipation of quick resolution. Αναρχία 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A minor technical issue

message: Does anyone want to consider making a Libertarian (word) article, discussing the history of the word? The article, obviously, would discuss the word's origins in philosophy, its use by Dejacque and subsequently as a synonym for anarchism, its recent use by minarchist capitalists, and everything in between, including terms like libertarian socialism that have sprung from it.
That way, the opening sentence could read thus:
:Anarchism (occasionally known as libertarianism)...
Without too much confusion. There would still be problems, but they would be lessened.
Even without that edit to the lead, I'd still like to see the article created. Thoughts? ~Switch t 09:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems OK to me. -- Vision Thing -- 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the topic...

message: Regardless of our knowledge or opinions on the issue, it is very hard to deny that Tucker used "socialism" in a way that the vast majority of people today, and Wiki readers, do not.  Believe it or not, most people aren't familiar with "free market anti-capitalism" or anything like that.  It would be a failure of this article not to acknowledge this and properly inform the reader of how Tucker used the term and how it is different. That is not POV; it's just clarifying the matter.  The use of the term "non-standard" may be objectionable to you, but we're going to have to convey that information some way. MrVoluntarist 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no disagreement about the need to clarify the way the term is used. "Non-standard" does not help explain. An explanation, grounded in the actual history, helps explain. If the partisans of the non-standard tag are interested in making things clear, we can hash it out. Libertatia 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably weren't aware when you edited out the statement that the meaning of the term "socialism" has changed over time that that was actually what the source said - it wasn't my editorializing- so I've put that back in.Anarcho-capitalism 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware. It's McElroy's editorializing, given undue weight. And there is a mass of facts that contradict it, or at least contradict the sense that you are trying to give it. It is currently deceptive. In the mid-19th century, the term was contested, and had state and non-state definitions, just as it did in the lat 19th century, and as it did all through the 20th century, and as it does now. Libertatia 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it "undue weight"? McElroy is an expert on individualist anarchism. She may even know more than me about it, as hard as that is to believe. The debate in the mid 19th century you're talking about does not relate what McElroy is talking about. It's not whether it's defined as state ownership or nonstate social ownership, but whether it's social ownership/control or individual ownership/control. Social ownership/control is socialism. Individual ownership/control is individualism. Today the term "socialism" refers to social (collectivist) control over property. To say that someone is a socialist individualist is an oxymoron.Anarcho-capitalism 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, it is just you editorializing, via proxy this time, but the difference is pretty slight. Your interpretation of the meaning of the term "socialism" at various times depends on a belief that there has been a consensus, and that that consensus has then changed. There is plenty of evidence to show that that has not been the case. It is very precisely the case that the term has been contested, and that it remains contested. To say so, and to make sure that the definitional concerns article covers some of that ground, is useful and adds accuracy to the article. Inserting the interpretations of anti-"socialist" individuals merely adds unnecessary POV. The studies which actually do the scholarly work of dealing with the history, do no back up your use of McElroy's assertion. It's a very simple question of which statement can be backed up by the historical facts. (It doesn't help that you've now gone back to misrepresent my argument as one merely pertaining to one period.) Libertatia 03:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you can sit here with a straight face and tell us that  the consensus definition of socialism today does not refer to social ownership/control over property. Consult any dictionary, any political dictionary, any encyclopedia, and any political or economic encylcopedia. They all define it as social ownership or control over property. Then go back and consult definitions from the 19th century dictionaries and encyclopedias. There is quite a difference. McElroy is pointing what is true, and what should be obvious to you. If you tell someone today that you're a socialist, there is almost no one would think anything other than that you advocate social control/ownership over property. They would think you were a collectivist.Anarcho-capitalism 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing, isn't it? The man on the street has never been terribly clear on socialism. Not terribly clear on physics, either, but we don't let him dictate technical terms. Libertatia 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not just talking about the man on the street. I'm talking about well respected reference works.Anarcho-capitalism 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't delete sourced information just because you don't like what it says. Stop POV-pushing.Anarcho-capitalism 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen the term contested. Libertatia says he has a source for a debate taking place in the mid 19th century concerning whether it refers to state control or not. But MCelroy's point is by the common definition of socialism today, Tucker would not be considered a socialist, because he's for individualist property rather than socialist property. What does labor unions have to do with anything? Capitalists support labor union negotiations as part and parcel of free market capitalism. What they oppose, and what Tucker also opposed, was labor unions requesting that the state enact minimum wage legislation and other forms of coercion against employers.Anarcho-capitalism 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might begin to "see the term contested" by reading the texts cited in one of your own edits. Both the "Socialistic Letter" and "Armies that Overlap" are linked elsewhere on the page. Rothbardian Brad Spangler's approach to the term is something I'm guessing you might be aware of, since an anonymous user posted your exact objection from these pages. You have also "seen the term contested" by individualist anarchists on these pages, over and over again. If by "haven't seen the term contested" you mean you haven't seen it contested by anyone you think you have to pay attention to, then that is another question, and perhaps you should just say that. In any event, I see that you are aggressively adding dubious claims in inappropriate places in this and other articles. This may, in the end, be a good thing, as it will undoubtedly require the complete rewriting of some of the sections you have scrambled. Libertatia 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the meaning of term "socialism" contested in books or articles. If it has been I don't really care. My main point is to try to make clear that Tucker was not a socialist in the ordinary sense. He was for individualist property, rather than socialized property. As far as the rest of your message I don't understand what you're talking about. What "dubious claims" are you talking about? And who the hell is Brad Spangler?Anarcho-capitalism 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Even though Proudhon wrote about “anarchy”, he did not lead an anarchist movement. Libertarians saw themselves as socialists or even social democrats. (The individualist, Benjamin Tucker even went so far as to call himself a “scientific socialist”) The term “socialist” had a much different meaning then—at that time it meant co-operative production. Socialism as collectivism or statism was a later development, largely a result of the hegemony of the German Social Democratic Party." Larry Gambone Intangible2.0 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The contention is not that "socialism" has not evolved in meaning, but that it has not evolved in meaning from an "old" sense to a "new" one in any simple way. Given all that Larry has recently written on his blog, and his connections to "socialist" individualists like Kevin Carson, "socialist" Rothbardian Brad Spangler, etc., it's unlikely he would back the "nonstandard use" account. Libertatia 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Larry mispelled the word "quite" in the first paragraph. he needs a better editor. Blockader 17:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back on topic ... 

message: Heya,
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarcho-Monarchism discussing whether or not to delete the article on Anarcho-Monarchism. thought people here might be interested. --Black Butterfly 13:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I got that page deleted months ago. Maybe someone recreated it. Or else I'm going crazy, which is also possible. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, here we go: old deletion discussion. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's been deleted before, and with a fairly strong consensus too, it won't survive this time probably. ~Switch t 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-Monarchism - articles for deletion 

message: As currently written there are no references to libertarian socialism, no references to voluntary socialism, no references to market socialism in the anarchist sense of the term, no references to mutualism, one reference to collectivism (referring Saint-Simeon's and Owen's systems, not to Bakunin's), two references to syndicalism, and no references to communism in the anarchist sense of the term (and frequent use of uncapitalized communism/communists to refer to Marxist-Leninism/Marxist-Leninists). There are six references to anarchism (including sidebars and the list of political philosophies).
There is one reference to Proudhon (wedged among the Utopians) with no discussion of his ideas, of his influence on Marx, of his critique of property, of his critique of the state, or his defense of markets as socialist. There is one reference to Tucker (as the author of SS&A). There is one reference to Bakunin (very simplistic). There are no references to Malatesta. There are no references to Dejacques. There are no references to Kropotkin. (!!!). There are no references to Bookchin.
It looks like almost all discussion of anarchism, one of the most important strains of socialist thought in the 19th century, in the early 20th century, and at the present, has been purged from the article. Jacob Haller 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that purge to have been initiated and carried out by User 172. He was in the process of doing so several months ago with several of us countering his efforts. he is impossible to deal with though and eventually wore me out. good luck.Blockader 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He actually claimed that libertarian socialism was a neologism despite libertatia's sourced proof otherwise. Apparently, he thinks his claim to be a "professional historian" means his positions are infallible and that he has more editing legitamacy than other users. i don't care if that is a personal attack, he is an absolutely impossible editor to work with. Blockader 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's us he has a problem with. I believe he was busy removing "nonsense" about anarchist communism from the communism article a while ago as well. ~Switch t c g 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck in dealing with him. He shows very little will to achieve consensus  on any subject. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would back you up but dealing with the main editors at both socialism and communism is so taxing that it hurts physically. also, i would like to congratulate this article and all the editors here on the stability and taglessness this article has enjoyed for many months. never would have thought it possible 6 months ago. Blockader 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason we're quiet is that we've lost a handful of active, talented editors, who got tired of the squabbling, and are, in some cases, devoting their time to finishing other projects. As for the academic-marxist bloc who dominate the socialism and communism pages, they pretty obviously have thier agenda and are sticking to it. Libertatia 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And some of the most active and knowledgeable editors, like Hogeye and RJII, were driven away. But still, I have to agree with Blockader, good job everyone. -- Vision Thing -- 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also expanding the Class struggle page on similar lines. Jacob Haller 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Socialism]] page needs work