Talk:Individualist anarchism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hogeye's chart

What are the sources cited for the assertions made in the chart that was posted by Hogeye? --AaronS 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! I just finished adding primary sources for each cell. Hogeye 00:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything that isn't original research? --AaronS 01:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes aren't original research. RJII 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They are when they are primary sources and they are used to make an argument that doesn't seem to have been published in any reliable sources. Please, provide some reliable sources. --AaronS 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between interpreting what original sources say, and interpreting what secondary sources say about the original sources? Nothing. No matter what, there's going to be editorial interpretation of what's being said. RJII 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you read up on the various policies and guidelines that I listed on the anarchism article discussion page. Then you might see where I'm coming from. --AaronS 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Aaron's a funny guy. He thinks secondary sources are better than primary sources, and that primary sources are original research. What can you say? Hogeye 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, if you can't keep yourself from ridiculing anybody who disagrees with you or challenges your assertions, I'm going to seek administrative action. I've already asked you to be civil on countless occasions. --AaronS 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, you need to read the pertinent Wiki NOR info. Please pay particular attention to the following:

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Hogeye 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, please read the rest of the policy. --AaronS 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I still have no idea why you think it's original research. Do you want an expert to say the Bakunin is really an anarchist? Do you want an expert to assert that, when Bakunin says, ""The land, and all natural resources, are the common property of everyone," that he really means it? Are you saying that there is an analytic claim hidden somewhere in the chart? If so, then tell us, specifically, what it is. There's a recurring pattern here - you've repeatedly asked for citations, then frivolously rejected them. It's getting very hard to take you seriously. Hogeye 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RJ, I like your clarifications and additions, but think they should be in the key (following the chart, where the quotes are) rather than in the chart itself. The chart is no longer an easy to read synopsis, like this one was. Would you consider putting the details and qualifications in the part after the chart, and reverting to the cleaner version of the chart itself? Hogeye 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe there should be footnote for the boxes where a little more explanation is needed if you think it's too much information. What do you think? RJII 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. Hogeye 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be kind of complicated. Maybe I should just prepend it to the quote sections. RJII 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart is sort of complicated if you try to insert Stirner's view into it. He would (my guess) just dismiss it and say there are no "yes" or "no":s to be given, since he does not believe in society or morality, and all such questions presuppose society and moral rights. I don't know how that could possibly be properly represented either... Perhaps one could make a remark? Nixdorf 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd probably have to add a new column for Stirnerism. Might not be a bad idea. RJII 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but what should I write in the fields? I am tempted to fill in all fields with N/A. Nixdorf 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

non-labor-value individualist anarchism

What does anyone think about working the individualist anarchists who didn't espouse the labor theory of value into the article (such as Molinari)? It would be controversial of course, but there are sources that say they're anarchists. RJII 04:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a tough one, but I would say they should be included. The notion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of indAnarchism is already there: the section on anarcho-captalism. Hogeye 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

infinity and buying labor

Infinity, where in that Proudhon quote does it say it is not permissible for an individual to sell his labor? The individualists support paying for labor. That's central to their philosophy. Communists oppose wages, individualist support wages. RJII 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A fuller quote:

"The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. Why do you talk of wages? The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost of the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a sale. The workingman has sold nothing; he knows neither his right, nor the extent of the concession which he has made to you, nor the meaning of the contract which you pretend to have made with him. On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud."

Infinity0 ^talk 18:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that in there that someone is not allowed to sell his labor? RJII 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It says you can't buy someone's labour. Infinity0 ^talk 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, this quote explicitly says that paying someone wages for labour is wrong. And, it says nothing about profit. Infinity0 ^talk 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Moreover, look at this quote from Proudhon: "all value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work; and that, consequently, labor alone is the source of revenue among men." (Philosophy of Misery).

Compare Tucker, a disciple of Proudhon: "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!" Labor and its pay -Tucker

Well OK, which is why now it says "exploitative? Yes, some no." In that quote, Tucker doesn't say anything about wages. Obviously labour will be paid; what else can you exchange it for? I don't know who's more important, Proudhon or Tucker, but Proudhon is older, so I've taken him to the the main viewpoint. In your Proudhon quote, it sounds like he is talking about the situation then, where labour WAS composed essentially of wages. That quote doesn't give a justification or an assertion that that is right. Infinity0 ^talk 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"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. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward." Labor and Its Pay -Tucker. Proudhon has the same position. That's where Tucker got his philosophy on wages. RJII 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing communism with individualism. Communists are the ones that oppose wages for labor. RJII 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? That quote is weird, I thought Tucker was NOT an anarcho-socialist? And that socialism is against wage labour? And saying "Proudhon has same view" is all very well, but up there is a quote showing he has a different view... Infinity0 ^talk 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no condmenation of wages in your Proudon quote. RJII 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you... On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud. He is specifically attacking paying wages for labour. Infinity0 ^talk 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. He is saying that there's not enough wages. You don't understand Proudhon. He supports wages for labor --he advocates it. The whole point is that a person should be paid his "full" wages --rather than an employer deducting a portion of wages as profit. What do you think Proudhon advocated a banking system and money for? In order to pay for labor. RJII 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

His definitions of wage is different from what is normally meant. Wages, for him, are: the cost of the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a sale. (same passage) whereas normally, it is just the money paid for some specified quantity of labour - ie, the price of a sale. Infinity0 ^talk 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity> "I thought Tucker was NOT an anarcho-socialist?"

Tucker called himself a socialist, but his definition of socialist was someone who believes that cost is the limit of price. That is not the modern definition of socialist, which is someone who believes in collective ownership of the means of production. That is what is so confusing. To understand Tucker, it is absolutely necessary to keep his outdated definition in mind.

Infinity> "And that socialism is against wage labour?"

Socialism is against profiting from other peoples' labor. It's okay according to Proudhon and Tucker to pay someone for work, but not to make a profit from someone's work. An example: If I hire someone to weed my garden, that's okay - I make no profit from that labor. If I hire someone to weed Mr. Smith's lawn, and get paid more from Mr. Smith than I give to the laborer, then that is wrong since I made money on the deal without working. It's farming out labor for profit that Proudhon and Tucker don't like. Hogeye 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, so "making profit from labour is exploitative"? But Proudhon also says "That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just." How can the labourer be paid the full wage? And then, the capitalist is making a profit, since he made money without doing anything. Infinity0 ^talk 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it goes both ways. The capitalist should be paid as well --but only in proportion to his contribution and no more. Once he starts taking more than the proportion than what he produced, he is unjustly taking from the employee what he produced. Wages must be proportional to production. RJII 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by produce? How can you take a portion of the production? The only way it can work both ways is if they are paid proportional to the profit; which is not what is commonly known to be a wage. Infinity0 ^talk 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The produce is what your labor has produced. The value of your produce is how much labor it took to produce it. There is no profit in the mutualist system. Equal amounts of labor are paid equally. No one is paid less than the value of his labor --everyone is paid the full value of his produce (taking for granted the labor theory of value). Proudhon and the other mutualists advocated using money backed by labor to pay for labor to ensure profitless transactions. RJII 19:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII Proudhon quote

I shall prove even that interest on capital is but the materialization of the apllorism, All labor should leave an excess. But in the face of this theory, or rather this fiction, of the productivity of capital, arises another thesis no less certain, which in these latter days has struck the ablest economists: it is that all value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work; and that, consequently, labor alone is the source of revenue among men. How, then, reconcile the theory of farm- rent or productivity of capital -- a theory confirmed by universal custom, which conservative political economy is forced to accept but cannot justify -- with this other theory which shows that value is normally composed of wages, and which inevitably ends, as we shall demonstrate, in an equality in society between net product and raw product?

RJII, this quote is about labour and values, not wages. Proudhon glancing mentions wages, and does not show any approval nor disapproval. Can you providing another, more specific quote? Infinity0 ^talk 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that quote is fine, but can be cut down to the essential, "All value is born of labor, and is composed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has its origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through work..." This makes it clear that Proudhon was not against wages per se, but only profit from labor. Hogeye 19:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

infinity and wages for labor

Infinity, why did you take out the part of the table dealing with wages for labor? You said in your summary that's it's irrelevant to communist anarchism. But, you're wrong there. It's very relevant. Anarcho-communists oppose wages. RJII 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they oppose all exchange for labour. Labour is labour is labour; there's nothing to exchange it with. Infinity0 ^talk 20:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true. So, we'll add that to the chart then --a comparison of who thinks it's ok to buy and sell labor. RJII 20:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

chart entries

This is why I think we should probably have more than yes and no in the chart. People not familiar with the stuff don't understand. I think there should be enough written in the boxes to explain. RJII 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If we select the quotes well, and explain in the key, that should do it. Right now, the quotes are pretty apt. No matter what we do and how well we explain it, there will be those who misunderstand or object. We just have to be patient with the neophytes. The whole purpose of a chart is to have a clean "at a glance" view. Hogeye 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of Infinity's edits don't make a lick of sense.

1. "Is profiting exploitative?" The term "exploitative" is connotative and vague. Besides, the straightforward "Is profit from capital or labor ethical?" already covered it.
2. "Is re-distribution of profit permissible?" Vague. Infinity says "yes" for commies, but since profit itself isn't permissable to commies, the correct answer is "no." And again, it was already covered in "Is profit from capital or labor ethical?"
3. "Can labor be exchanged?" Vague. Infinity again says "no" for commies, but a commie wouldn't object to, e.g. I'll back up your hard disk if you'll rake my leaves.
4. "Is profiting from others' labor exploitative?" Connotative term; already covered in previous formulation.

So I'll continue to revert that nonsense. Hogeye 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The first one was RJII's idea. The second one, I changed from "expropriation of profit", which means the same thing. Infinity0 ^talk 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online sez:

ex·pro·pri·a·tion

Pronunciation: (")ek-"sprO-prE-'A-sh&n

Function: noun

the act of expropriating or the state of being expropriated; specifically : the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty

Anarchists do not want a State to take property. Marxists do, but anarchists definitely don't. Besides, "expropriation" is a loaded term. Hogeye 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say they do. Infinity0 ^talk 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, you're too aggressive, dude. You could have at least kept the wiki-version of the table, and not reverted to the bloated, obsolete HTML code.

Hogeye, there may be a slight problem with calling it "Collectivist Anarchism." The Bakuninites were called the "Collectivists" (proper noun). They still supported private ownership of the product of labor, but opposed private ownership of the means of production. So, what holds for the communist anarchists (abolishing all private property), doesn't hold for Bakunin. RJII 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Actually, I don't even want to make that assertion. Bakunin doesn't really have a coherent economic philosophy, as other writers have noted. RJII 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to own something a priori? I also do not believe that the Bakunin quote supports what is being asserted in this article. --AaronS 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

infinity and profit from capital

What do you mean you can't profit from capital? If you lend money you can charge interest and profit. If you own land you can rent it out and profit. RJII 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In A-Com, capital doesn't exist. So how can any question related to it be valid? Infinity0 ^talk 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. For anarcho-communists, capital (aka "the means of production") clearly exist; they want it to be collectively owned. Hogeye 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't exists is saying it's considered an illegitimate activity to use a means of production in order to profit. In other words, profiting from capital is not legitimate. Since you're being nitpicky, we can just change it to "Is private ownership of capital permitted?" RJII 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with N/A? The meaning is clear. Infinity0 ^talk 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"N/A" is clear? You must be joking. RJII 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It's better than "no" because the question is invalid anyway. It doesn't even exist, how can it be property?? Infinity0 ^talk 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you just delete all the product of labor quotes? RJII 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Italian Federation quote since I couldn't find anything about it, verify it. I think your change is fine, only the quotes don't mention the MOP at all,. Infinity0 ^talk 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Infinity0 ^talk

You deleted other quotes as well. And, is it our fault that you don't have access to the document? RJII 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Bakunin quotes since he was an anarchist, not anarcho-communist. Infinity0 ^talk 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? Anarcho-communists are anarchists too. Bakunin was known as a "collectivist." RJII 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But not all anarchists are anarcho-communists... He might well have collectivist opinions, but that doesn't mean he represents anarcho-communism, which developed later. Infinity0 ^talk 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "anarcho-communist" was too narrow. I have relabeled it "Libertarian Socialist" aka anarcho-socialist. Now all Bakunin quotes are okay. Hogeye 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bakunin wasn't an anarcho-socialist, he was an anarchist, with no adjectives. His views are no more collective than normal anarchists. Infinity0 ^talk 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He was a "collectivist." That was the name for the Bakuninites --"Collectivists." Bakunin split from the individualists (Proudhon) and advocated collectivism in means of production, and the communist anarchists split from the Collectivists and advocated collective ownership of the produce of labor. RJII 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason, Infinity prefers "means of production" to "capital." Whatever. So all the hoopla was a mere verbal dispute! Hogeye 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, RJII changed it to MoP, when I pointed out that capital doesn't exist in anarcho-communism. I guess he just wants to put a NO in that box. I'll change it back then, since you don't like it. Infinity0 ^talk 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, Infinity; in your terminology what is the difference between capital and man-made means of production? In my terminology, they are exactly the same. Hogeye 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by man-made means of production? A machine is man-made, surely? And a machine obviously isn't capital. Infinity0 ^talk 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding??? A machine is a perfect example of capital. From Capital (economics): "The word "capital" is short-hand for "real capital" or "capital goods" or means of production." Hogeye 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What's a non-man-made means of production then? Infinity0 ^talk 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Land, oceans, cows, etc RJII 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I thought that was already covered under "land" and "natural resources". Infinity0 ^talk 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...I am not getting anything coherent out of this discussion. Capital is "means of production", which is something used to produce other goods. Cows are capital, machines that produce are capital, and labor is capital. Man-made and non-man-made do not apply. Saying that capital does not exist in anarcho-communism is saying that cows are not capable of producing milk. Anarcho-communism simply doesn't agree with the use of capital... - blueperson(no account)

Just as "anarcho-communists" are classified "anarchists"...."land" and "natural resources" can also be classified as "capital" - blueperson (no account)

No original research

This article has very little in terms of reliable sources. Because of this, as well as the fact that this is a relatively obscure topic, I believe that there may be some original research. This can lead to point of view issues. I will expand on this in due time. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the first NOR issue: the "comparison of property systems." It is entirely original research, and inaccurate. I commend the efforts of the editors in their research, but I suggest that they take a look at what Wikipedia is not. Moreover, it is overly simplistic; not all philosophers agree (I'm going to add a note about this). Unless some reliable sources -- and I think that the standards for such are higher for this contentious article, so I mean scholarly works published by respectable universities, etc. -- can verify the claims made here, I'm going to remove it. Thanks for your cooperation, and, please, as much as this may annoy you, be civil with your responses, and don't forget your wikiquette! --AaronS 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You're making a claim here that not all philosophers agree. So, point out a philosopher that doesn't agree. RJII 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm claiming that: (a) it's original research, (b) not all philosophers agree, and that (c) reliable sources are needed for verifiability. So, that's only one of my points, and it's the least important one, because it does not directly deal with Wikipedia policy. Let's deal with the others, first. --AaronS 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's backed by a lot of research. Original research doesn't mean a Wikipedia editor researched and reported it; it means it's not sourceable. If you think one of the "yes"'s or "no"'s are not true of all philosophers, all you have to do with put a "(some say no)" or "some say yes" like was done for the question on title to land for the individualists. I hope you will have a source for that though. RJII 15:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you read the pertinent policy more thoroughly. Namely, original research is:

• a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"
• In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.
• it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

I refer you especially to: (a) entries about theories and (b) what counts as a reputable publication. Thanks. --AaronS 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Therefore, it's not original research. RJII 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're just going to ignore my legitimate concerns? --AaronS 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What you quoted makes it clear that it is not original research. RJII 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why would you leave this out: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." ? RJII 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I left it out because it is not pertinent to my concerns, and because it is qualified with other statements. This tag is an example. If you still feel that there is no original research in this article, then I suppose you wouldn't mind if we had an outside perspective. --AaronS 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a serious question. Why don't you make any real contributions? I haven't seen you doing any research. It seems all your activities revolve around nitpicking what others are doing. RJII 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to nitpick. I don't have much time for heavy-duty research. I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. I have a real job. --AaronS 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess. Security guard? RJII 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources

Many claims in this article are uncited. I will compile a list of uncited claims in due time. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Due to problems with sources and original research, I feel that this article might not present a neutral point of view. Namely, I am concerned that there are not many, if any, third-party (secondary or tertiary) sources backing up what is presented in the article. I will expand on this in due time. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII's removal of tags

Please do not remove tags that have been placed in the article by other editors. --AaronS 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't put an NPOV tag on an article without explainin in Talk exactly why, so the preceived POV problem can be fixed. You're in violation of policy. RJII 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tags, like anything else, need to be justified by the person adding them. They don't just stand there at the whim of the person adding them. That said, it may well belong here. Gene Nygaard 03:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:NPOV "explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article." The tag is supposed to be a tool so we can fix any possible NPOV problem. If you can't articulate what the problem is the tag shouldn't be there. How is anyone supposed to know what to fix? You need to point to any specific NPOV problems you see so they can be fixed. RJII 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't quite given me a chance to. By the way, the template page is not the policy. No policy has been violated by me. I do, however, point you to the policy on reverting, which you have violated. --AaronS 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't violated the 3RR. Cease your dishonesty. RJII 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple misunderstanding does not imply dishonesty. Unlike you, at least based on your actions on the anarchism article discussion page, I'm perfectly willing to apologize for my mistakes and misunderstandings. I'm sorry. --AaronS 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. RJII 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity's NPOV tag

Infinity, can you explain what you think is POV about the section where you put the tag? No one knows what to fix unless you explain it. RJII 17:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• All the anarcho-capitalism quotes are from Rothbard. If that's the only anarcho-capitalist in existence, then he doesn't deserve 1/3 of the quotes.
• You're passing off extreme views such as Dejacque as representative of all collective anarchism.

Infinity0 ^talk 17:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reasonable points. It's not hard to find qoutes from other anarcho-capitalists. As far as Dejacque, he is representative of communist anarchism. The title in the table needs to be "anarcho-communism." RJII 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

infinity and profit

Infinity you said in your edit summary: "any qualms about exploitation all stem from labour." You're not aware of the individualist anarchist arugment that profit from rent of land is exploitative, are you? That's not a "theft" of labor. RJII 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, put land in then. Retail trade and capital all stem from labour, though. Infinity0 ^talk 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm going to say "capital" because it's not limited to land. For example, renting money for profit (usury) is also considered exploitative. RJII 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

19th century definition of socialism

Webster's dictionary from 19th century: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Albert R. Parsons, What is Anarchism? Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, as Defined by Some of its Apostles (Chicago, 1887) This explains why some of the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists" while at the same time supporting private property (including the means of production) and opposing collectivism. Just for the record. RJII 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, does it? "The anarchists seek the same ends [the abolition of wage-slavery] by the abrogation of law, by the abolition of all government, leaving the people free to unite or disunite as fancy or interest may dictate, coercing no one..." Further, "The great natural law of power derived alone from association and cooperation will of necessity and from selfishness be applied by the people in the production and distribution of wealth, and what the trades unions and labor organizations seek now to do, but are prevented from doing because of obstructions and coercions, will under perfect liberty—anarchy—come easiest to hand." And, "The function, the only function of capital is to confiscate the labor-product of the propertyless, non-possessing class, the wage-workers." Moreover, "The great class-conflict now gathering throughout the world is created by our social system of industrial slavery. Capitalists could not if they would, and would not if they could, change it. This alone is to be the work of the proletariat, the disinherited, the wage-slave, the sufferer. Nor can the wage-class avoid this conflict. Neither religion nor politics can solve it or prevent it. It comes as a human, an imperative necessity. Anarchists do not make the social revolution; they prophesy its coming." Sounds very Marxist to me. I don't think that you can take that Webster's definition and then say "this must be what individualist anarchists thought socialism to be." --AaronS 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

None of that matters. All that matters is the definition of socialism, not anarchism. By the way, that's not written by an INDIVIDUALIST anarchist. Parson's was a Chicago anarchist --a communist. RJII 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter? Parsons is elaborating on anarchism and socialism. I just don't see how you can take that one, single quote and then assume that individualist anarchists must have viewed socialism in that way. I'll tell you what, that's news to me. And since that's news to me, I would like a reliable source. --AaronS 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm doing. All I'm doing is quoting the Webster's dictionary of socialism. I'm not making an argument. Read again. RJII 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes you are. You're arguing that that is how individualist anarchists perceived socialism to be. And you are arguing that that is the contemporary definition of socialism for that time. Both are arguments that need to be backed up with a lot more than one out-of-context quote. --AaronS 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that is was the Webster's dictionary definition; I'm asserting it. Do you think Parson's is lying? RJII 05:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By placing it as you have in the article, you are suggesting rather explicitly that individualist anarchists ascribed to that definition of socialism. You can't just take what Webster's said at the time (if that is even the whole definition -- we don't know, because we're getting it through Parsons) and then jump to the conclusion that that is what individualist anarchists believed at the time. --AaronS 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. I modified it to say that that's not necessarily the definition they use. RJII 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity deleting note that it's also called "anarcho-individualism"

Infinity stop deleting the mention that it's also called "anarcho-individualism". It's not a "neologism" as you claim --the term has been around for a long time --probably almost a century. RJII 21:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Google search for "anarcho-individualism" brings up 347 hits. Also, you may want to convert all the notes on the page into <ref> tags, since the one you just inserted isn't showing. -- infinity0 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a disputed tag on infinity's claim that the term is used "occasionally." I think it's used often. 447 Google hits (as opposed to infinity's false claim of 347 hits) looks like often to me. RJII 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing that tag. That's 447 for anarcho-individualism, versus 63,100 for individualist anarchism. I have almost never heard the term "anarcho-individualism" used, let alone occasionally, and certainly not often, as you originally implied. I don't even think that the mention should be there. Your only reference is that Levy article (which seems to be your only reference for a lot of your claims). I don't think that that's enough. More importantly, the fact that Levy used it does not mean that it isn't a neologism -- and it certainly does not show that it has been around for "almost a century," as you imply. Scholars invent words all the time -- words that don't catch on. --AaronS 16:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not a neologism because Levy is using it. If Levy is not enough, there are plenty more sources, if you want me to cite them. It's used often enough. "Occasional" is a very subjective term. 447 hits doens't prove that it's "occasional." 447 Google hits is DEFINTELY not "rarely." RJII 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide sources that can prove your claim that the term "anarcho-individualism" is used more than rarely, go for it. I'm going to change it to "comparably rarely." --AaronS 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources to prove that it's used "comparably rarely"? RJII 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The comparison of Google hits. And the fact that you haven't provided a source showing that the "sometimes" is justified without any sort of limiting adjective. --AaronS 18:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then take the quantitative terms out totally like I had it before. infinity is the one that started with this. RJII 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the quality and character of the Google hits for "anarcho-individualism"? Most of them cook down to references to a small number of posts by non-individualists and frequently by opponents. All seem to be recent, save references to a Rudolph Steiner quote that isn't really germane. This note probably serves to confuse, rather than clarify. Libertatia 20:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm actually convinced that it should be removed. --AaronS 23:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing sourced material? What harm is there in the reader knowing that it's also called anarcho-individualism? Here is another source. Bookchin calls it anarcho-individualism: [1] RJII 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That was sort of what I was getting at. Bookchin uses that term in the context of his very controversial redrawing of the anarchist map in Social Anarchism vs. Lifestyle Anarchism. It's a very ideosyncratic usage. It just isn't helpful information. Libertatia 21:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparison chart and sources

Original quotes

(NRxCO) "The land, and all natural resources, are the common property of everyone, but will be used only by those who cultivate it by their own labor. Without expropriation, only through the powerful pressure of the worker’s associations, capital and the tools of production will fall to those who produce wealth by their own labor." - Michael Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism.

(NRxCO) "The only way, in which ['the wealth of nature'] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." - Lysander Spooner, Law of Intellectual Property. "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." -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty

(NRxCO) "The only 'natural' course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by 'mixing his labor' with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others." Murray Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State.

(LdxCol) see (NRxCol) above.

(LdxInd) Though, most labor-value individualists oppose buying and selling of land itself, they maintain that an individual should be allowed exclusive of use of land against any claims of the community. "Anarchism holds that land belongs not to the people but the occupant and user..." - Benjamin Tucker Liberty X May 19 1894. But Warren, Andrews, and Greene supported an individual holding transferable title to land itself; for example, "the prime cost of land, the taxes, and other contingent expenses of surveying, etc., added to the labor of making contracts, would constitute the equitable price of land purchased for sale." -Josiah Warren, Equitable Commerce

(LdxAC) "If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be. There is no requirement, however, that land continue to be used in order for it to continue to be a man’s property." -Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State

(PoLxCol) "It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." -Joseph Dejacque, Letter to Proudhon "If we preserved the individual appropriation of the products of labour, we would be forced to preserve money, leaving more or less accumulation of wealth according to more or less merit rather than need of individuals." -Carlo Cafiero, Anarchism and Communism "In other words, labour and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism." -Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism

(PoLxInd) "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, What is Mutualism "...the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." -Lysander Spooner, The Law of Intellectual Property

(PoLxAC) The labor theory of value is erroneous. Profit is not exploitative and contract is supreme. "The capitalist, then, is a man who has labored, saved out of his labor (i.e., has restricted his consumption) and, in a series of voluntary contracts has (a) purchased ownership rights in capital goods, and (b) paid the laborers for their labor services in transforming those capital goods into goods nearer the final stage of being consumed. Note again that no one is preventing the laborers themselves from saving, purchasing capital goods from their owners and then working on their own capital goods, finally selling the product and reaping the profits. In fact, the capitalists are conferring a great benefit on these laborers, making possible the entire complex vertical network of exchanges in the modern economy." - Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty.

(CGxCol) The means of production are owned by the community in collective. "The revolution as we understand it will have to destroy the State and all the institutions of the State, radically and completely, from its very first day. The natural and necessary consequences of such destruction will be: ... f. the confiscation of all productive capital and of the tools of production for the benefit of workers’ associations, who will have to have them produced collectively." - Bakunin, The Program of the International Brotherhood.

(CGxInd) All products of labor are the property of the individual, regardless of in the form of capital or not."Proudhon scoffed at this distinction between capital and product. He maintained that capital and product are not different kinds of wealth, but simply alternate conditions or functions of the same wealth. ... For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society." - Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism.

(CGxAC) "Production begins with natural resources, and then various forms of machines and capital goods, until finally, goods are sold to the consumer. At each stage of production from natural resource to consumer good, money is voluntarily exchanged for capital goods, labor services, and land resources. At each step of the way, terms of exchanges, or prices, are determined by the voluntary interactions of suppliers and demanders. This market is "free" because choices, at each step, are made freely and voluntarily." - Rothbard, Free Market.

(LrxCol) Will you stand up for that piece of chicanery which consists in affirming 'freedom of contract'? Or will you uphold equity, according to which a contract entered into between a man who has dined well and the man who sells his labor for bare subsistence, between the strong and the weak, is not a contract at all?" -Peter Kropotkin, An Appeal to the Young

(LrxInd) It is considered exploitative to pay an individual for less than the "full produce" of his labor. - "The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. Why do you talk of wages? The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost of the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a sale. The workingman has sold nothing; he knows neither his right, nor the extent of the concession which he has made to you, nor the meaning of the contract which you pretend to have made with him. On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right [ethicality] of usury" -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty I,3 Note- Tucker used the term "usury" to mean profit --both from capital and labor.

(LrxAC) see (PoLxAC) above.

Discussion

I moved the very messy and confusing sources from the comparison chart to this talk page, so that we could begin to work on converting them to references/footnotes, which would be clearer. It just didn't make much sense to me the way it was before. --AaronS 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, please be honest in your edit summaries. If you're reverting, you're reverting; you're not "reparing" a "damaged" part of the article. --AaronS 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert the article. I put back in the portion of the table that you damaged. RJII 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you put it back the way it was. So, it was intentional. Why are you doing this to the table? RJII 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, now that I think about it. Anarcho-capitalism is included in individualist anarchism. Only one change needs to be made that some individualist anarchists don't think profit is exploitative. RJII 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the chart is horrible now that infinity meddled with it. RJII 17:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It always was kind of horrible, simplistic, and uninformative, IMO. --AaronS 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism in general"? What is that? RJII 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream anarchism? I tried to make the table compare mainstream types of anarchism, not extreme forms. -- infinity0 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that anarcho-communism is mainstream. Maybe it was in the past, but not anymore. By including all kinds of anarchism except individualist, there is no way you're going to be able to make the chart correct. RJII 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By changing "anarcho-communism" to "social anarchism" I was implying exactly that it is an extreme form. -- infinity0 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How about using "social anarchism" instead of "anarchism in general" then? -- infinity0 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Social anarchism" is vague. It has no precise meaning. RJII 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Social anarchism? -- infinity0 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. "Social anarchism" RJII 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What about "Social anarchism (left anarchism)" with both links included? -- infinity0 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Too vague. RJII 18:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It represents a general form of anarchism, which is what we are trying to do - simplify things. -- infinity0 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. RJII 18:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to simplify things. Vague is good - specifics leads to dispute. -- infinity0 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not when you're dealing with me. I go for precision. RJII 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version of precision is your own POV. -- infinity0 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And your version of NPOV is your POV of NPOV. Ironic, isn't it?

Not when I'm being vague, and generalising. -- infinity0 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole table is really, really awful and simplistic. It isn't at all clear that the social/individual divide is something we'll be able to delineate in terms of these very specific distinctions about property. My guess is that most anarchists, of whatever stripe, are not fully committed to any clear and specific set of (anti-)property principles. Works like Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy have been important because they've been helping the debates along into more concrete territory, but there's still an incredible amount of talking at cross-purposes going on within the movement. Both "sides" tend to reference some form of Proudhon's distinctions between forms of property and/or possession, but since Proudhon's language changes (although his ideas change much less), many of the disagreements are as much semantic as substantive. The table strikes me as inescapably a bit of original research. Libertatia 21:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

TBH, I'd just rather delete the whole table. It's unhelpful. But as long as it exists then it should be as NPOV as possible. If that means being vague, so be it. -- infinity0 21:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145]

More coming soon. -- infinity0 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [Peter Kropotkin Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223]

-- infinity0 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That must be Proudhon, not Kropotkin as the "General Idea" is one of his books. Proudhon's opposition to wage labour is expressed very strongly in that work. BlackFlag 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I misread my source. Sorry. -- infinity0 16:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So he's anti-profit, but then he wants the company to be in business for profit. RJII 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say that. -- infinity0 21:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to paint Proudhon as a capitalist. The man was recognised as a socialist by Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin and so on. He called himself a socialist as well. He explicitly and repeatedly attacked wage labour and argued for co-operatives to replace it. He was a forefather of market socialism, in other words. And the whole point of "profit" is that it changes in terms of which kind of workplace you are talking about. In a co-operative, it is any income above costs. As labour is not a cost, it is a labour income. In a capitalist firm, labour is a cost and so is a non-labour income. Property is theft, as Proudhon noted. BlackFlag 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the definition of "cost" which excludes, if I read you right, labor by shareholders? —Tamfang 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Shareholders who work get paid for their labour as well as leeching off the labour of others via the shareholding. Shareholders do not do labour to get profits from their shares. -- infinity0 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how this statement is relevant to the question I asked. —Tamfang 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't answering your question, since it was directed at BlackFlag. I was just saying cost doesn't exclude labour by shareholders. -- infinity0 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In a capitalist workplace, workers are hired for wages. Wages are therefore a cost. Profit is therefore any surplus above costs, including wages. It is a non-labour income. In a co-operative, workers are not hired. Any surplus is then, in effect, a labour income. Costs would include, say, raw materials but not labour. There would be no "shareholders", just workers who would democratically manage their common work affairs -- one person, one vote. Hope that clarifies things. [User:BlackFlag] 10:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I take this to mean that, in such an enlightened organization, the disutility of labor either does not exist or is borne by the workers without direct compensation. —Tamfang 01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

infinity/communism

infinity, you're stating in the chart that "social anarchists" support private ownership of the means of production. What is your source? RJII 20:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't say private ownership of means of production. It says own. Workers are allowed to own their tools, as is shown in the source. -- infinity0 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Of course the means of production can be owned in anarcho-communism. The distinction is that they're not owned INDIVIDUALLY but communaly. It's communism --not individualism. Where, in what source, does it say an individual owns the means of production? RJII 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not communally either. The individual owns it for the purposes of using it. But really, I'd like to delete that table altogether. -- infinity0 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me in the source where it says that. RJII 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You want the table to be included; the burden of proof is on you to provide sources that all social anarchists want common ownership of MOP, and all social anarchists disallow property in products of labour. I'd rather the table be deleted; it's horrible. -- infinity0 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you. You're making the claim in the table that social anarchists support individual ownership of the means of production. That's what I thought --you don't have source. RJII 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin (like other communist-anarchists) argued that individuals would have their own means of production if they were not communists under communist anarchism. In Act for Yourselves Kropotkin explicitly states that a peasant "who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would continue to work them. (pp. 104-5) He makes the same point in the Conquest of Bread (pages 95-6 and page 81), as does Malatesta. As for communism, they would have available the product of society to use as they wanted ("the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases" -- Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought) That was the whole point of the thing. BlackFlag 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, it's not systemic thing then. Anarcho-communists, at least some of them, will allow others to have private ownership of the means of production in the sense that they're not going to force their system on anyone? That's like saying individualist anarchists will allow communal ownership --of course they will, but it's not the advocated system. RJII 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, anarchists argue for "possession" ("occupancy and use") in Proudhon's sense and, as such, non-communists have the right to have the land and tools they use. Individualist anarchists (in general) hold the same principle (at least in land). BlackFlag 08:25, 1st April 2006 (UTC)

Blackflag blanking of anarcho-capitalism section

blackflag why are you removing anarcho-capitalism? Many sources indicate it is an individualist form of anarchism. You said that Rothbard says it is not individualism. What is your source for this? RJII 13:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While "strongly tempted," Rothbard could not call his ideology "individualist anarchism" because "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." ("The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View")

Rothbard might have preferred not to call his philosophy by that name, but it was still an individualist anarchism. There are plenty of sources for it being so.

• "Anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism" Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Individualist Anarchism, Daniel Burton
• "the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists" Individualism Reconsidere, Joe Peacott
• "[What the liberal economists] had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ralph Raico
• "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." Anti-Capitalism, Simon Tormey
• "Anarchist solutions to social questions have ranged from a total communism to an equally zealous individualism. In between are found sundry recipes, from anarcho-syndicalism to anarcho-capitalism." "While individualist anarchism is one possible form of capitalism taken to an extreme, left-libertarianism represents an alternative tradition. Contemporary Anarchism, Terry M. Perlin
• "Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." Anarchism, Carl Levy
• "Today individualist anarchists in the US call themselves anarcho-capitalists or libertarians; some though not all, are organized in the Libertarian Party." Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green, Ulrike Heider
• Also, Wendy Mcelroy is an anarcho-capitalists who prefers to call herself an individualist anarchist. RJII 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about ind-anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism. At most there should be one sentence (or perhaps two) saying something to the effect or "some argue anarcho-capitalism to be a type of ind anarchism, because etc etc, others disagree, for more info see anarchism and anarcho-capitalism". -- infinity0 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is a broad category of anarchisms, just as "social anarchism" is. I've never seen it claimed that anarcho-capitalism is a social or collectivist anarchism --of course it's individualist. RJII 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your own opinion. Many disagree it's anarchism at all. The section should be in the article but it should be toned down, and be less assertive. -- infinity0 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Many agree that it is anarchism. All you have to do is note that some dispute that it's anarchism. RJII 13:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rm pending cite.

Rothbard sought to introduce Lockean property rights and marginalism into individualist anarchism: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung."

- FrancisTyers · 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research (again)

I removed the claim that individualist anarchism is necessarily opposed to collectivism, because the only source backing up the claim was a quote from an arguably ambiguous primary source. I do not like using primary sources in controversial articles to back up controversial claims. I'd be happy to accept a reliable, reputable, secondary source. --AaronS 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, since a primary source is good, and certainly better than no source at all. Can you find a source that says individualist anarchism is not individualist? i.e. not against collectivism? Meanwhile, let's stick with the obvious, logical, and sourced statement that individualists are opposed to collectivism. 216.219.253.189

I'm not claiming that individualist anarchism is necessarily not opposed to collectivism. I'm simply asking you to back up the statement that it necessarily is. Primary sources are not good enough for controversial statements in controversial articles, and this is an example of original research. If your claim is true, then there should be plenty of secondary sources that will back it up. --AaronS 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added Kropotkin (to Spooner and Tucker) as a primary source that IA is opposed to collectivism. Have you found any sources whatsoever that say otherwise? Here's the note right now:

"The only way, in which ['the wealth of nature'] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." - Lysander Spooner, Law of Intellectual Property. "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." - Benjamin Tucker, Liberty. The communist anarchist Kropotkin, a critic of individualism, agrees that individualist anarchism is opposed to collectivism: "The individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but little sympathy amongst the working masses. Those who profess it - they are chiefly 'intellectuals' - soon realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist or they retire into a sort of Epicurean amoralism, or superman theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche. The great bulk of the anarchist working men prefer the anarchist-communist ideas which have gradually evolved out of the anarchist collectivism of the International Working Men's Association."[2]

216.219.253.189

None of these sources say that individualist anarchism is necessarily opposed to collectivism. I'm going to remove that claim if you cannot find any reliable, reputable, and scholarly secondary sources that back it up. --AaronS 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many secondary sources that assert that individualist anarchism opposes collectivism. Just google "individualist anarchism collectivism" and you'll get a bunch. Even the Infoshop Anarchist FAQ says so.

Secondary sources: "Libertarian individualists will never join the ideological battle to liberate collective entities whose existence they see as fictional..." - The Open Underground Network

This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom (including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257] Proudhon also argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are based on property and so authority (see the section "Characteristics of communism and of property" in What is Property?). Thus the Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced with that of "society." - Infoshop's An Anarchist FAQ

"The individualist view of the person is quite different from that of the collectivist. The individualist views people as responsible agents who, even in present-day, unfree society, have to take at least partial responsibility for the situations in which they find themselves, and therefore are capable of changing their situation, at least in part." - Individualism Reconsidered by Joe Peacott 216.219.253.189

None of this backs up the claim that individualist anarchism is necessarily opposed to collectivism. --AaronS 17:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course individualism anarchism is opposed to collectivism, otherwise it wouldn't be called INDIVIDUALIST anarchism. Individualism is a reaction against collectivism. It is a declaration that the individual has a right to do what he wills without taking the community into consideration other than to refrain from aggressing against others. TheIndividualist 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Godwin on property

This sentence, "Godwin supports individual ownership of property, defining it as "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." Does not support the quote it includes. Anarcho-communists also believe that every laborer is entiteled to the product of their labor, yet they do not support individual ownership of property. I seriously doubt Godwin was an anarcho-communist, but without a better quote to support the claim it will eventually have to be removed. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communists do not support individual ownership of property? Uh, yeah, they do, Blah.

I hope this was sarcasm. TheIndividualist 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More likely an inability to read Blahblahblahblahblahblah 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed your statement was wrong that "Anarcho-communists also believe that every laborer is entiteled to the product of their labor." They believe an individual has a right to what he "needs." If you produce more than you "need" and someone else "needs" your excess then that excess goes to that person. What you produced is irrelevant to what you get. The individualist gets to keep what he produces. THis is from the Anarchism article: "An early anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque, the first person to describe himself as "libertarian".[16] Unlike Proudhon, he argued that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."[15]" The question is who decides what you "need." Individualists reject the community's authority to decide what an individual "needs." The collective becomes a government of sorts under anarcho-communism because some sort of democractic process is set up instead of leaving the individual to decide for himself what he wants to keep, what he wants to give away, and what he wants to sell and for what price. That is why individualist anarchism is more anarchistic than anarcho-communism. Do you see individualist anarchists saying all "gift economies" and sharing will be abolished? No! The individual has absolute authority over the product of his own labor whether he wants to give it away or sell it. But you see Kropotkin saying that all money, wages, and trade will be abolished. Kropotkin is an authoritarian under the guise of an anarchist. TheIndividualist 04:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your post appears to be a series of straw-man arguments conflating what some anarcho-communists believe with what you interpret is a consequence of that belief. The fact is that many anarcho-communists strongly maintain worker control of the workplace and worker control of the product of their labor. The fact that such control is not on an individual level reflects the fact that the production is not individual, as anarcho-communists time and again affirm the right of lone laborers to retain individual possession of whatever they produce. They simply believe that workers who labor in a cooperative venture should retain proportional representation over the goals and methods of that venture. But really, go on making your arguments about the "absolute authority" granted by private property rights. I like those arguments, because they sound nothing like what I've heard from the individualist anarchists I know. This tells me a lot. Not only does it tell me that you probably aren't the individualist anarchist that you claim to be, oh Mr. Sock Puppet, but it also tells me something about just how far your commitment to anarchism goes. Your discussion of theory is fine and good, but I'm frankly not interested in your personal opinions on the matter and they certainly don't pertain to this encyclopedia. As such, thats all the time I'm going to spare for your speculation. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're dead wrong. Anarcho-communists are opposed to individuals having a right to the product of their labor. "It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." IndividualistAnarchist 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I suppose Peter Kropotkin wasn't an anarcho-communist: "when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work...[W]hen we see a family inhabiting a house which affords them just as much space as are considered necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with that family and turn them out their house?... And finally, when we see a cutler, or a clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody" Act for Yourselves

Or perhaps you don't consider any of those people to be individuals. Berkman must not have been an anarcho-communist either, "abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people." What is Anarchism?

By the way, which one were you before this latest incarnation, RJ or Hogeye? Perhaps that is a false dichotomy. Really though, I can only blame myself. Why am I wasting my time providing counter-evidence to your claims when you are certain of your conclusions regardless of the evidence? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. Kropotkin will only allow people have as much as they "need". He wants people to have a house that "affords them just as much space as are considered necessary for that number of people." What if someone wants a big luxurious house? Anarcho-communism is about people receiving what they "need" and no more. It is not about individuals having a right to the product of their labor at all. Kropotkin and all other anarcho-communists are authoritarians. IndividualistAnarchist 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that imperative for you to squeeze everything into your filter that you will ignore everything that doesn't fit? Okay, I will continue to bite on one condition, that we can have an honest conversation. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard and juries

The section on anarcho-capitalism makes a big deal about Rothbard not wanting juries to decide law, but according to the anarcho-capitalism article it depends on the anarcho-capitalist. Other anarcho-capitalists like the Tannahills would not have statutory law. So what is in the article is a criticism of Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism instead of anarcho-capitalism in general. So, it should probably be removed or modified significantly. TheIndividualist 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

using discussion page

Okay, Aaron, I'm using the discussion page. The only trouble is that when we (individualist anarchists) use the discussion page, you tell us to edit the article. Please stop playing mind games with us, Aaron.

Please don't tell me not to edit an article again. You act like you personally own every anarchism article on Wikipedia. You kinda don't. How about you stop reverting my edits and use the discussion page? And please grow up and stop running to the admins and whining and complaining every time someone makes an edit that you don't like. Please just grow up. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chill a bit and try communicating without attacking people. --AaronS 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself? Shannon^{duck talk} 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And you're telling me to grow up? That's fresh. --AaronS 11:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article

Individualist anarchism (or philosophical anarchism) is an anarchist philosophical tradition that has a strong emphasis on equality of liberty and individual sovereignty. The tradition appears most often in the United States. The roots of individualist anarchism include Europeans such as William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Emile Armand, Oscar Wilde, Han Ryner and Max Stirner.

You are saying, who keep reverting to this (Blah and Aaron), that Europeans had a stronger influence on American anarchy than American anarchists and libertarians in the 18th and 19th centuries? This just isn't so. Read American history! And both of you, will you please stop taking the clean-up code off the article. I have a right to put it there and it should be there. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. I somehow got the template in there twice and then had to take one back out. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppets

to Blahblahblahblahblahblah: I see you are pulling the old Whose sockpuppet are you, trick?, to TheIndividualist. My question, Blah, is Whose sockpuppet are you? It's obvious by your join date and your immediate activity, which hasn't relented, that you are a sockpuppet. Let's stop the attacks and nasty accusations and get to work editing an encyclopedia. Agreed? Shannon^{duck talk} 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Take this discussion to Blah's talk page. It doesn't really belong here. Blah is a sockpuppet. But, he already explained that. And he's within Wikipedia policy. --AaronS 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

classical liberalism

"Individualist anarchism is sometimes seen as an evolution of classical liberalism, and hence, has been called "liberal anarchism."[2]"

Yes, exactly. That's why the thinkers who came up with classical liberalism, i.e., Jefferson are the great influencers of American anarchy. Thoreau was a big influence. That's why they should be prominent in the first sentence rather than the list of Europeans that keeps popping up there. It is insane to claim that Europeans had a greater influence. period. Daniel Shays and his militia were the real heros. They didn't just pontificate about freedom. They fought for it. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins sections

I argue that Godwin and Proudhon were not origins of individualist anarchism. Max Stirner developed his form of individualist anarchist without the influence of those. At the same time, in the United States, Josiah Warren developed his form without their influence. Without sources saying Proudhon or Godwin influences Stirner and Warren, the origins section looks like original research. I know that Proudhon has some influence on some individualist anarchists after individualist anarchism already existed in the U.S., but he was not an "origin." DTC 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I argue that you're wrong, and there's plenty of proof that Godwin and Proudhon contributed greatly to individualist anarchism. I think your own opinion is the "original research". Radical Mallard Feb 23, 2009, 6:19 PM EST

Anarchist traditions

I removed the claim that individualist anarchism was not "true" anarchism because "traditionally," anarchism is collectivist and opposed to markets. It's hard to get much more "traditional" than Proudhon, or Greene, or Warren. Libertatia 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened to this article? I saw a slew of sources for anarcho-capitalism being individualist anarchism here a few days ago and they're all gone. The whole article is changed.Anarcho-capitalism 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we bring the old article back? A lot of good information and sources are gone.Anarcho-capitalism 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That was well-written and informative, but had more to do with justifying anarcho-capitalism as anarchism than explaining ancap. I moved the whole section to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism as the leading section called "What anarcho-capitalists say." Hope you don't mind. PS: You can always recover an article or section by using the "History" tab. Nothing is ever lost on Wiki. Hogeye 19:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do mind. Why don't you work with the existing article instead of replacing it? I prefer to old anarcho-capitalism section. I don't like the chart either. It segregates Anarcho-capitalists as if they aren't individualist anarchists. Maybe we can work with it though. How about instead of putting types of anarchism, we put different philosophers? Tucker can be one, Spooner, Rothbard, etc? Because it is very hard to generalize. Each individualist anarchist has his own philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

An earlier version of the chart specified "labor-value" individualists. I agree that ancap is a form of IA. But I think you'd agree that the early indAs held the Labor Theory of Value ("cost the limit of price") while ancaps tend to hold the marginalist subjective theory of value.

What is appropriate for this IndA article when we get to anarcho-capitalism. It seems to me we should describe what ancap is. My concern with the old version was that it was, instead of a description, mainly a polemic about why ancap should be considered a branch of indA. That's not what encyclopedia readers are looking for in this article. But it is entirely appropriate (and necessary!) in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. Do you see my rationale? Hogeye 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker does not agree with Spooner on land. Rothbard doesn't agree with Friedman, etc.Anarcho-capitalism 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In Friedman's anarcho-capitalism, anything goes, as long as market forces win out. If the market wanted to only support land owership while using it (like Tucker) then that would be the case.Anarcho-capitalism 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. I understand. Friedman takes a "value-free" approach to economics, and separates it from his libertarian values. He says that anarcho-capitalism (as economics) does not necessarily lead to libertarian results, but that it has a libertarian bias. You've read "The Machinery of Freedom" too, I'll bet! Hogeye 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do you say we get rid of the table? Individualist anarchism is too complex to generalize. You have to seperate the philosophy of each individualist anarchist because they are all unique.Anarcho-capitalism 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you write that all individualist anarchists reject "capitalist economics"?Anarcho-capitalism 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying the good parts back over. But, the sources aren't showing up for some reason. Can anyone figure out what's wrong? Thanks.Anarcho-capitalism 19:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

THanks for fixing the sourcing, Intangible.Anarcho-capitalism 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did that flow chart come from? How are we supposed to edit it?Anarcho-capitalism 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's one of my creations. You can't edit it. (Unless you have InDesign, in which case I'll gladly give you the file.) Do you have suggestions for improving it? Hogeye 02:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:IndAnarchismTree.jpg

Hogeye 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would put a direct line from Spooner (abolitionism) to Rothbard. RJII 21:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hogeye 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice tree. Put it into the article. Nixdorf 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! Hogeye 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How about putting Adam Smith in the classical liberalism box? Proudhon credited Adam Smith for the LTV, and I believe Warren did as well. RJII 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Hogeye 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking good. RJII 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one could put in a box at the top level for Hegelianism as an influence on Stirner. It is quite obvious, easy to prove and very distinct from liberalism. Also an arc over from Proudhon, since Stirner includes a critique of Proudhon in his book. What do you say? Nixdorf 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable Force frivolously deleted the IndAnarchismTree, claiming it was original research. Naturally I put it back in. Hogeye 04:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's original research and has been deleted numerous times (along with Hogeye's other concept trees). It needs to be removed. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, RJII liked it, that's very reassuring. It's still OR and many people have objected to your trees in the past. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming that it's original research, but don't explain why. It looks like a synopsis of well-known facts to me. What exactly do you contest, UF? Which line of influence do you think is wrong? Hogeye 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Even without the question of original research, the tree is simply wrong. Rand never influenced Rothbard, and Gustave de Molinari is not a frontrunner or founder of the Austrian School. Carl Menger, who is the founder of the Austrian School, was a social-democrat.[3] Intangible 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The chart is very problematic.Anarcho-capitalism 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, you are mistaken on both counts. Rothbard joined Rand's group and was a part of her "collective" until a well-known falling out over Rothbard's theist wife occured. The Frence economistes (Say, Bastiat, Molinari, etc.) were an influence on the Austrian school.[4] Hogeye 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That Rothbard drank tea with Rand's cult is indeed widely known, but you cannot say that "Rand influenced Rothbard" by that. So many economicsts have influenced the Austrian School, like the Physiocrats and Salamanca School. Intangible 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1950s Rothbard had his own New York libertarian group, which for a while interacted with Rand's. Rothbard and Rand influenced each other before the unpleasant falling-out which was de rigueur with Rand and not at all rare with Rothbard."[5]

"... you introduced me to the whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy." - letter from Rothbard to Rand.

You are correct that you could go farther back in time to the 16th century and say the Salamanca school influenced the Physiocrats influenced the Economistes influenced the Austrians. The diagram only takes it back one step. Hogeye 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner

Stirner never styled himself an individualist anarchist. --AaronS 05:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, nor an anarchist. I changed it to "Max Stirner was a philosophical egoist..." Hogeye 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner was an individualist anarchist. The sources say he was.Anarcho-capitalism 15:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of his type of individualist anarchism is "Egoism."Anarcho-capitalism 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But Stirner doesn't satisfy our definition of anarchist in the anarchism article since he didn't support the elimination of the state. He did reject the legitimacy of the state, so you might call him a quasi-anarchist. Stirner himself explicitly denied that he was an anarchist - he called himself an egoist. Egoism is not a branch of anarchism. Egoism is the ethical theory that the beneficiary of an action, from an ethical perspective, is the actor (not some other, which would be altruism.) Stirner certainly influenced many anarchists (and fascists, and moral skeptics, and existentialists...) but he was not himself an anarchist. The title of "individual anarchist" is more honorific than factual. If you can find a passage in "The Individual and His Property" that calls for elimination of the State, I'll be convinced otherwise. Hogeye 17:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Every source I have seen says he's an anarchist. For example, "Max Stirner is the most individualistic and 'egoistic' of the anarchist thinkers. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2005.Anarcho-capitalism 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Both Godwin and Stirner developed versions of anarchist doctrine based on individualism, but there the resemblance ends." Adams, Ian, Political Ideology Today, page 117Anarcho-capitalism 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner's "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism." Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyAnarcho-capitalism 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some anarchist thinkers, such as the German Max Stirner, refused to recognize any limitation on the individual's right to do as he pleases or any obligation to act socially..." Encyclopedia Britannica, Anarchism article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I going to have to compile a huge list of sources for Stirner, as I did for anarcho-capitalism?Anarcho-capitalism 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner says the state has no legitimacy and that it only exists because people let it exists, and that no one should sacrifice their self-interest to the state. He doesn't say that people have a duty to eliminate the state (because people have no moral duties at all), but that the state will be eliminated by people converting to Egoism. That sounds like anarchism to me.Anarcho-capitalism 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When did Stirner ever "explicitly deny that he was an anarchist"? Do you have a source for that?Anarcho-capitalism 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the oft-repeated claim (e.g. in the Max Stirner article): "Stirner himself explicitly denied holding any absolute position in his philosophy, further stating that if he must be identified with some '-ism' let it be egoism — the antithesis of all ideologies and social causes, as he conceived of it." Presumably this includes anarchism. However, this may be a bogus attribution - I could not find anyplace in "The Individual and His Property" nor in the two other essays available in English by Stirner that said this. It may be one of those urban myth quotes. So I put a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  by the claim in that article.

There is no doubt that many anarchist historian have implied, or even claimed, that Stirner was an anarchist, but note that all your quote hedge on the issue. Not one explicitly claims that he was an anarchist as opposed to a thinker who had anarchist ideas, or enhanced anarchist theory ("anarchist thinker".) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seem to agree with my take: "Stirner's name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism." That's factual; we might put something like that in Wikipedia. (Oh! You've alreadly changed it. Great minds think alike!) But since he doesn't satisfy the definition of "anarchist," we shouldn't give the false opinion that he is one. Again, Stanford EP seems to support this:

The affinity between Stirner and the anarchist tradition lies in his endorsement of the claim that the state is an illegitimate institution. However, his elaboration of this claim is a distinctive and interesting one. For Stirner, a state can never be legitimate, since there is a necessary conflict between individual self mastery and the obligation to obey the law (with which the legitimacy of the state is identified). Given that individual self-mastery trumps any competing consideration, Stirner concludes that the demands of the state are not binding on the individual. However, he does not think that individuals have, as a result, any obligation to oppose and attempt to eliminate the state (insofar as this is within their power). Rather the individual should decide in each particular case whether or not to go along with the state's demands. Only in cases where there is a conflict between the autonomy of the egoist and the demands of the state, does he recommend resisting the requirements of law. That said, whilst individuals have no duty to overthrow the state, Stirner does think that the state will eventually collapse as a result of the spread of egoism. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Also, notice that Stirner's egoism does not rule out an egoist using the State as means to his ends, e.g. to rule the unenlightened dumb masses. Hardly anarchist!

Finally, although there is apparently no Wiki guideline about internal consistency, if we call Stirner an anarchist we would need to change the definition of "anarchism" in the anarchism article. Hogeye 15:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Propery Systems 2.0

The change in heading from "Individual Anarchism" to "19th century individualists (labor-value)" is an improvement, but it's going to get some flack from modern mutualist IAs (like Kevin Carson.) Perhaps even better would be "Mutualist Individualist Anarchists." Other than that, it's looking good. Hogeye 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the 19th century individualists were mutualists. I don't think Spooner is considered a mutualist. As far as I know, Tucker never called himself a mutualist. I'm not aware of any sources that says he was, but there may be. You have any information on this?Anarcho-capitalism 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Any IndA who thinks cost is the limit of price is a mutualist. Spooner is probably the only (famous) exception among 19th century American IndAs. Hogeye 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker was fine with prices being set by supply and demand. I don't think he was like Warren on that. As far as I know he didn't advocate using labor notes and all that to match up labor cost with price. Tucker just thought prices would match up with labor if the state weren't monopolizing credit. I'd like to see a definition of mutualism. I'm not sure if having a labor theory of value is a sufficient condition of being a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you check out the mutualism article? Tucker was opposed to what he (and other mutualists) called "usary" - rent, interest, and profit from other people's labor. He definitely believed that cost is the limit of price - usary is basically profiting without laboring. But you are correct that he would not use force to prohibit someone charging rent or interest or employing someone for profit. In Spoonerian terminology, he considered usary a vice, not a crime. It was wrong, but shouldn't be prohibited by force, but rather by moral suation. He thought that usary would be impossible in a free market. (Unlike we anarcho-capitalists, who think profit will still exist in a free market.)

Here are some writings of Benjamin Tucker. Check out the "Money and Interest" section to verify his mutualism. Hogeye 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did he ever call himself a mutualist? I can't find a source for that, nor a source for anyone else calling him a mutualist. I know he was influenced by Proudhon's mutualism, but he didn't advocate the same things as Proudhon. For example, I don't think he advocates mutual banking at all. That seems pretty basic to mutualism.Anarcho-capitalism 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep finding sources saying Proudhon and his mutualism is not individualist but in between individualism and collectivism. "Mutualism can be seen as a midpoint between individualist and collectivist versions of anarchy." (Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Thought) And sources saying mutualism is a form of social anarchism. "Social anarchism can be divided into several schools: The oldest of these is mutualism...under mutualism, the state would be abolished, and factories would be owned and controlled by the workers in the form of producers' cooperatives. Compensation would be retained in the form of labor checks paid to workers by the people's banks, corresponding to the number of hours they worked. Private propertyy would be retained under this system." (Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey) That is not Tucker's philosophy. Where does he advocate "producers' cooperatives"? Where does he advocate labor checks?Anarcho-capitalism 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the definition of mutualism in the Wikipedia article coming from?Anarcho-capitalism 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see Kevin Carson on Mutualist.org calls him a mutualist, but he may be applying the label wrongly.Anarcho-capitalism 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the essay Free Banking, with particular attention to the part starting:

"Mr. Bilgram then writes to Liberty in defense of his contention that State banking is preferable to mutual banking on the ground that 'mutual banking cannot deprive capital of its power to bring unearned returns to its owner.' Mr. Tucker proceeds to demolish that position:"

Also note that William B. Green, who literally wrote the book ("Mutual Banking") on mutual banking, was a close friend and associate of Tucker, and in various essays Tucker repeatedly endorses Greene's positions.

Tucker did not use the term "producer's cooperatives," but your quote uses that term quaintly - the same quote stresses that "private property would be retained." Obviously "producer's cooperatives" cannot be interpreted in the modern socialist sense as collectively owned. Tucker would have called it something like producers' association. Hogeye 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain this: "The next point along the spectrum of anarchist attitudes is Proudhon's mutualism. Proudhon differs from the true individualist anarchists beause he sees history in social form and, despite his fierce defence of individual freedom, thinks in terms of assocation." (George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements)?Anarcho-capitalism 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Tucker advocate producer's association, as Proudhon advocates.Anarcho-capitalism 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is looking like he supported some of mutualism but not all of it. So I don't understand how he can be called a mutualist. Mutualism is always defined as Proudhon's philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a mistaken Eurocentric view. Greene wrote his book before Proudhon had a clue; Warren practiced it (i.e. his Time Store) when Proudhon was in diapers. You always have to keep in mind that anarcho-socialists like to marginalize individualist anarchism and American contributions to anarchism, and that most histories are written by anarcho-socialists. Proudhon's version of mutualism was closer to socialism, so they stress him. Hogeye 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know Warren was not a mutualist. He never advocated mutual banking of any kind. The only thing reminiscent of mutualism is the use of labor money. I don' think that alone makes you a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mutualism is an economic theory or system based on the labor theory of value which states that equal amounts of labor should receive equal pay." (from the Wiki article, and the commonly held definition by Carson and others.) Mutual banking is just one mutualist program that used to be popular. Thus, Warren was a mutualist.

On a terminology note: Tucker uses the terms "voluntary co-operators"[6] and "associations."[7] Hogeye 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that that's the definition in the Wiki article, but I think the definition is wrong. Mutualism is more than that. The definitions I see in encyclopedias go beyond that. For example: Mutualism can be seen as a mid-point between individualist and collectivist versions of anarchism The term was adopted by Proudhon and his followers for the economic system, which in Proudhon's eyes reconciled property and communism. His principle was that each person might possess his means of production (tooks, land, etc) either singly or collectively, but should only be rewarded for his labour, thus eliminating profit and rent and ensuring a high degree of equality. Exchange was to occur through an ethical form of bargaining in which each party sought only an equivalent for what they were offering. Integral to this scheme was the establishment of a mutual credit bank which would lend to producers at a minimal rate of interest, covering only costs of administration. "(Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought). Where does Warren talk about establishing a mutual bank?Anarcho-capitalism 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Tucker wanted competing banks. Proudhon wanted one national bank.Anarcho-capitalism 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice that the Blackwell quote you give doesn't define mutualism, but merely gives Proudhon's take on it. Notice that the bulk of the quote is about labor value, what others called "cost is the limit of price." Only the last sentence refers to mutual banking. That is merely a pet project of Proudhon's. Tucker wrote extensively about banking, but stressed non-monopoly. He repeatedly endorsed Greene's book. (Incidentally, I notice that the blackcrayon site defines mutualism in terms of its position on land!)

Just caught your last note. Proudhon went archist for a while, trying to use the State to form a national bank. Later, it was to be a voluntary federation. But these are details of one man's program, not pertinent to the definition of mutualism. Hogeye 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Blackwell quote is a definition. It's under the "Mutualism" entry in the encyclopedia. By "national bank" I didn't mean State operated bank. I just meant a central bank for the anarchist nation. He didn't advocate competing banks like Tucker did, who thought that competition in lending would lower the rate of interest.Anarcho-capitalism 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI Here's the Journal of Libertarian Studies issue about mutualism. From the intro editorial:

MANY OF THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY individualist anarchists, and in particular those thinkers associated with Benjamin Tucker’s journal Liberty, sought to combine a political theory based on individual sovereignty and self-ownership with an economic theory based on the labor theory of value. Like Marxists, they tended to condemn the wage system as oppressive, and interpreted profit, rent, and interest as forms of exploitation; unlike Marxists, however, they regarded such exploitation as the product not of the unhampered market but of governmental intervention, and so recommended abolishing not private property but the state. While advocating competition, free markets, and (some form of) private ownership, these thinkers nevertheless often called themselves “socialists,” i.e., opponents of capitalism—because by “capitalism” they meant not markets per se but the prevailing economic division between capitalists and workers, which they saw as the product of state interference with markets (specifically, the ban on the private issuing of money, and the enforcement of property titles not based on personal occupancy). Another term they sometimes applied to themselves was “mutualists.”

Hogeye 18:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok but how about the individualists who didn't call themselves mutualist? Warren never did. He didn't see the state as the cause of individuals not receiving their full product either. He just thought prices shouldnt be determined by supply and demand but by calculating labor costs.Anarcho-capitalism 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker never applied the term to himself either.Anarcho-capitalism 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I go by current definitions, since political terms change considerably over time. It doesn't matter much what people call themselves. The way I see it:

mutualism - the political and economic belief that labor is the only source of value, and that profiting from any source other than labor is wrong.

Some consequences and deductions of this definition are:

1. Sticky ownership of land is invalid.
2. Usary (rent, interest, profit from employing someone) is wrong.
3. Labor notes may be a good alternative to govt monopoly banks. Mutual banking is one application of mutualism, not a defining characteristic.
4. Virtually all 19th century individualist anarchists were mutualists. Warren, Tucker, Andrews, Greene, and so on. Only Spooner may be an exception, since he supported IP. For many (i.e. those who reject ancap as anarchism), "individualist anarchism" and "mutualism" are synonymous. E.g. Kevin Carson, a leading proponent today, uses them interchangably.

That mutualism definition is your own definition. Any one of us can come up with a definition. Your definition is not the same as the ones in the sources. According the definition in the sources, Warren is definitely not a mutualist. IP doesn't have anything to do with mutualism, for or against.Anarcho-capitalism 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Kevin Carson acknowledges that individualist anarchists don't have to be mutualists. From his web site: "most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value."Anarcho-capitalism 19:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Marxists also think "that labor is the only source of value, and that profiting from any source other than labor is wrong." They're not mutualists.Anarcho-capitalism 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Mutualism

Yes, I need to add something to the definition I gave above, to differentiate it from socialism.

mutualism - the political and economic belief that 1) labor is the only source of value, thus profiting from any source other than labor ("usary") is wrong, 2) support for free markets, 3) support of private property in both the product of labor and capital goods ("means of production"), and 4) support of a use/occupation based form of private property called "possession" for land and natural resources.

From this definition, it follows that: Some consequences and deductions of this definition are:

1. Sticky ownership of land is invalid.
2. Usary (rent, interest, profit from employing someone) is wrong.
3. Labor notes may be a good alternative to govt monopoly banks. Mutual banking is one application of mutualism, not a defining characteristic.
4. Virtually all 19th century individualist anarchists were mutualists. Warren, Tucker, Andrews, Greene, and so on. Only Spooner may be an exception, since he supported IP. For many (i.e. those who reject ancap as anarchism), "individualist anarchism" and "mutualism" are synonymous. E.g. Kevin Carson, a leading proponent today, uses them interchangably.

Since IP (intellectual property) implies profitting from "ownership" of an idea (patents and copyrights) above and beyond the labor expended, and is made possible only by state monopoly enforcement, mutualists (except Spooner) reject it.

It's not true that IP protection requires the state. Private defense firms can protect it. Spooner says that an idea is the product of an individual's labor, so it's private property. If that's the case then that's not materially different than protecting any other kind of product of labor. That can be justified on a natural law basis, or it could simply be a society where everybody agrees to set up IP laws.Anarcho-capitalism 01:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's conceivable that a PDA will enforce IP, but they are at a competitive disadvantage with those that don't, and not in a position to enforce it against all those people who don't subscibe to pro-IP PDAs. The marginal labor the patent or copyright holder expends for the copy I make is zero, so although Lysander argued as you say, I don't agree with that rationale. I agree with Tucker, that for something to be property, it has to be economically scarce. See Intellectual Property: The Late Nineteenth Century Libertarian Debate by Wendy McElroy. Hogeye 03:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is natural law that a person's ideas are his private property and has a natural right to protect others from using them, then PDA's certainly are in a position to enforce it against other people that don't agree with IP rights. Those attempting to copy the idea would be the aggressors.Anarcho-capitalism 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a footnote from "Native American Anarchism" by Schuster:

"A kind of mutualism was arrived at independently and contemporaneously in England, by John Gray, in America by Josiah Warren, and in France by Pierre Proudhon. Max Nettlau, Der Vorfruhling, 90-92. Peter Kropotkin, "Anarchism," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th edition (New York and London, 1929), I, 875."

From Kropotkin's 1910 Britannica article:

"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839). It had also its precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist, Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen's 'New Harmony', considered that the failure of this enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and the lack of initiative and responsibility. These defects, he taught, were inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the community of goods. He advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty. In 1827 he opened in Cincinnati a little country store which was the first 'equity store', and which the people called 'time store', because it was based on labour being exchanged hour for hour in all sorts of produce. 'Cost - the limit of price', and consequently 'no interest', was the motto of his store, and later on of his 'equity village', near New York, which was still in existence in 1865."

Worth noting is that mutualism is not necessarily anarchistic. There have been minarchist and even authoritarian mutualists (e.g. Wilhelm Weitling).

Hogeye 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-published Sources

I notice that "anarcho-capitalism" has quoted Kevin Carson. Given that "anarcho-capitalism" excludes "An Anarchist FAQ" as a valid source because it is "self-published," I wonder how he can quote Carson as he is also "self-published" (both book and web). Is it because he can be used to include "anarcho"-capitalism into anarchism? Surely if Carson can be quoted, so can the authors of "An Anarchist FAQ"? I would be interested to hear the logic why one self-published source is acceptable and another is not. BlackFlag 09:37, 27 September 2006

Is there a Wikipedia policy against self-published books?Anarcho-capitalism 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, read the section on "self-published" sources. It includes books. I'm perfectly happy to quote Kevin, but I would like to see you explain why you are happy to quote self-published sources in his case but exclude "An Anarchist FAQ" as "self-published." I would like to see the logic for these two contradictory positions. BlackFlag 11:01, 29 September 2006.

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't excluded "An Anarchist FAQ".Anarcho-capitalism 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Anyone clear on how these are supposed to be set up? They don't appear to be working properly. Donnacha 08:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Anarcho-Individualism From Other Anarchists

I notice that the Anarchist Communist article includes criticism from Anarchist Individualists and Anarcho-Mutualists, but offers no section for rebuttals from Anarchist Communists. Shouldn't the Anarchist Indivdualist article offer criticisms from Anarcho-Communists to make it fair? Full Shunyata 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for this, in my view, is that "anarcho"-capitalists like to highlight the disagreements between individualists and the more left-wing varieties of anarchism to support their contention that "anarcho"-capitalism is a kind of individualist anarchism. Anarcho-collectivists/communists/syndicalists, on the other hand, are less interested in over-emphasising the differences as there have been efforts since the days of Emma Goldman to transcend them. Donnacha 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean the "contention" that it's a kind of individualist anarchism? It is your contention that it's a form of social anarchism?Anarcho-capitalism 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, no, it's my view that it's not a form of anarchism at all. Donnacha 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. I don't see social anarchists discussing the differences between social anarchism and individualist anarchism so much as self-labeled "anarcho"-capitalists do. However, if there is going to be a "criticism" section in the Anarcho-Communist article with input from Anarcho-Individualists, shouldn't it be vice versa as well? Full Shunyata 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll see if I can whip one up.Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it was only yesterday that the criticisms of individualism in An Anarchist FAQ were cause for scandal and edit wars. <g> Libertatia 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That happened? Yeesh, sad. I only think there should be a section for criticism of Anarcho-Individualism from Social Anarchists because there is a section for criticism of Social Anarchism from Anarcho-Individualists. That's all, I have nothing personl against Anarcho-Individualists, I regard them as fellow anarchist comrades. Full Shunyata 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So should a social anarchist critique of individualism and mutualism be posted? Full Shunyata 06:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Modern mutualism, labor theory

I reverted an edit that associated 21st century mutualism (a la Carson) and the LTV with the 19th century, as if the emergence of the new mutualism was an anarchronism. Some hardcore Austrians may think that, but it's pretty clearly POV to put it in the introduction. Anyway, part of the importance of Carson's work is that it is not simply a defense of an old theory, but a fairly significant rethinking or representation. Libertatia 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I made the edit is becaause not all of the old individualists were mutualists. I don't think having a labor theory of value is sufficient to make you a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. What? The version before your edit stated a fact—that with Carson there had been a reemergence of mutualism. That's probably not exactly right, but it's close. Then you added the POV stuff about the LTV and the 19th century, which was misleading at best. Now, you put in this bit about the LTV, even though that's not a complete or fair characterization of what Carson is up to in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. And your defense is that "not all of the old individualists were mutualists"—which has nothing to do with any of this, and doesn't seem to have been claimed by anyone. Libertatia 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok you're right. My mistake. I got confused. There was nothing wrong with your edit. I guess I was trying to prevent the image that all of the old individualists were mutualists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchist" as self-identification

I just removed the claim that Tucker did not call himself an "individualist anarchist." A search of Liberty shows numerous uses of the terms individualist anarchist and individualist anarchism (in hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms). Tucker, Yarros, J. M. Lloyd, and C. L. Swartz all use the term as an identifier. Voltairine de Cleyre uses it to refer to Tucker. This seems pretty open-and-shut. Libertatia 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give any quotes from Tucker and Spooner calling themselves individualist anarchists?Anarcho-capitalism 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for Tucker, at least, as can anyone who bothers to do the research. Of course, as you made the claim, the burden of proof is obviously on you. Can you give any quotes that even suggest that they did not? What's the source for your assertion? Libertatia 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'm looking forward to the quote then. Tucker called himself an "Anarchistic socialist." The reason others started calling him an individualist anarchist is because socialism later came to mean collective ownership of the means of production, so that would be a misnomer. Spooner never even call himself an anarchist, much less an individualist one.Anarcho-capitalism 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You still don't have even the slightest clues how the terms were used. The individualist/socialist opposition is a more contemporary distinction. The contributors to Liberty were distinguishing themselves from Most and the communist anarchists. By "misnomer," I assume you mean some contradiction between "individualist" and "socialist," but that's just a product of your presentist reading. There is no contradiction. Libertatia 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a definite contradition if socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production, which is indeed how it is defined. That would be collectivism. We can't say today that Tucker was a socialist, because he was not, even though he called himself one. He was a socalist at the time, according to the definition at the time, because it didn't mean collective ownership of the means of production. But not when the meaning of the term changed. Then he was no longer a socialist. No one can define a term and then monopolize that term for all eternity. Meanings of words change. Today, socialism does not mean what Tucker used it to mean. So, we are lying if we say he was a socialist. Another example, is classical liberalism. It used to be considered a Left philosophy, but the meaning of Left changed. So it would be wrong to say classical liberals were leftists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not, under any circumstances, "lying" is we say he was a socialist. We may be saying something which is hard for people who imagine that their back-pocket college dictionary contains all truth will find hard to understand at first. In any event, you can't edit the entry on the basis of an unsourced assertion, supported by your choice of dictionary definitions, particularly when it has been demonstrated that your chosen definition of "socialism" is not accepted as the sole definition, even among some anarcho-capitalists. Libertatia 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion currently going on on the Socialism page about a correct definition, as the "collective control" is inaccurate for a broad church. Socialism is, at core, an economic concept based on bringing about a more egalitarian society by whatever measures. That's it. Anarchism of all real kinds is based on individual sovereignty. The collective only controls that which all of the members of the collective agree should be under their control. A commune is the same, it's the choice of the members. If a commune breaks up into its composite members, then the commune's property should be divided between the members as they agree (perhaps not absolutely equally, depending on the needs of the members). Thus, while individualists may disagree with the idea of a commune, that's fine, they could choose not to join one. Apart from the writings of theorists (which tend, by definition, to be strongly advocating an idea in opposition to others), there's no inconsistency between the various strands of anarchism once its accepted that any economic organisation is within their personal realm. Except, of course, with those who continue to advocate private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery exploitation, that is. Donnacha 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And the individualist anarchists support private ownership of the means of production and the buying and selling of labor (which you call wage slavery). They don't aim for egalitarian wealth distribution either, as this quote from Laurance Labadie clearly points out: "In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to services rendered. Free competition will see to that."Anarcho-capitalism 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"The same may be said of anarchism: social anarchism - a nonstate form of socialism - may be distinguished from the nonsocialist and, in some cases, procapitalist school of individualist anarchism." (Busky, Donald F. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, page 2) It's flat out wrong to tell people that Tucker was a socialist. The meaning of the word has long changed.Anarcho-capitalism 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't just juggle the definitions until they come out your way. Libertatia 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. That's why I'm giving you a source. My whole point there is your definitions don't matter and my definitions don't matter. All that matters is what the definitions of the published scholars are. Tucker is not considered to be a socialist, because socialism today means collective ownership of the means of production. In fact, I've seen old definitions of socialism in old dictionaries, and anarcho-capitalists would be socialists as well under those definitions. I'll see if I can find one.Anarcho-capitalism 17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill called himself a Democratic Socialist. Still you would have a hard time on Wikipedia getting him categorized in Category:English socialists. Intangible 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mill was hardly of one mind about "socialism." The example doesn't prove much. Libertatia 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First things first. Anyone who has read much in Liberty knows that Tucker's style was somewhat detached, and so the smoking gun, "I am an individualist anarchist" statement is going to be hard to find. However, it is equally true that anyone who has read much in Liberty will know that the terms in question were widely used, and that the "On Picket Duty" column was chock full of defenses of "Individualist Anarchism" from critics and positive notices of explicitly "individualist anarchist" publications. On Dec 19, 1891, in one of the defenses, Tucker says, "Liberty remains what it always has been,—individualist, Anarchist, and Socialist." On July 16, 1892, Tucker, responding to an letter by Merlino, attacking individualist anarchism, with a long letter, which includes the following: "Socialism includes, not only Collectivism and Communism, but also that school of Individualist Anarchism which conceives liberty as a means of destroying usury and exploitation of labor. . . . I am as good a socialist as [Merlino], and therefore any discussion between us must be, not of socialist anarchism against individualist anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism." That seems pretty clear, particularly given the context. The same column includes this definition of "socialism," which is nice in that it makes clear that it is the power of accumulated capital that is opposed: "Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change of man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute." Libertatia 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Great. So, then Spooner is the problem. Spooner never even call himself an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooner is something of an outlier in lots of ways. But I haven't even looked at the online Spooner archive yet, for this stuff. I'll do it when I get a chance. Libertatia 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooner's obituary in the Boston Globe: "Though Mr. Spooner did not call himself an Anarchist, his political and financial views coincided more nearly with those of the Individualistic Anarchists than with those of any other school."Anarcho-capitalism 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes (although obits are not particularly reliable on those sorts of questions). Text search on the archive seems to confirm the claim. Libertatia 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar results on a couple of other searches. Actually, Spooner used "anarchy" at least once in the negative sense, in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, much like other abolitionists of his generation. Libertatia 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a definition of socialism quoted in an 1888 essay (George N. McLean's The Rise and Fall of Anarchy in America. First Edition. Chicago & Philadelphia: R.G. Badoux & Co., 1888. page 9) from Webster's Dictionary: "A theory of society which advocates a more precise, orderly and harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than that which has hitherto prevailed." So that's would make anarcho-capitalists socialists. That's what made Benjamin Tucker a socialist. But, socialism doesn't mean that anymore. It means as the modern Merriam Webster Dictionary says, "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." So, Tucker is not a socialist. He WAS a socialist, but ceased being one when the definition changed.Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen, the problem with your approach is that it appears to assume a series of agreed-upon definitions, which follow one another serially. So, "socialism" means this now, and then it means something else. But this is not at all accurate. The quotes above show that multiple senses already existed for "socialism" and "anarchism." The notion that Merriam-Webster is somehow a final arbiter of all of this is fairly inadequate. Libertatia 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The article doesn't say he's a socialist anyway. If someone adds that he called himself a socialist, we'd simply have to go in and note that he was not referring to collective ownership of the means of production as it is commonly defined today (because otherwise we would be misleading readers who use mainstream modern terminology).Anarcho-capitalism 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously it does matter in general, but I agree on the strategy of clarification (which I've been advocating right along). And I think that minimizing our resorts to the term "socialism" is helpful, as it is one of the worst cases of the dictionary definitions not lining up with the actual, internal or "technical" uses of the term. Benjamin Tucker IS a socialist by a current, but not mainstream definition of the term. You can see the same tendency to exclude the libertarian forms of socialism from dictionary definitions in the 19th and early 20th century that you see now, and you can see the same sorts of responses from self-identified libertarian socialists. You can also see the same personal and institutional connections between libertarian socialists and the broader socialist movements, the same conflicts, the same displays and failures of solidarity on various sides. Replace Tucker, Yarros, Westrup, Swartz and Lloyd with Spangler, Carson, Gambone, Long and Wilbur; replace Goldman, de Cleyre, Most, etc with McKay, Munson, Zerzan; replace A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles with the modern OED: the situation hasn't changed very much. Libertatia 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin anti-capitalist?

Is it true that James J. Martin was an anti-capitalist? Libertatia 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Martin is in their in the first place. He's not a theorist is he? He's an historian.Anarcho-capitalism 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, historian's can have their agendas as well, and Martin's really seems to be promoting individualist anarchism as prot-egoism. But Martin himself recalls a waning interest in economic matters, in his introduction to Laurance Labadie's essays: "Perhaps I became too much of a 'Stirnerite' for Laurance. He never came to terms with Tucker's abandonment of economic and financial analysis for Stirner, and mainly tried to treat the situation as one in which Tucker's views and enthusiasms between 1881 and 1901 were all that one needed to go on. My similar waning interest in economic and money theory changed much of the nature of our communications. . ." ("We Never Called Him "Larry.") Libertatia 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)