Talk:Anarchism/Archive 48

Social Control, Hierarchy, and Authority
I reverted Nihilo's edit. All three terms need further explanation. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Social Control - I'm not sure what this means in this context. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy - Agree. but definitions are needed. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Authority - Disagree. IIRC Bakunin brings up the example of the astronomer, with an official position (irrational authority), and who has become an expert on the stars (rational authority). Anarchism rejects the former to accept the latter. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past definition of anarchism was constant source of edit wars. Since current definition is the least controversial, it shouldn't be changed by adding social control, hierarchy and authority qualifiers. Different anarchist traditions have different views on these issues, and adding them will probably lead to edit warring and article instability. -- Vision Thing -- 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Social control term, includes the kind of rulership that not necesarily needs a personal ruler or a ruler class, is a structure that is opressive but works by all the integrants of the opressive circle. See post structuralism. Hierarchy es a basical term yhat should be included and remenber that many traduccions of anarchism from the greek say "without bosses". --Nihilo 01 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Social control" is not opposed by all anarchists. Ostracism is a form of social control, as is private police as advocated by individualists such as Benjamin Tucker. "Hierarchy" is very vague, and I haven't seen a source saying all anarchists against it, whatever it is. If by "bosses" you mean being employed, Benjamin Tucker supports the choice to be employed or self-employed, whichever individuals prefer. Or as Voltairine de Cleyre confirms, the individualists "are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." If "social control" and "hierarchy" applies to anarchism, I think it would only apply to social anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that de Cleyre didn't believe that herself for very long. Blockader 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And, once again, Tucker actually desired a system in which all were equally dependent on wages, in which there would be no employer-employed hierarchy. In Liberty, "hierarchy" is almost always used in connection with religious or political institutions, where rank is (as Encarta and a couple of other dictionaries put it) "formal." It is also, at times, opposed to free competition. FWIW, the phrase "social control" appears in Liberty exactly once, in a letter from Hugo Bilgram, which Tucker criticizes sharply for not meeting his standards of noninvasive and voluntary association. Libertatia 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If employer and employee both receive pay in accordance to how much labor exerted, and in the same proportion, it is still an employer/employee hierarchy. The employer is still the boss who can hire and fire at will and directs the employee as to what he should be doing.Anarcho-capitalism 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If each parties to a contract are equally dependent on wages—which Tucker desired in a state of equal liberty—there is no hierarchy, any more than there is a hierarchy in any other free transaction. If there are "bosses" under anarchism, then that designates only a function within the division of labor, not a rank. If there was any point in Tucker's career where he had time for schemes of hierarchical rank, I haven't seen any evidence of it. His later egoism certainly leaves no room for it. Some an-caps seem to cling to bossism, as if the arbitrary "firing" of a contracted laborer would not be a breach of contract all consistent free markets anarchists would consider at least "very bad form." Libertatia 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It just goes to show how vague "hiearchy" is. I call employer/employee situations a hierarchy regardless of what the pay situation is because the employee is subordinate to the employer, obviously. The employer directs the employee and the employee answers to him. If he doesn't do his job well enough, he is fired. By the way I've never heard of a contract that prevents an employee from being fired. That would be insane. I don't know what "breach of contract" you're talking about. Unless there is a contract to the contrary, all free-market anrachists would permit an employer to fire someone for any reason they wish, even simply because they don't like the way the worker looks.Anarcho-capitalism 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not much "vagueness" here. Apparently, you think that anarchism and subordination of one individual to another are compatible. In that, you differ from pretty much all consistent anarchists. It is probably true that all market anarchists would permit arbitrary "firing," because market anarchists are notoriously (and appropriately) slow to forbid. Under state-supported capitalism, employees fired for other than "cause" are eligible for compensation from the state, because, even under a hierarchical system, arbitrary dismissal is considered bad form. Under equal freedom, if you behave like a boss, the consequence is likely to be that nobody contracts with you. Why contract with someone who can't behave themselves? The division of labor is a means by which profit can be generated through voluntary association, but in the world Tucker envisions the employer in this case is going to be the employed in another; no formal hierarchy will exist, as those classifications will designate roles rather than identities. While very little may be "forbidden," there will still be consequences. Even egoists have been known to invoke the Golden Rule. Libertatia 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you don't understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary subordination. Contracting to be the employee of someone else is voluntary subordination and totally consistent with individualist anarchism (the only true anarchism, as long as it's not "mutaulist" which allows the theft of the product of labor in tranformed land, homes, buildings, etc). A workplace with employees is a hierarchy of voluntary cooperation and subordination. In what Tucker is talking about, the employee is the one who owns a means of production and the employee is one that doesn't. The employer and employee both receive incomes in proportion to how much labor exerted. But there is still a voluntary hierarchy and voluntary subordination. The employer tells the employee what to do. The employee agrees and therefore receives pay. If the employee doesn't agree then he leaves or his fired, whichever comes first. It's exactly the same under Tucker's system or anarcho-capitalism except for the ridiculous quibbling over whether someone is recieving the proper amount of pay as dictated by the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalism 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Read Liberty. The individualist anarchists you claim held this view quite consistently used the term "subordination" to indicate governmental function, usurpation, repression of the individual, and various other things they consistently opposed. The fact that you insist on terms which they consistently rejected is just another instance of a significant difference in values. In any event, the important issue, where Tucker is concerned is that "employer" and "employee" are not, under equal liberty, anything other than roles which which parties will occupy now and then, but which will not define them. Hierarchy, in the broad sense, is not part of the picture. He was quite explicit that he desired a situation where all work was waged, and where significant monopolies has lost their state support. What you are describing is entirely outside and against the spirit of the Liberty group. Libertatia 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to argue semantics? I call employment subordination, i.e. voluntary subordination, regardless of what pay anyone is receiving, and you don't. So what? I am not arguing anything outside "the spirit of the Liberty group" except for their ridiculous belief in the labor theory of value and the belief of Tucker that it's ok to steal land and homes when the owner's are not using them.Anarcho-capitalism 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the question was what anarchists thought of "hierarchy," and, outside of the an-cap movement, anarchists have generally thought rather unkind things about it. It probably isn't just a matter of semantics whether or not I am "subordinate" or just one of two equal contractees in a voluntary association, particularly as you expect bosses to be, well, bossy, on the basis of owning means of production, and nobody to see anything at all amiss with that. That you don't (or perhaps can't) see how significantly you differ from other individualists is telling. Your support for unlimited absentee ownership is duly noted (again). Libertatia 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When a person goes to work today, he IS an equal contractee in a voluntary association. But the employer and employee are still distinct in that the former owns the means of production. Benjamin Tucker has not problem with that and no anarcho-capitalist has any problem with that either. Whether anyone wants to call it hierarchy or not is irrelevant. I call it hierarchy and you don't. And, yes I am very different that Benjamin Tucker on ownership of labor tranformed land and homes and proudly so. He believed it is ok to steal the product of someone else's labor if someone happens not to be using that product. The philosophy is perever and corrupt and that's why individualist anarchism has moved beyond that nonsense.Anarcho-capitalism 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you're back to defending the status quo. What Tucker said was that he wanted everyone equally dependent on wages. That is not the case in the "voluntary" wage-relations of the present. Tucker said that (however "perversely") that the "land monopoly" (that unlimited absentee ownership of which you are so protective) had to lose it's state-given protection before equal liberty, and truly voluntary relations, could exist. What Tucker and other occupancy-and-use individualists actually believe(d) about land tenure is a bit different that George Reisman's absurd "went to the grocery store and mutualists stole my house" nonsense, so let's not go there. Your constant harping on how mutualists want to "steal" is the most perverse thing I see here, except for you affection for the notion of subordination. To subordinate: 1) To put in a lower or inferior rank or class. 2) To make subservient; subdue. Tucker knew that wasn't compatible with anarchism. Social anarchist can see it. Why can't you? Libertatia 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm defending the status quo of employee/employer relationships. It's a good thing for those who prefer to work for others instead of being entrepreneurs. Employment is voluntary, whether it's in the present state capitalist system or an anarchist system. Tucker was a very confused individual, concerning wages because of the labor theory of value. It's just fine if someone receives an income without working if someone is willing to pay him without working. There is no proper or improper price of labor. There is simply what someone is willing to pay. Modern individualist anarchists and economists can see the the labor theory of value, and especially the corresponding just-price theory, is bogus. Why can't you? And you're wrong that in the absence of the state that land not being used would not be protected. Anarcho-capitalists defense firms would protect that land from mutualists and other theives. If a person transforms land or anything other materials of the Earth through labor, it his is property. Individuals have a natural right to own the product of their labor. Mutualists condone stealing that product. They even include houses and other buildings as available for stealing. Allowing someone to steal the product of another's labor is not a free market. Mutualists are not true free-market anarchists, but violators of the free market. Essential to a free market is the right to private property in the product of labor, and the right to transfer ownership of what one owns to the reciever of one's choice at the price of one's choice. Just because someone ceases using the product of his labor it is no less the product of his labor and still his private property. A mutualist says that it's ok for the building I bought with my hard-earned money as an investment (that building is the product of labor that was tranferred to me) to be stolen under my nose. Sorry, but mutualists simply aren't free market anarchists but imposters.Anarcho-capitalism 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey. Support what you want, and feel free to quote George Reisman's paranoid nonsense until your face turns blue. But don't pretend that Tucker agreed with you about subordination. Libertatia 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Riesman. I did not need to be informed by Riesman that mutualism supports theft (the siezure of the product of labor and trade if a person is not using it). I don't care whether Tucker agrees with me or not about "subordination." It's just semantics. If someone is an employee, I consider them as voluntarily subordinated to their employer because the employer tells the employee what to do and the employee obeys...not the other way around. If someone else doesn't see that as subordination what does it matter?Anarcho-capitalism 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're clearly out of touch with any of the practical discussions, now or then, about land tenure. The issue of "agreement with Tucker" is that you claimed agreement, in support of the position that individualists were not against "hierarchy." In any event, it is certainly not just a matter of "semantics" when you begin talking about labor relations in anarchism being centered around "obedience" to an authority based on possession of capital and/or land. "Liberty" for you appears to be a rather abstract state, useful primarily as an excuse for maintaining supposedly "voluntary" class distinctions. And, as you apparently only desire greater protection of the sort of property rights developed under centuries of state intervention, it's hard to imagine why you fancy yourself an anarchist at all. Libertatia 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Voluntary hierarchy is totally consistent with true anarchism. In a position of voluntary subordination, a person consents to being told what to do. If you get a job you consent to having a superior direct you. It's voluntary because you don't have to do what he says. You can walk right out the door. There's nothing unanarchistic about that. If you join a football team, you join a voluntary hierarchy. The coach tells you what to do, but you're free to walk off the field. Again, nothing unarchistic about it. As far as land, if you agree with mutualism then you agree with theft and are not a true anarchist in my opinion. Unless a philosophy allows a person to own the product of his labor and what he recieves in trade then it's not true anarchism. Mutualism says if I come across some untouched land and transform it through labor that if I stop putting it use ..say I want to put it away for retirement ..that I am a criminal for protecting it from being expropriated by you if you want to settle down on it. That's the theft of the product of my labor. Similiarly, if I sell that land to someone else who spends his hard earned money on it mutualism says that that person is a criminal for protecting it from you taking that land for your own use. It condones stealing what someone honestly purchased with his hard-earned money. And it doesn't stop there. If I build two houses and then move in one, mutualism says I'm a criminal for preventing you from taking the other one. That's theft of the product of my labor. Sorry buddy, but no way. Mutualism is a philosophy that supports theivery and condemns people who protect their honestly acquired property from expropriators. And least some of the nineteenth century individualists saw that evils of mutualism on this, such as Lyander Spooner. Mutualism is not true anarchism and it's not free-market. In a free market, individuals OWN the product of their labor and what they receive in trade or gift. Mutualism is just an excuse to steal, masquarading as being pro-free market an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, there are lots of Lockean-proviso liberals with more radical notions of land tenure than you have, so there's no need to pick on the mutualists. But all of your righteous indignation arises from your strong belief that current notions of land ownership and tenure are unquestionably legitimate, based in "natural right." In practice, they are based on convention and serve to perpetuate a distribution of land and capital goods structured by centuries of state intervention. Perpetual right of ownership to the first claimant, or the first to "mix labor" with the land, has very little to do with modern circumstances. In any event, if I ever decide to squat anyone's land, it's probably not going to be some poor would-be retiree. The real significant concentrations of land and capital are in other hands, as I'm sure you well know. Spooner's notion of land tenure led him to excuse Indian removal and other extraordinarily inhumane actions. Agreeing with him in this instance is nothing I would be too proud about. You just demonstrate, again, that your real focus is on property, rather than liberty. I suspect that, in practice, in a panarchic situation without state support for a particular system of land tenure, a combination of factors would raise the costs of holding really large tracts of land hostage to more than economic rent to the point where it wouldn't be sustainable. I don't see any need for agrarian division, or the like. As I see it, you are so happily married to statist, or at least state-supported and state-friendly, notions of property and land tenure, that you simply can't imagine an an-archist alternative. Ah, well... Libertatia 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything anarchist about depriving an individual of the product of his labor or the receipts of honest trade. Mutualism is not anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out there are anarcho-capitalists who express a desire for a society of self-employed as well, such as David Friedman who says "Instead of corporation there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces." Nineteenth century individualists and modern anarcho-capitalists are the same on this. They support the liberty of individuals for work for others if they desire. Some say they prefer a society of self-employed and some don't express a preference either way. It's up to the decision of the individual, which is what individualism is all about.Anarcho-capitalism 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How important in the definition of anarchism is the oppinions of a very little group of persons that no one in the (a) movement considers anarchist ¡! ¿?. I dont understand how yo have the "authority" to pretend be so relevant. There are no a just relation beetween the reality of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and the times thats its mentioned here. First any kind of social control is intrussive of liberty, in second place "without hierarchy" is a bassical deffinition of anarchism, that includes NO BOSSES. Anarchism begings of the premisse that liberty is achieved only with autonomy and without any boss (are the same), that make anarchist question the economic system that creates hierarchy or domination by the economic structure.


 * If ancap theory is mentioned, well, is an especific situation only in U.S., but dont pretent be consider in the important topics that are universal. If you proposse a voluntary system or a voluntary form of control, well, call you how you want, but is not the problem of the real, serious and universal definition of anarchism. --Nihilo 01 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Social control" may or may not be voluntary and consentual. A young woman flashed her tits at me and controled be socially - nothing unanarchist about that! "Hierarchy" has the same objection - it may or may not be voluntary. So this term should also not be used in the definition of anarchism. Electing a president or secretary of a club is creating a voluntary hierarchy, as is taking a class (teacher/student), or selecting a temporary leader for a task. Nothing unanarchist about these. "Authority" seems a reasonable term to use, so long as it is clear that moral or coercive authority is meant, rather than simply choosing to yield to expertise. PhilLiberty 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Hierarchy
I agree that anarchist opposition to hierarchy belongs in the next rewrite of the intro section. Jacob Haller 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides having to find a legitimate source to say that, how are you going to square that with this: "Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." (Anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 31) ? Anarcho-capitalism 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We would have to say "some say anarchism requires opposition to hierarchy while others say that there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold." If that's what you want to do, go for it, but there needs to be a source. That might be good actually, just to show how chaotic anarchism is. It's so messy that even there is even a lack of agreement on a basic definition. We would have to say "There is no single defining definition of anarchism." That would be great.Anarcho-capitalism 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Using "social control" or "hierarchy" in the definition is sectarian, and would likely result in an edit war. Avoiding these loaded ambiguous terms seems best. The current intro seems quite reasonable. PhilLiberty 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sectarian either way. Anarcho-capitalists use a broad definition because it fits them in nicely; it even fits them in as equals. Most anarchists use more careful definitions. That's because for most anarchists domination is the focus of their criticism, not necessarily the state. In fact, as corporations have grown more and more power they've largely stole the focus from the state, which has seemed more trivial, simply a tool for maintaining the capitalist system.
 * It's not neutral to say one definition or the other is the "right" one. And just because a definition is more broad doesn't necessarily mean it's more neutral. I think hierarchy, social control, power etc need to be touched on, even if we don't need to say that there's a strict definition that applies for everyone. Owen 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd call definitions from anarcho-capitalists "broad." Here's Rothbard's definition: "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." (from Society and State) I don't think that's broad, because it rules out "anarcho"-communism as being anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which just goes to show that Rothbard has absolutely no connection to anarchism-proper other than the name "anarcho." I back Owen 100% on this one. Saying that the only defining characteristic of anarchism is anti-statism is just as POV as saying that anti-capitalism is necessary for anarchism because it is a view supported almost exclusively by anarcho-capitalists, who are a small minority within the anarchist movement. And what happened to the mention in the intro that despite the disagreements over what anarchism includes, that most anarchists have historically been anti-capitalist?  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A "small minority"? I find it hard to believe that obscure forms of anarchism such as anarcho-communism is more popular than libertarianism in the U.S. And, what the hell is "anarchism-proper"? There's no such thing.Anarcho-capitalism 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First you steal the term "libertarian" and now you want to steal "anarchist." Both terms originally refered to anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist philosophies. That is what I mean by "anarchism-proper"--the original meaning of the term. Pro-market "libertarians" can call themselves "anarchists" but that doesn't make it so, just like I can call myself a "cow" but it wouldn't make me one. That's what I mean. BTW, "libertarians" [sic] are not all anarcho-capitalist. Most don't call for the complete abolition of the state, so you are conflating "libertarians" [sic] with anarcho-capitalists. And even if all the American "libertarians" [sic] are anarcho-capitalists, they aren't part of any anarchist political movement, and if you look above I specifically said a minority within the "anarchist movement."  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Original meanings of terms" are irrelevant. Meanings change.Anarcho-capitalism 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the fanaticism of certain libertarians means that this article will have to use a biased definition of anarchism, then we should at least state in the introduction that the anarchist tradition is firmly rooted in anti-capitalism. To ignore the "original meanings of terms" and the history of anarchism in general is equivalent to historical revisionism. -- WGee 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We didn't steal the word "libertarian." Libertarianism first referred to individualist anarchism in America. "Anarcho"-communist Dejacques used the term "libertaire." That has been translated as "libertarian" but it's still not the same word. "Libertarian" is an English word. Any of the individualist anarchists in the English-speaking countries are libertarians, from Benjamin Tucker to Murray Rothbard.Anarcho-capitalism 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "libertarian" initially referred to the adherents to the doctrine of free will, but it was certainly well-established as referring to anarchism, both social and individualist, by the end of the 19th century. I'll stay out of fights about intellectual property in terminology, but there's the history. Libertatia 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But it referred to individualism first. Social anarchism was born after individualist anarchism. And, there's really not much libertarian about social anarchism since it's collectivist and sees the individual as subservient to the community.Anarcho-capitalism 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Current definition is not biased, it is a common definition in mainstream sources. Also, if I remember correctly, agreement was made on keeping all the accusations between different schools of not being the "true" anarchists in the "Issues" section. -- Vision Thing -- 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Last I was involved the exception was for anarcho-capitalism for obvious reasons.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An exception can't be made for anarcho-capitalism because other claimed forms of anarchism are disputed as well. This is why capitalism and communism are discussed in the issues section. I guess you weren't here but we who were agreed to keep all disputes as to what is or isn't true anarchism in that section. But of course you don't have to agree to it. Consensus is fleeting on Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 19:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is still no justification for not stating in the introduction that anarchism has its roots in anti-capitalism. -- WGee 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would really like you to direct me to any such agreement because I doubt it would have taken place. If it did, I am now reopening the matter for discussion because that is ridiculous. An exception can be made for anarcho-capitalism because it, more than any other major type of self-described anarchism, is disputed by virtually all other anarchists and stands in opposition to the historical anarchist movement. To not mention that is ridiculous.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll look for it for you if I have the time. That's why there is no criticism that anarcho-communism is not a true form of anarchism in that section. It was taken out when the sections in Issues were created. But, sure, anarcho-capitalism is disputed by virtually all other anti-free-market anarchists. If you're against free-market capitalism you're going to be against anarcho-capitalism. That's trivial. Of course. So what? Anarcho-communism is disputed by virtually all other individualist anarchists, including capitalist anarchists. So what?Anarcho-capitalism 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was Libertatia's suggestion, and for now it functions pretty good. Anyway, dispute about anarcho-capitalism is mentioned both in the beginning of its section, and in the "Issues" section. -- Vision Thing -- 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

moved from Talk:Anarchy Lentower 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC): the page Anarchism has a much broader, and more theoretical discussion of anarchism, but seems to be about the same topic as this one. is there any reason why there are two separate pages? suggest merging anarchy into anarchism.--naught101 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Merging is a good idea. Any subtle differences, that can be cited with good sources, can be explained in the Anarchism article. Talk:Anarchy can be archived off this page just before the merge, even if a REDIRECT is used. Lentower 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep seperate anarchism refers to an ideology and school of thought, anarchy is a state (no pun intended!) of being. a state of anarchy may or may not be informed by the ideology of anarchism. witness the section in anarchy on somalia as an eg. somalia is in a state of anarchy, but by accident rather than by any effort of people attempting to implement anarchism. -- frymaster 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Blockader 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Seperate as per wiki policy. According to the logic of this proposal, there should be an article on monarchism (as notable as anarchism), but not on monarchy (as notable as anarchy).  The way Wikipedia works is we have a large article then specific articles that detail some aspect of the big one (Summary style takes advantage of this hierarchy).  I think most of us agree this is a pretty shabby article, but that's not basis for making it a redirect!  Lastly, I just want to note that: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and therefore this vote cannot have an effect without discussion and general consensus.  Peace, --Urthogie 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree: keep separate, but add clear links and theory of difference: thanks for the clarification. but there are no links that I could easily find from [anarchism]] to anarchy. a link probably needs to be made in the intro somehow, and also in the Template:Anarchism sidebar has no link to the anarchy page, which seems illogical. the difference between the two also needs to be made clear (the monarchy/monarchism separation is something that most people would understand, and would probably serve well). cheers. --naught101 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already made these suggestions, and its mainly anarchists who oppose such links. Please help out if you can, thanks --Urthogie 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * keep separate - anarchism is a philosophical and activist movement with a history. anarchy is a state (the state of statelessness) with a few examples, not all of which have to do with the anarchist movement (pre-state history, for example).  For linguistic purposes too, they need to be separate. Anarchy is subject to misconceptions and popular usage that is different than the way political theorists / activists use it (anarchy = chaos).  Anarchism, by contrast, is a radical social movement subject to perceptions of varying accuracy about anarchists, such as complex definitions of "violence" (people vs. property) and so on.  The two are obviously intricately related but are separate.  --lquilter 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am an anarchist. And I am careful about how anarchy/anarchism/anarchic/anarchist est is defined in wiki projects. But even I see no reason to keep the two articles separate Randy6767


 * Keep separate. I too am an anarchist (wooah, flooood!), and there is quite a difference between anarchy and anarchism - that of anarchy as a violent chaos and anarchy as an anarchist society. As the first usage is unfortunately quite common, it needs to be adressed - preferrably in it's own article. Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Anarchy is a society's potentiality to succumb to anarchism. Anarchy, if provoked by anarchists, can result in either chaos or harmonious spontaneous order, depending on wether or not the anarchist know what they're doing. The two go hand-in-hand so let's give the readers the whole view of anarchism in one article.Randy6767 00:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting that 'anarchy' is always the result of an anarchist's intentions?Tamira C. 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No.Randy6767 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Separate. The two entries currently address different topics, with the additional promise that, should in-process edits go forward, the distinction will be made even clearer. Libertatia 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Seperate. Anarchism is more of a broad philosophy that branches off into many subgroups; Anarchy is, simply, a state of not having a government. The distinction is too great to be merged. --Brandt Luke Zorn 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. You just said every single distinction their is. The distinction is not that great. This could easily be one article. Anarchy is the state of a society being without a ruler or government. Anarchism is the philosophy the anarchists live by during the state of anarchy. Not that great of a distinction if you ask me. Randy6767 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep seperate, but please rewrite!. I don't think you can redirect it only to 'anarchism', due to the common usage of the word 'anarchy' for 'anomie' and for 'unintentional statelessness'. But maybe we can give just the several definitions with links to better articles. At least the paragraph on 'anarchist thought' and 'anarchist communities' could be just a link to the anarchism-article. The paragraphs on tribal anarchy and especially the one on Somalia, are really shit quality, and not really covering for the term. However, I think it is legitimate to pay attention to not ideologically motivated 'states of anarchy'.Tamira C. 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Don't rewrite. I'm loosing interest in this discussion, do what ever you guys want but I don't think we need to rewrite anything. Randy6767 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep seperate. Turn anarchy into a disambig that points to the list of anarchist communities, anarchism, anomie and possibly other articles like stateless, stateless nation, chaos etc. If not a disambig, rewrite anarchy in the name of all that is good. ~  Swi tch t 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep separate Marc Mywords 08:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

Voluntary servitude
I'd just like to note my support of JMadrigal's removal of the claim that all anarchists oppose "voluntary servitude." Not only was it unsourced but it's wrong. There is nothing un-anarchist about being a butler or a waiter. Serving others, being subordinate to others, is consistent with anarchism as long as it's voluntary.Anarcho-capitalism 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, and inclusive, let's make it clear (here, at least) what "voluntary servitude" is consistent with: the anarchism of our an-cap comrades. Most other schools have been in clear opposition to subordination (as was noted recently). Libertatia 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absurd and untrue. There is nothing un-anarchist about being voluntarily subservient to someone else. One can't be an anarchist and support a right of someone to be a butler at the same time? Or is your point that if he's paid for it then he's being exploited but if he does it for free then he's not? What is your point? What is un-anarchist about serving others if that's what one wants to do? How about a man CHOOSING to be subservient to his wife, or a wife choosing to be subservient to her husband (with the right being retained to cease being subservient at any time). How about if it's just for one night? If you think voluntary submission is in opposition to anarchism, then you just don't undestand anarchism. What anarchism is against is INVOLUNTARY servitude.Anarcho-capitalism 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your examples keep changing. It's only a couple of days since you were vicariously power-tripping over the boss' "right" to fire arbitrarily. Anyway, I'm not requiring anyone to be an anarchist, and I won't comment on what goes on between consenting adults, but the record of anarchist opposition to hierarchy, outside of the an-cap tradition, is pretty clear. Libertatia 02:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you calling "hierarchy"? If it's a voluntary situation, there is nothing un-anarchist about it. And of course a boss has a moral right to fire arbitrarily, unless there is a contract specifying otherwise. If you claim that a boss doesn't have a right to fire then you are asserting authority over that employer. In anarchism one has a right to not associate with someone if you they want to. If a person HAS to let someone work for them, how is that anarchistic? How is it anarchist to force someone to employ you? You have a warped sense of anarchy. In anarchy, a person has a right to break assocation with anyone for any reason they desire. Anything else is authoritarian. If you deny a right of an employer to fire someone then you are supporting involuntary servitude. You are asserting that the employer must serve the employee whether he wants to or not.Anarcho-capitalism 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that "servitude" is a dumb thing to call voluntary association. The phrase "voluntary servitude" was, of course, a favorite of pro-slavery writers, who argued that conditions under chattel slavery were better than those facing nominally "free" workers, and that, given the choice, slaves would recognize that they were better off and serve "voluntarily." This is pretty much the approach "of course you can always 'choose' to starve" school of capitalist apologists. But the phrase was also central to the work of Etienne de la Boetie, whose Discourse on Voluntary Servitude Rothbard thought so highly of. Rothbard was able to see that "voluntary servitude" was the source of perhaps more problems than outright slavery. Libertatia 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That brings to mind the film Manderlay, where a white woman comes to "rescue" a slave plantation by setting them "free", only to later realize that they were better off with chattel slavery than they would be under wage slavery. Which I suppose makes sense, when you consider it; where chattel slaves are expensive, and need food, housing, sanitation, and so on, wage slaves do not have to be bought, and can be paid wages insufficient to sustain them. Because slave owners actually have an investment in each worker, it becomes inefficient to let them starve, whereas for an employer this is a non-issue, because wage slaves are disposable and easily replaceable. There's no obligation whatever to keep them fed or housed. Which of course is why this second, more efficient method of slavery has become the standard, and the South never tried bringing the older, more responsible variety. Owen 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User A-C has shown himself to be very inconsistent with very shady motivations time and time again. He claims he supports "individuals having the product of their labor" but approves capitalist bosses denying individuals (workers) to the products of their labor if they don't own the tools of labor made to make the products. And then sites Spooner as justification. He went on about the "rights" of bosses, tried to engage in historical revisionism, agreed with a statement of Spooner's that justified the removal of American Indians, and so forth. I have to say, anarcho-socialists have a lot of patience with "anarcho"-capitalists. They even call them "comrades". Most social anarchists are extremely hesitant to do the same because we are very skeptical of just who "anarcho"-capitalists are looking out for: Labor or Management. But then again, anarcho-socialist comrades are often some of the most patient people on the Libertarian Left. Full Shunyata 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we had this discussion before about the product of labor. I'm surprised that you don't yet understand that it is an incoherent position to say someone has a right to own the product of their labor and at the same time say that he has the right to own the product of his labor if he's applying it to the product of someone else's labor. If I labor to cultivate cotton and you convert it into twine, you cannot have a right to the product of your labor by taking the twine because you would be denying me the product of my labor. (Hence Spooner's statement: "if [the individual] be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors.") A person can only have a right to the product of his labor if he's applying it to what is unowned or what he already owns. About Spooner and Indians, I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't read anything concerning Spooner and Indians and have no comment on it. In regard to whether I favor "labor or management," that's a false dichotomy. Management is labor too.Anarcho-capitalism 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nineteenth century individualist anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews: "But every combined movement demands an individual lead. Hence, in the execution of design, the one must guide and the other follow, and the more absolute the submission of the one mind to the other, the more harmonious the movement. Hence, it is proper and right that one man should hire another, and if he hires him, it is proper and right that he should remunerate him for his labor, and such remuneration is wages. Hence, if follows that the "Wages System" is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor, while, on the other hand, it is the business of him who is employed implicitly to obey, that is, to surrender any will of his own in relation to a design not his own, and to conceive and execute the will of the other....It is right that the great manufacturer should plan, and either alone, or through the aid of assistants under his direction, organize his mammoth establishment. It is right that he should employ and direct his hundreds, or his five hundred men. It is not true that those men who do not even now co-operate with each other and with him, as it is right and proper that they should. It is right that he should pay them wages for their work. It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly, and that no measure of Justice or Equity has ever heretofore been known among men." According to Charles A. Madison in Anarchism in America,  Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, Jan 1945, p. 53, "Andrews, in his discussion of the wage system, spoke for all [of the 19th century individualis anarchists] when he declared [this]."   CASE CLOSED. Voluntary submission and voluntary hierarchy is consistent with anarchism. Social "anarchists" may be opposed to it, but they're simply not true anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You realize, of course, that Andrews was an odd sort of anarchist, proposing a "pantarchy" with himself as most logical Pantarch? I think the evidence in Liberty and elsewhere undercuts Mr. Madison's bold statement. And Madison is prone to bold statements in the article, of the sort that require only one contradiction to knock down. In the sentence prior to the one you cite, he claims that all the individualists supported or condoned the capitalism of their day. CASE CLOSED on Mr. Madison, as the number of contrary statements in the pages of Liberty alone is certainly a lot more than one. Even Wikipedia's standards can occasionally rule out nonsense. Libertatia 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You just don't understand individualist anarchism. Benjamin Tucker also said he supported the liberty of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Yes, the nineteenth century individualist anarchists did support capitalism, depending on how you define it. If it's defined simply as private ownership of the means of production (and the right to employ and be employed), then yes they were capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that I "don't understand individualist anarchism"—actually, it's a certainty that I don't understand aspects of it as well as I would like—but I spend a significant part of every day in the attempt, both in digging up lost history and in interacting with contemporary individualists. I know enough to know that the very simple picture you paint is woefully inadequate to the realities. For the record: my research for 2006 involved scanning and archiving slightly over 5000 pages of public domain material relating to individualist anarchism. I'm on track to exceed that in 2007. And, of course, I read a lot more than I bothered to scan. I appreciate your interest in the subject, whatever our ideological differences, and really enjoy your energy in these debates. But, trust me, you don't "understand" the tradition any better than I do. Now, for the rest, you very simply make points that I have not argued against. Madison made a claim about individualists' opposition to the economic conditions around them—and he was demonstrably incorrect. I made what was initially a fairly off-hand comment about the treatment of "subordination" and "servitude" in Liberty, and you've found evidence that Andrews was a bit of an authoritarian (which anyone really familiar with him would have found unsurprising.) That's interesting, but doesn't take us very far. Libertatia 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrews was not an authoritarian. During Christmas vacation I helped my brother build some shelving. He knew how to do it, not me. I voluntarily submitted to his authority and did what he told me. And, I did it. If you think that there is something un-anarchist about that, you don't understand anarchism, and especially not individualist anarchism which at its foundation is simply for the right of the individual to choose to do what he wishes. If my brother chose to pay me a few bucks, would that then be un-anarchist because I would officially be "employed"? Is it compatible with anarchism if I voluntarily do what someone tells me to do for free? Does it become non-anarchist if we decide on a wage to do what that person tells me to do? You haven't thought these things through. You won't understand individualism until you do. Tucker said "Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else," and that's what you don't understand.Anarcho-capitalism 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Voltairine de Cleyre also said the position of the individualists was that they "are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." There is absolutely nothing wrong, in the eyes of individualist anarchists with voluntary employment.Anarcho-capitalism 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, again, you have yet to see me argue against wage labor or contracts for employment per se. In fact, I have repeatedly clarified Tucker's position on universalizing wage labor. What you apparently cannot, or will not, do is to separate employment (as a contract under equitable circumstances) from the power relation of "subordination." Because you simply deny that labor can receive anything less than its full product, and because you ignore a history of government intervention in land allocation (and capital accumulation) that creates stable class distinctions, your standards for what is "voluntary" as pretty weak, as compared to individualists who oppose "the four monopolies" or their equivalent. If it was possible to say that mutualists and an-caps agreed on what constituted "voluntary servitude," then perhaps we could agree that it was compatible with anarchy—in which case, there would almost certainly be no sense in which the "boss" was "superior" to his employees, except within the context of very specific tasks. There is, however, no agreement on voluntarity, so it remains open to question whether your definitions of "subordination" or "servitude" continue to contain the sorts of personal abasement currently associated with them. You've given us reason to believe that you think bosses are "better" than employees. Nuff said? Libertatia 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing un-anarchist about voluntarily deciding to do what someone else tells you or suggest to you, whether you choose to do it for free or whether someone pays you for it (what a "boss" does). That doesn't mean the boss is "better" than you. And, it has nothing to do with "abasement." As long as you have the freedom to disobey and walk out the door, it's still anarchy. Only slavery is un-anarchistic. Even Bakunin (who supported wages paid for labor) who had a strong individualist streak, and because of it, said "Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination."Anarcho-capitalism 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should rewrite the intro around that quote? If you accept Bakunin's standard ("mutual, temporary, and above all, voluntary") we may have a wider basis for agreement among all traditions. Jacob Haller 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think "anarcho"-communists would agree with it. They're too concerned with comprehensive egalitarianism, rather than liberty.Anarcho-capitalism 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you say I don't speak for individualists or anarcho-capitalists, but you think you speak for anarcho-communists. First of all, anarcho-communists are not a monolithic group that agrees on everything. There are significant disputes within the school of thought such as arguments over individual and social iiberty and forms of law-keeping, personal freedom in all areas of life including those outside of the workplace, or decentralized, non-hierarchical organization. Second of all, as an anarcho-communist myself, I feel that egalitarianism without liberty is repression of the minority by the majority just as liberty without egalitarianism is tyranny of the minority. As long as "liberty" doesn't mean the "liberty" to subvert others to your will or make others subserviant or servile. And as for this part of your post, "I'm surprised that you don't yet understand that it is an incoherent position to say someone has a right to own the product of their labor and at the same time say that he has the right to own the product of his labor if he's applying it to the product of someone else's labor." That is about equivalent to saying that if a person draws a work of art but does not own the paper or pencil they drew it on (let's say they borrowed it), then the person who owns the paper and pencil has every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own since it was created with their tools. That is why most anarchists (including the anti-capitalist anarcho-socialist [Mutualist, Indie] schools) find "anarcho"-capitalism oppressive. It is a system with dominatory hierarchical relations and dominatory property relations in where those with property have privileges over those with little or no property. In such a society, more property equals more freedom. Thus, if you own less property you are less free. If you don't own the factory that you work at (which is why you would work for someone else in the first place), you have no say in what you create. And as long as you work for a person, you must adhere to their rules and laws. Other anarchists besides "anarcho"-capitalists find such a thing antithetical to the entire concept of "anarchism". But I guess such a thing is of little or no concern to an "anarcho"-capitalist as long as the conditions which create such situations are considered "legitimate" and "non-violent" or "non-aggressive". So, as long as there is considered to be no violence which creates economic subserviance or lack of ownership, it's all well and good. Hence, your concern with "voluntary servitude". Full Shunyata 07:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You say, "That is about equivalent to saying that if a person draws a work of art but does not own the paper or pencil they drew it on (let's say they borrowed it), then the person who owns the paper and pencil has every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own since it was created with their tools." Of course the person would have every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own. If you draw, on or otherwise deface, someone else's property, you don't then own that property. If you alter someone else's property, you don't then create your own ownership in it. If you alter someone else's property, you're either vandalizing it, giving your labor to the owner, or if he has hired you, then you have sold your labor to that person.Anarcho-capitalism 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're wrong to claim that only anarcho-capitalists support the right of an individual to be employed and the right of someone else to employ him. Nineteenth century individualist anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews said, "Hence, it is proper and right that one man should hire another, and if he hires him, it is proper and right that he should remunerate him for his labor, and such remuneration is wages. Hence, if follows that the "Wages System" is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor, while, on the other hand, it is the business of him who is employed implicitly to obey, that is, to surrender any will of his own in relation to a design not his own, and to conceive and execute the will of the other....It is right that the great manufacturer should plan, and either alone, or through the aid of assistants under his direction, organize his mammoth establishment. It is right that he should employ and direct his hundreds, or his five hundred men. It is not true that those men who do not even now co-operate with each other and with him, as it is right and proper that they should. It is right that he should pay them wages for their work. It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly, and that no measure of Justice or Equity has ever heretofore been known among men."  According to Charles A. Madison in Anarchism in America,  Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, Jan 1945, p. 53.  It's "anarcho"-communists who are the enemy of liberty, because they don't support the right to employ and be employed. And, the ninteenth century individualists were just confused by the labor theory of value. They thought to be paid "justly" was to be paid according to how much labor was exerted. But to be paid justly is simply to be paid according to what someone else is willing to pay.Anarcho-capitalism 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A-C, you said, "Of course the person would have every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own. If you draw, on or otherwise deface, someone else's property, you don't then own that property." Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. You are a defender of the privilege of the propertied. You are not about defending of liberty. Then you said, "It's "anarcho"-communists who are the enemy of liberty, because they don't support the right to employ and be employed." You're right in that we don't support the concept of employment. We believe that everyone should be self-employed and self-managed (as do Indies and Mutualists). The difference is, we don't believe in employers or employees. We believe everyone should be able to provide for themselves or others at their own leisure. In fact, many modern anarcho-communists are against the concept of work. Many of us support the concept of free play like Bob Black and American Indians. Also, we reject the concept of property in favor of possession, we see everything as either an individual possession, or a social possession. If something is used to produce for oneself, it's an individual possession, be it a toaster, a television, a small farm, etc. If something is used to produce for society, it's a social possession and should be freely accessible to those who use it (ie. consumers). Personally, I don't "reject" the concept of markets because I'm an Anarchist Without Adjectives in solidarity with Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists. I simply personally feel there are better ways to arrange economic actitives other than markets. And finally you say, "And, the ninteenth century individualists were just confused by the labor theory of value." There is far more difference between "anarcho"-capitalists and anarcho-socialists than just the LTV. The LTV is not a major tentant of anarcho-socialism are there are socialist Individualist Anarchists today who don't believe in the LTV. The key difference bewteen "anarcho"-capitalism is worker ownership, non-hierarchy, self-management, opposition to rent, opposition to interest, opposition to loaning, opposition to profit, and the freedom for society to make laws and for every person to have the freedom to change or challenge the laws. These are things anarcho-socialists support. "Anarcho"-capitalists do not. Full Shunyata 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I come spray paint your car a different color, I then own the car. Yeah sure. You have no conception of property. That's why you're not an individualist anarchist. You don't respect the property of others.Anarcho-capitalism 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You also don't know what you're talking about in regard to employment and individualist anarchism. I just quoted you a 19th century individualist anarchist that said "Hence, it is proper and right that one man should hire another, and if he hires him, it is proper and right that he should remunerate him for his labor, and such remuneration is wages. Hence, if follows that the "Wages System" is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor." Compare with the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman who prefers a system where "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces." You don't understand individualist anarchism (which includes anarcho-capitalism). Individualist anarchists support the liberty to be employed and employ. Some may prefer a system of self-employed, while some may not express a preference either way. But, no individualist anarchist think that employment is un-anarchist. Because we know that it is voluntary. Individualist anarchism is simply voluntary interaction.Anarcho-capitalism 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, one last thing. You said, "And you're wrong to claim that only anarcho-capitalists support the right of an individual to be employed and the right of someone else to employ him." Again, you're trying to link "anarcho"-capitalists to individualist anarcho-socialists in order to give your ideas an air of legitimacy in anarchist thought. And you're bastardizing anarcho-socialist philosophy in the process. Indies and Mutualists indeed support employment, but believe that everyone should essentially be a small business owner-worker or small property owner-worker who forms co-operatives with other property owners for mutual aid. One is employed by the other. They didn't believe that employers should be "bosses" or that employees should be "workers". As Proudhon said that capitalist companies, "plunder the bodies and souls of wage workers" and that they are "an outrage upon human dignity and personality." [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 218] He argued, "the workers . . . would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [p. 216] Tucker further argued, "amount of money capable of being furnished . . . is so great that every man, woman, and child. . . could get it, and go into business for himself, or herself -- either singly, or in partnerships -- and be under no necessity to act as a servant, or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves, would consent to labour for wages for another." [A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p. 41] Moreso, he said, "[m]ake capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan, and then these vacant lands will come into use . . . operatives will be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and then they will be independent of their employers, and then the labour problem will be solved." and "emancipation of the workingman from his present slavery to capital." [Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 321 and p. 323] In fact, he also argued, "the labourer in these days [as] a soldier. . . His employer is . . . a member of an opposing army. The whole industrial and commercial world is in a state of internecine war, in which the proletaires are massed on one side and the proprietors on the other." [Instead of a Book, p. 460] Full Shunyata 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nineteenth century individualist anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews said, "Hence, it is proper and right that one man should hire another, and if he hires him, it is proper and right that he should remunerate him for his labor, and such remuneration is wages. Hence, if follows that the "Wages System" is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor, while, on the other hand, it is the business of him who is employed implicitly to obey, that is, to surrender any will of his own in relation to a design not his own, and to conceive and execute the will of the other....It is right that the great manufacturer should plan, and either alone, or through the aid of assistants under his direction, organize his mammoth establishment. It is right that he should employ and direct his hundreds, or his five hundred men. It is not true that those men who do not even now co-operate with each other and with him, as it is right and proper that they should. It is right that he should pay them wages for their work. It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly, and that no measure of Justice or Equity has ever heretofore been known among men." Why are you denying what is explicitly stated? Individualist anarchists do not consider offering to work for others as un-anarchist. Some prefer a system of self-employed. Some don't express a preference either way. It's the same for all individualist anarchists, whether capitalist or not. For instance, popular anarcho-capitalist David D. Friedman pefers a system where "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces." It's just a matter of taste. Employment by others and self-employment are equally compatible with true anarchism (which does not include so called "anarcho"-communism). If anyone wants to be self-employed in a free-market capitalist system that's their prerogative. That's what liberty is all about.Anarcho-capitalism 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A-C, you realize that you're quoting a single guy. I can find other socialist Individualist Anarchists today who disagree with some of his positions. Just like there are anarcho-communists today who have problems with some of Joseph Dejacque's positions. Anarchists aren't a static and unchanging bunch who all agree lock-step with the prominent intellectuals in our different schools. We aren't like authoritarian Marxists who stress compliance with ideology and theoretical form, we are open and constantly experimenting and coming up with new ways of democratically and freely associating with utmost liberty. You said, "true anarchism (which does not include so called "anarcho"-communism)" I thought you said you didn't believe in "true anarchism". When I and other anarchists said that "anarcho"-capitalism is not a 'true' form of Anarchism, you got upset and said that you don't give a damn about "true forms". So no one is a "true anarchist" unless they are an "anarcho"-capitalist, or some type of Individualist or Mutualist who is watered-down and pro-capitalist friendly enough with all the socialism gutted out of their philosophy to be acceptable to "anarcho"-capitalists as forerunners or a "misguided" LTV offshoot. So now your hypocrisy is revealed. You said that David R. Friedman said, "Each sells not his time, but what his time produces." Uh, that's what you do under any capitalist system today. I fail to see the difference from run-in-the-mill state-enforced capitalism. You also said, "If anyone wants to be self-employed in a free-market capitalist system that's their prerogative." We're talking about a 'free market', but we're not talking capitalism. A "free market" does not necessarily imply capitalism. Anarcho-socialists believe that a truly free market would be socialistic in that workers own the tools of their own labor and keep all the fruits of their own labor in a market system. That is, using a current but not mainstream defintion of "socialism". But then again, anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism do not meet the mainstream definiton of "socialism" (defined as "state ownership") either. And many anarcho-communists rant against "Communism" and "Socialism" as well. I've seen it many a time in anarchist literature and in infoshops. Does that mean anarcho-communists are not socialists or communists? No, it means that, like Tucker, Stirner, and Proudhon, and sometimes Bakunin, they were speaking against State Socialism [Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism] and Marxist-Leninism (what most people mean by "Communism" with a capital "C"). Full Shunyata 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, what anarcho-capitalists mean by pure capitalism is simply a free market. And "capitalism" by modern definition refers to a free-market anyway. The Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines capitalism as "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a FREE MARKET." Now, whether one is talking about anarcho-capitalism or even capitalism with a state, it is still the prerogative of the individual if he wants to be self-employed. Anarcho-capitalists, like all individualist anarchists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or employed by others if they prefer. Some, such as Friedman, express a preference for a society of all self-employed, and some such as Rothbard don't express a preference either way. If people want to be self-employed, that's fine. If people want to be employed by others, that's fine too. Anyone one who doesn't respect the liberty of someone else to be an employee if that's what he desires, is definitely not a true anarchist. Socialists are opposed to private (individual) ownership of the means of production. The mainstream definition of socialism is "1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property." Or as Wikipedia puts it "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage an egalitarian socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." All socialism, whether under a state or falsely portraying itself as "anarchism" is the enemy of liberty, because it wants to put the individual's property under social control. The only true anarchism is modern individualist anarchism, otherwise known as free-market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. The nineteenth century version of individualist anarchism is a step on the way to being truly anarchist by rejecting "anarcho"-communism and embracing private property, but anarcho-capitalism is the completion of the rejection of false anarchism and acceptance of true anarchism that respects ALL of the product of the individual's labor as his private property.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I noticed you used a dictionary again. Automatic grounds to ignore that part of your post because dictionaries are not accepted as scholarly tools of research. Second, you say, "Socialists are opposed to private (individual) ownership of the means of production." It all depends on what you mean by "private ownership". If by private ownership you mean ownership by private capitalists who hire labor to make profit, then you are right. If you mean "private ownership" as in workers owning the tools of their own labor and owning their own productive property, then you are wrong. "Socialism" is a vague word which can mean different things. According to the dictionary definition of socialism (usually defined as state ownership), no anarchist, even anarcho-communists, is a socialist since no anarchist believes in state ownership. So that shows about how worthless the "mainstream" or "accpted" (as you call it) definition of "Socialism" is when dealing with Anarchism. So then you say that Wikipedia states, "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage an egalitarian socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." I guess that's acceptable. And this does not contradict Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism as forms of socialism. They do indeed advocate social control over production because they believe production should be owned by individual workers who make up society. They also believe in mutual aid and some believe in mutual banking. You say, "it wants to put the individual's property under social control." Again, you're probably using an un-anarchistic definition of "property". By Anarchist definition, which is the only one we're dealing with, "property" is means of production. Not personal items which are called "possessions" in anarchist lexicon. Individualists and Mutualists must also be "enemies" of "liberty" because they wish to take private property away from capital owners and give it to workers who become independent worker-owners. "The only true anarchism is modern individualist anarchism, otherwise known as free-market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism." So you've finally shown your true colors in believing that only your own school is "true anarchism". So your earlier claim that you don't care about which anarchism is considered real is BS. Then this little humorous bit, "The nineteenth century version of individualist anarchism is a step on the way to being truly anarchist by rejecting "anarcho"-communism and embracing private property" This "19th century" version still exists today. It does not agree with the anarcho-communist economic system (So what? Big deal.) but it doesn't agree with the "anarcho"-capitalist econmic system either. It embraces "private property" in a very different way from any "anarcho"-capitalist. A way that is opposed to profit, rent, tax, loan, interest, workplace hierarchy, wage inequality (Libertatia told you that a week or so earlier), and one-man management. It is indeed a form of socialism and is not any more 'capitalistic' simply because it is not anarcho-communism. Just like anarcho-syndicalism is not any more 'communistic' simply because it usually rejects anarcho-socialism. There are individualistic socialist, collectivistic socialist, individualistic communist, collectivistic communist (and self-proclaimed capitalistic) forms of anarchism. Anarchy is a wide, varied and experimental way of radical democratic organization. It doesn't conform to statist definitions or non-anarchist majoritarian mindsets of what certain things should mean. So if you're going to stick to the "mainstream" dictionary definition of socialism, then NO form of Anarchism can be considered "socialism". Full Shunyata 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any system where the means of production are owned privately instead of by the state or community is not socialist, according the standard modern definition of the term. Individualist anarchists oppose social control over the property of the individual. We support individual control, therefore we are not socialists. "Anarcho"-communists are socialists because they deny the right of private ownership of the means of production. "Private ownership" means individual ownership as opposed to social ownership.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Andrews quotes do not represent the mainstream of anarchist thought. Even if Andrews was an anarchist (which has been questioned) Andrews was an odd sort of anarchist (pantarchism and all that). The Bakunin quote is more relevant; it comes from his essay "What is Authority?" I had seconded the Bakunin quote because so many critiques of statism and of capitalism come down to those same concerns. Jacob Haller 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A-C, in your quest to strip Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism of all attachments to socialism, you have also stripped Communist Anarchism of it's socialist nature as well. You said, "Any system where the means of production are owned privately instead of by the state or community is not socialist, according the standard modern definition of the term." First, there is no single "modern definition of socialism". Socialism is a vague term that spans from Social Democracy to forms of Anarchism. Second, if you insist on defining socialism as "state ownership" or "collective ownership", then anarcho-communists are not socialists either. Anarcho-communists don't believe in state ownership, and most of us don't believe in collective ownership either. Anarcho-communists reject the notion of ownership altogether. You're confusing Bakunin Collectivist Anarchists (who believe in collective ownership) with Communist Anarchists who negate the idea of ownership in favor of usage. Third, if you insist on using the so-called "mainstream" definition of "socialism", then I'll just use the mainstream definition of "capitalism". A privately-owned market economy enforced and supported by the State. Two people can play at that game. If you want to pigeonhole definitions of socialism, I'll play the same game with definitions of capitalism. Since you insist on being intellectually dishonest. You said, ""Anarcho"-communists are socialists because they deny the right of private ownership of the means of production." We don't believe in the private ownership, state ownership, collective ownership, or any kind of ownership. We believe in usage. So, according to your definition, we aren't socialists either. And you aren't a real capitalist because you don't realize that capitalism needs the State. And before you say, "Who says Capitalism needs the state?" may I remind you that not all socialists believe in collective or state ownership either. So since you want to be intellectually dishonest and try to straight-jacket "socialism" to a rigid definition, I'll do the same with capitalism. I'll stop when you agree to stop selectively definining socialism and holding it to "mainstream" socialist orthodoxy definitions. And I know exactly why you're playing around with definitions and stooping to intellectual dishonesty: you wish to strip Individualist anarchism of all it's association with and nature of socialism in order to connect it with "anarcho"-capitalism so you can claim to be an "individualist anarchist". It's an attempt to give "anarcho"-capitalism an air of anarchist legitimacy because calling yourself an "individualist anarchist" sounds more official. I've seen you claim, several times, than Individualist anarchism is supposedly "closer to capitalism than socialism". Which is what your M.O. is in these word games, to move it closer to capitalism and deny it's socialist origins and nature.


 * You said, ""Private ownership" means individual ownership as opposed to social ownership." And individualistic socialists such as anarcho-socialists do believe in individual ownership. However, they don't believe in the same type of "individual ownership" that Capitalists or "anarcho"-capitalists believe in. They believe that all workers should be private owners of their own independent means of production. "Anarcho"-capitalists on the other hand have no problem with only a few capital owners being private owners and the majority of society being propertyless workers. Anarcho-socialists believe every worker should own their own tools and means of production, where as "anarcho"-capitalists don't. That's one of the most basic differnces and one of the most basic traits that make Individualists and Mutualists socialists. They believe in worker ownership (which I would argue is a more primordial and basic tenent of socialism, not social or collective ownership). So in that sense, anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists are socialists. In fact, Wikipedia classifies Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists under the category of "libertarian socialism". There is a reason that they aren't classified under "libertarian capitalism". And I know you're going to mention the products of labor again, claiming that anarcho-communists don't believe that workers should own the product of their own labor. First of all, the only thing I've seen you use to back up that claim is quoting Joseph Dejacque. Joseph Dejacque was an early anarcho-communist (social anarchists came slightly before individualist anarchists actually, contarary to one of your earlier claims). Many of his philosophical outlooks aren't exactly relevant for modern anarcho-communists. Second, for the record, I do not agree with Joseph Dejacque's claim that you keep bringing up. I disagree with him. And so do many other anarcho-communists today. Third, anarchists (both individualist and social) are not a monolithic bunch who hold to orthodoxy and high analytical praxis. You seem to assume that anarchists have the same mindset as Marxists. We don't hold to "tradition" and we don't confine our thought and organization to individual intellectuals. Anarchism is a labor class movement that's a way of organization and radical democratic process and decision-making. We encourage and fiercely believe in change and growth, we are constantly evolving and changing and coming up with new ways of thinking and organizing. We have intellectuals and philosophers, but in no way are they held by us in the same god-like regard that Marxists hold their intellectuals. We don't view or hold Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tucker, Proudhon, etc. in the same way that Marxists view Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, etc. They were just prominent men of the anarchist movement who introduced valuable ideas to us. They are not "founders" that we must hold to or organize around. So quoting Dejacque is nigh worthless because anarcho-communists don't have to agree with him, and many don't. And I could just as easily bring up the fact that Bakunin was an anti-Semite and how Lysander Spooner's property philosophy tied him into such an intellectual knot that it caused him to agree with White settlers taking away Indian land. That doesn't mean that Individualist anarchists agree with Spooner's accidental acceptance of imperialism, and it doesn't mean that Collectivist anarchists are anti-Semites. We are thinking men and women who have or own minds, our own thoughts and our own ways. Intellectual and academic orthodoxy and tradition be damned. We are not Marxists and we are not academic State Socialists. We are Anarchists and ours is a tradition where any man and woman can invent their own ways of organization (as long as they hold to basic things that make it anarchistic, such as liberty, equality, non-hierarchy, etc.). This is not a movement of middle-class intellectuals. Please address anarchist philosophy accordingly. Don't hold up Dejacque as if he's some sort of god who layeth down the 'law' of anarcho-communism and we all agree with him. Full Shunyata 15:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether Andrews represents the "mainstream of anarchist thought" depends on whether the mainstream is individualist or collectivist. But, it does represent the mainstream of individualist anarchist thought. Individualist anarchists do not see employment as un-anarchist, but as voluntary trade. Benjamin Tucker said he supported the liberty of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." It's up the individual, according to individualist anarchists. Sure, some prefer a society of self-employed, such as the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman, but not because employment is not anarchist. But, because you can make more money if you're self-mployed. But, not everyone wants to be self-employed. It's a hassle. Many prefer to work for someone else. And, there is nothing un-anarchist about that if that's what someone wants to do. No individualist anarchist is going to condemn someone for offering someone an opportunity to be employed. The employer is not the enemy, according to individualist anarchists. As far as Andrews being an anarchist, of course he was. Sources all say he was. Andrews was making the point that doing what someone asks of you is voluntary, whether you volunteer to do it for free or you're paid for it. It's not coercive authority. It's as Bakunin put it "voluntary authority and subordination." Anarcho-communist will not agree with the individualists or Bakunin. They think the employer has illegitimate authority over the employee, which is bizarre. I've never been to a job where I didn't have the liberty to give the employer the finger and walk out the door. And, the anarcho-communist is going to tell me that that employer has authority over me? To hell he does.Anarcho-capitalism 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Warren, Greene, Tucker, Spooner, et al. are not in question. Where Andrews' statements reflect the mainstream of individualist anarchist thought, if not the mainstream of anarchist thought, there others' statements can carry the same argument; where his do not, there others' statements won't carry the same argument. If you can show that Greene argued this way, and that Tucker argued this way, and that Spooner argued the same way, then it is clearly the mainstream of 19th-century American individualist anarchism. Okay? Jacob Haller 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. Here's a source saying that what he said reflected the mainstream view of individualist anarchists. According to Charles A. Madison in Anarchism in America, in the Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, Jan 1945, p. 53, "Andrews, in his discussion of the wage system, spoke for all [American individualist anarchists] when he declared, 'It is right that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily in the performance of his labor.' He merely demanded that 'all natural opportunities requisite to the production of wealth be accessible to all on equal terms," and that 'monoplies arising from special privileges creates by law' be abolished." Now whether he spoke for all individualist anarchists or not doesn't really matter does it? Because even if he was just speaking for himself, this shows that support of the right of employment is consistent with individualist anarchism. Andrews is well documented to be an individualist anarchist. All individualist anarchists support the liberty to work for someone else or oneself, whichever the individual prefers. But, they do not see employment as un-anarchistic. At the most, some of them see self-employment as preferable simply because it can be more profitable. Individualist anarchists like to make money.Anarcho-capitalism 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrews doesn't speak for all individualist anarchists. Tucker speaks for himself: "if a man has labor to sell, he has a right to a free market in which to sell it, - a market in which no one shall be prevented by restrictive laws from honestly obtaining the money to buy it. If the man with labor to sell has not this free market, then his liberty is violated and his property virtually taken from him. Now, such a market has constantly been denied, not only to the laborers at Homestead, but to the laborers of the entire civilized world. And the men who have denied it are the Andrew Carnegies." (Ben Tucker, Strikes and Force). Labadie speaks of "Mr. Burglar, Mr. Exploiter, Mr. Profiteer--all of you capitalistic buccaneers--" (Joseph Labadie, The Violent Hypocrites) and states "that the present social system is one composed of a class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is impossible under such conditions." (Joseph Labadie, What is Socialism?) although "Without his union, the workman is much more the slave of his employer than he is with it." (Joseph Labadie, Different Phases of the Labor Question). Jacob Haller 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? That's a great quote from Tucker saying that he supports a right to work for someone else. What you have to understand about Tucker, is that he thought the reason that there weren't more businesses is because the state was not allowing anyone to start a bank that wanted to. He thought this limited the supply of money and that if money were liberated from the control of the state that interest rates would reduce to near zero (bad understanding of economics, but that's what he thought). Tucker's belief was that this would cause more people to starting business, because one could pay back a loan without interest, and that this would raise the demand for employees, and therefore raise their wages to a just price where money received was proportional to labor exerted (again, bad economics, because he was not aware of marginal utility theory which was to come later, but only the labor theory of value). Individualists don't see employment as un-anarchists. It's the pay that the nineteenth century individualists had a problem with, because of the labor theory of value. I can't speak for Labadie beause I'm not familiar with him. But from that quote, that looks like something from a communist. He may have later converted to individualist. I'll look. It looks like he's arguing for unions too. A lot of individualists opposed unions as not being individualistic enough.Anarcho-capitalism 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, my suspicious were correct. This is Labadie's Wikipedia article: "In 1883, disenchanted with socialism, Labadie embraced individualist anarchism, a non-violent doctrine. He became closely allied with Benjamin Tucker, the country's foremost exponent of that doctrine, and frequently wrote for the latter's publication, "Liberty." Without the oppression of the state, Labadie believed, humans would choose to harmonize with "the great natural laws...without robbing [their] fellows through interest, profit, rent and taxes." However, his opposition to the State was not complete, as he supported government control of water utilities, streets, and railroads (Martin)." I don't see how he could even be an anarchist if he supports tax-funded and controlled infrastructure. Granted that's from Wikipedia, which is horrible source for information. I'll look for more info.Anarcho-capitalism 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "What is Socialism?" was from 1884; "Different Phases of the Labor Question" was from 1893; "The violent Hypocrites" was from 1918 or later. Tucker's quote describes both sides of the coin, as does Bakunin's quote. We should respect people's choices at the same time we create more choices. Jacob Haller 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bakunin's statement still looks good to me. I'd like to see a straw poll on who agrees/disagrees. In my interpretation, Bakunin's statement implicitly includes any system where employment is 'temporary, mutual, and above all voluntary,' and excludes any system where it is persistent, one-way, or otherwise involuntary. So two people voluntarily employing each other would satisfy Bakunin's standard, and three or more people voluntarily sharing each side of the relation would do the same. However, if some people, due to political interference, cultural expectations, or lack of access to their means of production, are restricted to the one side, and barred from the other side, that is unanarchistic. Jacob Haller 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All employment is voluntary. There is a difference between employment and slavery. Just because you lack ownership of a means of production, so you go to work for someone that does, that is not un-anarchist according to individualist anarchists. If I build a printing press and you offer to deliver newspapers for me and I pay you to do so, no individualist anarchists is going to say that there is something un-anarchistic about that. All that is is free trade. The newspaper publisher tells you where to deliver the newspapers and you do it. That's voluntary submission to voluntary authority. Employment is not domination, but cooperation. If you want a means of production, you can save up your money and buy one. An "anarcho"-communist would object to it, sure, since he opposes private ownership of the means of production, but not an individualist anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To do something voluntarily means to do something for some sort of self-satisfaction. While there are some people who find satisfaction in their work, most people are coerced to work by basic human needs. And seeing as all the land now has a price tag on it, you don't have much option but to sell yourself into slavery to some insurance company or fast-food joint doing inane work motivated entirely by the prospect of continuing to live under a roof and having food to eat. I don't get how some "individualist" anarchists would want to push contract theory so far, seeing as ultimately it's a way to trade individual freedom for collective authority. It's basically saying that everyone has the "right" to contractually sell their freedoms. Which is the fundamental difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. The former allows for what L. Susan Brown calls instrumental individualism; the freedom to be controlled. Anarchism, on the other hand, allows for existential individualism, the freedom to act as one will, and the freedom from acting for another's will. Owen 11:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well put, Owen. Blockader 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another way to put that is that individualists believe in negative liberty only. Social anarchists believe in positive liberty and think that individuals are entitled to provided with their needs by others. Individualists don't believe in positive liberty. There is no moral obligation to give to others and it also shouldn't be enforced by the collective. Any aid to others, even if they dont have the means to live, must be voluntary. Individualists do not believe that philosophies that doesn't respect the Sovereignty of the Individual are anarchistic.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Except that social anarchists don't distinguish between negative and positive liberty; having one without the other is seen as a catch-22 because unless you have the freedom to do things you can't have any freedom from things; how can you be free from coercion when you have no freedom of choice? Owen 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can say that people are coerced by their human needs. It's like you say that they have coerced themselves. -- Vision Thing --
 * It's not that you're coerced by our own basic needs; it's that the needs are used as a tool for coercion. This is true no matter what sort of coercion you're talking about. If someone puts a gun to your head, they are giving you a choice between death or doing as they say. Most would choose their basic capacity to live over the alternative; this is coercion. So too would an individual choose their life over the threat of starvation. It's not basic human needs that are coercing the decisions; they are simply used as leverage to make people choose certain decisions. Owen 23:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true, in my opinion, that a person's hunger can by exploited. If I have food and you have no food at all, I can ask you crush rocks 24 hours a day and you'll do it. I think that would by taking unreasonable advantage of your hunger. But, that's not coercion, but exploitation. Coercion is if I force you to work for me. As long as you're free to refuse to work for me, it's not coercion. But it is exploitation, and unconscionable in my opinion. But, though you may starve, but you still have the liberty to choose. But, the individualists' answer to this is competition. As long as there is plenty of competition in providers of food, food is going to be cheap. No one has to sign their life away to get a meal. So, we advocate a free market with fierce competition to drive down prices. No one has to be coerced and nothing has to be stolen. The communist anarchist solution to the possibility of that kind of exploitation is to abolish contracts and trade, and to "expropriate." Besides it being immoral to steal, in my opinion, such a non-exchange system would lead to increased starvation. Markets work.Anarcho-capitalism 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the distinction between coercion and exploitation. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something, you're still "free" to refuse. But I think it's laughable to describe it as free choice. Owen 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. It's just semantics. You can call it coercion if you want. The fact is, individualists allow what I am calling exploitation as the right of contract. Their solution to prevent it, though, isn't coercion, abolishing markets, contracts, and trade, but a free market competition. The more competition, the lower the prices of goods. Food providers have to keep prices low in order to prevent you from going to another provider. Anarcho-communism is not a solution because communism causes mass hunger because you need markets and money to efficiently distribute goods and services. Without the operation of markets, there are enduring shortages and surpluses.Anarcho-capitalism 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have two cases: 1) someone puts gun to your head and pulls the trigger; 2) someone refuses to give you food when you're starving. In the first case you wouldn't have dyed if that someone wasn't there. In the second case you would have dyed even if that someone wasn't there. To me, it seems clear that in second case that someone didn't induce your death, in other words, that he isn't your coercer.-- Vision Thing -- 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The very phrase "voluntary servitude" (like "honest fraud," "legitimate ruler," or "consensual rape") contradicts itself, so I can't tell what you are trying to refer to. The individualist anarchist approach, if not the universal anarchist approach, was to create more choices (as in the Tucker quote above). The more voluntary people's relationships are, the less hierarchical they can be. Jacob Haller 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about you all cease discussing ideology and start discussing article? ;) Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism = Libertarianism (undue weight to source?)
An explanatory footnote, or some mention in the "Definitional concerns" entry ought to clarify this issue. I personally don't have any problem with it, as long as we provide readers with some clarification, as it is certainly not the case that all libertarians are anarchists. But I think the source being cited is probably being given undue weight, here and elsewhere in the anarchism entries. A solitary academic suggesting a classificatory scheme may help us clarify some things, but the source is so general that the scheme can't legitimately be used to force-fit actual anarchisms into convenient boxes. That would simply be bad scholarship on our parts. Libertatia 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nothing more than pointing out that "libertarianism" is used as synonym for "anarchism." The sources are there. The one I provided specifically says it's "anarchism" is "also known as libertarianism." If you want to include a footnote that "libertarianism" may also be used to refer to statist philosophies, such as Milton Friedman's consequentialist libertarianism, go ahead.Anarcho-capitalism 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who's read a lot of material about anarchism knows that the terms are used interchangeable. For example, "Despite this diversity, we can categorize all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion the growth of the individual within a community (Anarcho-Communists, Christian Anarchists, and most Anarcho-Pacifists) and right-wing libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalists, and ultraindividualists) who are most egoistical and stress the individualism of the unregulated marketplace. Since the social ethic of American is not communal but is based on a private world of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (the self-made man, not social man) it is not surprising that what I call right-wing libertarianism was the predominant element of the new, explicit anarchism." DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. John Hopkins University Press, 1978, p.Anarcho-capitalism 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's obvious that they are not used "interchangeably." In some circles, they are used to designate opposing philosophies. So let's work up a short note, and I'll put something in the definitional concerns entry. Anyway, my more serious concern is that the source is getting undue weight. It is an idiosyncratic attempt at classification. Libertatia 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty indisputable that "anarchism" and "libertarian" have been used interchangeably, as synonyms. And, they continue to be, depending on the writer.Anarcho-capitalism 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Have been used"—as in, "have sometimes, but not nearly always, been used. But they have also been used to distinguish,say, anarchists and minarchists. Hence, the need for clarification. The LP, for example, is not an anarchist organization. By the same logic, we could say, "Anarchism (also known as "socialism")..." The one is a sub-set of the other. The terms "have been [sometimes] used" as synonyms and sometimes as terms in opposition. Libertatia 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Need another source? "For a century, anarchists have used the word "libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist," both as a noun and adjective." Ward, Colin. Anarchism. p. 62. And he's an anarcho-communist. Anarcho-communists are the most reliable sources because they know what true anarchism is all about, right?Anarcho-capitalism 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. "Anarchists have used" means that, and only that. And we have ample evidence that what is really true is that some anarchists have used it that way sometimes. Hence, the need for clarification. The LP is still not an anarchist organization. Libertatia 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I said go ahead and make a footnote that "libertarian" is also used to refer to statist philsophies. It's used as a synonym for anarchism. That's indisputable.Anarcho-capitalism 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that Chomsky considers the libertarian party to be anarchist. "One dream of anarchism - and the only kind that survived - was ultra-right anarchism, which you see in the libertarian party..." in Chomsky on Anarchism. I agree with him in the sense that many in the libertarian party are individualist anarchists. They're in the party as a means to reduce the scope of government until it can finally be eliminated totally.Anarcho-capitalism 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are taking that qoute out of context for your own purposes. sneaky devil. Blockader 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He's also taking Ward out of context. I happened to pick that book up from my school library a couple days ago and just read that part today. Two sentences after what AC cited, Ward says: "However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers - David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Paul Wolff - so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist 'libertarian' response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition." In conclusion to that chapter he says: "the American 'Libertarians' of the 20th century are academics rather than social activists, and their inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism." Funny, taking quotes out of context was a very common tactic of RJII. Hmmm.  Ungovernable Force  Poll: Which religious text should I read? 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, there should be a footnote on the bottom of the article page that mentions that "libertarianism" was originally a code-word for "anarchism" (because the governments of many Western countries in the 19th century outlawed anarchism, so anarchist used euphamisms for their ideology). But then there would need to be a footnote that "libertarian" originally referred only to non-capitalist forms of anarchism, and that it wasn't until the early 20th century (arguably the end of the 19th century) that "libertarian" could also refer to anti-state forms of capitalism. The term "libertarian" has such a complex history, that it would probably need it's own section in the article. It would have to go into talking about libertarian capitalism, libertarian socialism and libertarian communism (there are libertarian non-anarchist forms of communist ideology such as Council Communism and Autonomist Marxism). The word "libertarian" today is very nuanced from it's original meaning. It includes ideologies that are NOT anarchistic. Also, the word, in the US at least, is usually to refer solely to libertarian capitalism (and not necessarily 'anarcho'-capitalism either, it can also refer to Objectivism and Nozickian libertarianism). And A-C, I wish you would stop framing issues of anarchism as Anarcho-communism vs. every other anarchist. The only thing that anarcho-communists differ from other anarchists on is economic arrangement. And no two forms of anarchist organization are the same. Other than that, all anarchists share very similar ideas on other topics. If you're not talking about economic arrangements or revolutionary tactics, it's hard to tell anarcho-communists from non-communist anarchists. Full Shunyata 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We individualist anarchists call ourselves "libertarians" because the English word libertarianism originally referred to individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchists have always called themselves libertarians. Anarcho-comunists stole the term. I don't consider anarcho-communists to be libertarians, but I'm not going to push that POV in the article. Anyway, I added some explanation in the footnote that some use the term to refer to statist philosophies, and some only use it to refer to "right libertarianism."Anarcho-capitalism 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all libertarian capitalists are anarchists. For instance, Objectivists, Nozickians and such call themselves "libertarians". And the Libertarian Party refers to itself as libertarian, but it not anarchist. The term libertarian is certainly not a synonym for anarchism, but anarchism is a sub-set of libertarianism (in the broad sense, not in the libertarian capitalist sense). "Individualist anarchists have always called themselves libertarians. Anarcho-comunists stole the term." That's BS. The first person to call themself a "libertarian" was Joseph Dejacque, an anarcho-communist. Yes, anarcho-socialists called themselves "libertarian" as did social anarchists. Anti-state capitalists started referring to themselves as "libertarians" some time in the early 20th century. "I don't consider anarcho-communists to be libertarians" And I don't consider "anarcho"-capitalists or any kind of capitalist to be libertarian, but that's not the point and it would be POV of me to say so. Likewise if would be POV of you to edit the article to suggest the anarcho-communists are not libertarians. You really should either just devote a section of the article to explaining the connection of the word "libertarian" to anarchism (no dictionaries allowed), or extend your commentary in the article itself along with the footnote. As it is, the opening sentence will be very confusing to people in the US who generally think of the Libertarian Party when they hear the word "libertarian". Or is it your intent to try to limit anarchism to "anarcho"-capitalism? Seeing as you believe that "anarcho"-capitalism is the only "true" form of anarchism? In that case, this is a very POV thing of you to do. I won't edit it for now, only because if I do I might violate the 3-revert law, and you might pull a VisionThing and get me banned for a day for doing so. Full Shunyata 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the English word "libertarianism" seems to have first referred to belief in free will, and to have occured in theological debate. Libertatia 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, Libertatia. This movie by A-C is very curious and suspicious. He should know just as well as I, being a US citizen, that most US citizens think of the Libertarian Party or "anarcho"-capitalists when they hear the term "libertarian". Full Shunyata 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is a good old-fashioned anarchist word, and we have the clarifying footnote. That's good enough for me. Libertatia 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it did, and still does. See libertarianism (metaphysics). But, the word used in a political sense first referred to individualist anarchism. This is because individualists are concerned with people having the political liberty to exercise their free will. Anarcho-communism came later and stole the term. Anarcho-communists aren't libertarians at all, but authoritarians.Anarcho-capitalism 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * " But, the word used in a political sense first referred to individualist anarchism." No, it referred to both anarcho-socialists and social anarchists. Libertatia can fill you in on that. This historical revisionism has got to stop. I don't know if you're just that intellectually dishonest or if you really believe the lies you're telling. Please, for Pete's sake just be honest. If it's anything I can't stand, it's a liar. "is because individualists are concerned with people having the political liberty to exercise their free will." Individualist and Social Anarchists alike are concerned with free will and individualism. The difference is that anarcho-socialists are communal individualists and social anarchists tend to be individualistic communalists. However, I personally as an anarcho-communist have more of a communal individualist mindset. We just see the individuals from slightly different contexts. One from the outward looking in and the other from the inward looking out. "Anarcho-communists aren't libertarians at all, but authoritarians." *sigh* Whatever you say. I already wasted my breath on you earlier today with a long-winded speech in the "Voluntary Servitude" talk section and I'm not in the mood to do it again. We really should discuss the articles and not debate ideology. And the fact that you seem to lump anarchists into two categories of individualist anarchists (lumping in anarcho-socialists with "anarcho"-capitalism) and "anarcho-communism" to anyone who isn't an individualist anarchist (as if communism is the only social anarchism) shows that you have little knowledge about Anarchism outside of Rothbadian rhetoric. That's certainly not how we operate, think or organize ourselves. Full Shunyata 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you not aware that individualist anarchism preceded collectivist anarchism? Anarcho-communism came later. "Libertarianism" first referred to individualist anarchism. Social "anarchism" is not true anarchism at all but a perversion. It's a form of authoritarianism because it compels the individual to submit to the collective and serve the needs of others. It doesn't recognize the sovereignty of the individual.Anarcho-capitalism 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We understand that you don't understand social anarchism. Do you have a source applying "libertarian" to Warrenite individualism (the variety of individualist anarchism, pure and simple, which did actually predate anarcho-communism), prior to the use by anarchist communists? Libertatia 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand social anarchism. It denies the individual a right to own the product of his labor, whether that product is in consumer or capital goods. Therefore, it's the enemy of liberty and not anarchism. I don't have a source for the term being applied to pre-collectivist anarchism, but then I'm not stating that in the article. So, I have no need to look for one. Maybe I will.Anarcho-capitalism 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks, from the digital archives (including the French Gallica site), that the political term developed out of the philosophical/theological one, and that there was no meaningful distinction between English and French usages. It seems to have gained real currency somewhat later than "anarchism," which isn't used much until the 1870s. Libertatia 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Are you not aware that individualist anarchism preceded collectivist anarchism? Anarcho-communism came later." I originally said that anarcho-communists came first, but that's hard to say. It could be argued that anarcho-communism stretches as far back as the English Revolution of the 17th century (as the anarcho-communist article indicates). But it's hard to say because there were market forms of anarchism in egalitarian religious communities at the same time. At this point, who really cares? It doesn't really matter. Anarchists don't see our forms of organization as originating from intellectuals, we see them as spontaneously arising from the self-activity of the labor class or any underclass in any society. "It's a form of authoritarianism because it compels the individual to submit to the collective and serve the needs of others." As Libertatia said, you don't understand social anarchism. And if you still don't understand now, after all the lectures you've been given by various members, you never will. All I can say is that is very incorrect and seems like a very ignorant comment from a supposed "anarchist". I don't want to rule over anyone and I don't want anyone to rule over me. That's the personal philosophy of all anarchists (except maybe "anarcho"-capitalists). "I understand social anarchism." No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be making such assanine comments. "It denies the individual a right to own the product of his labor" Says who? Joseph Dejacque? I wish I had an eye-rolling emoticon right now. And that's the pot calling the kettle black because you yourself said that if an individual does not own the tools of labor or means of production, they have no right to the products of their own labor. You said that a person who draws a work of art on with borrowed paper and pencil has no right to it. So you're being quite hypocritical. "I don't have a source for the term being applied to pre-collectivist anarchism" Because you're talking out of where the sun don't shine. Full Shunyata 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand property. If you walk over to me and write on my peice of paper, how on Earth would that give you ownership of that paper? You have defaced my property. Either you're giving me the product of your labor or your vandalizing mine. Or, you have offered to sell me your drawing and I have paid you, and therefore it is mine. You don't understand property at all. "Anarcho"-communists believe that individuals have a right to be provided with their needs. Think about it. If one person is hungry, and another person has grown more food than he needs, then "anarcho"-communists consider him obligated to give to the hungry person (and they will "expropriate" to provide people with their "needs.") Therefore, "anarcho"-communism does not recognize the sovereignty of the individual and the product of his labor. Anarcho-capitalism acknowledges the right of the individual to decide for himself whether he is going to give to those in need. It condemns all expropriation of the product of labor. Therefore individualist anarchism is true anarchism. "Anarcho"-communism is authoritarian.Anarcho-capitalism 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "You still don't understand property." I understand it all too well. You don't understand the anarchist definition of property. "If you walk over to me and write on my peice of paper, how on Earth would that give you ownership of that paper?" I would also ask what gives business owners the right to the factories they own? The property deed enforced by the State? "Either you're giving me the product of your labor or your vandalizing mine." You seem to have a weird definition of "product of labor". How is the piece of paper the product of your labor? Did you make it yourself? If you just bought it, that doesn't make it your 'product of labor'. "Or, you have offered to sell me your drawing and I have paid you, and therefore it is mine." What if the person who drew the art on the borrowed piece of paper decides to not give it back to you because they won't want you profiting from their work? Then what? ""anarcho"-communists consider him obligated to give to the hungry person" Not neccessarily. But it would be kind to do so. However, he isn't "obligated" to do so. "and they will "expropriate" to provide people with their "needs."" You're demonstrating your fundamental ignorance of anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communists do not advocate people demanding things on other people's personal possessions. A house is a personal possession. If a person is in another person's house, they have no right to demand anything so long as their freedom is not violated. We believe that people have the right to produce food for themselves in their own fields. Or, if they want other food, they can go to a restaurant commons or cafeteria commons and prepare their own food with the items there. A commons is land or "property" that is open to all and not owned by anyone since it is used to provide for society. I had a feeling that you don't truly understand anarcho-communism. People who hate things the most are usually the people with the poorest understanding of whatever it is they hate. Racists are one of the most common examples of this. Full Shunyata 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what ownership means? If you owns something that means you can do what you want with it, include transfer ownership to someone else. If a take materials out of their natural environment and build, say, a printing press, I may then transfer ownership to someone else - sell it. If someone has a right to OWN the product of his labor, and if ownership includes the right to transfer ownership, then ownership of the product of labor entails ownership of that product by the tranferee. The point is, the purchaser of a machine is the legitimate owner of that machine - it doesn't matter whether it's the product of HIS labor or not. It was the product of SOMEONE's labor, and is therefore private property. If you ask me to allow you work that machine for me, for pay, and I oblige, you don't then own that machine and you don't then own the newspapers that it produces. As far as anarcho-communism, it explicitly denies a right to private property. It wishes to abolish private ownership of means of production, to abolish trade, and abolish money. It sees expropriation of private property as legitimate. Therefore it does not recognize the sovereignty of the individual, and is not libertarian. It's not true anarchism but an imposter.Anarcho-capitalism 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go again, assuming that I don't know what certain concepts mean. Mr. A-C, I know anarchist concepts very well. I'm no amatuer or newbie and I'm no dummy. I know what "anarcho"-capitalism is very well, which is why I don't accept it. "Do you understand what ownership means?" "If you owns something that means you can do what you want with it," I don't believe in ownwership, I believe in usage. What someone means when they say they "own" something is that they consistently use it for something. Now any anarchist from Tucker to Kropotkin would agree. "If a take materials out of their natural environment and build, say, a printing press," Think for a minute, how many capitalists actually do this? How many capitalists personally physically built their workplace or built the tools of labor their employees use? "If someone has a right to OWN the product of his labor, and if ownership includes the right to transfer ownership," First of all, most workers are not in this hypothetical position because most workers do not own the tools of labor they use. Second of all, "ownership" is an ideology, not a scientifically verifiable "natural right". It's a concept created by the human mind. Third of all, you constantly talk about the "right" to give up things. I am starting to see what Jacob Heller meant about the "anarcho"-capitalist attachment to instrumental individualism (the right to sell one's freedom) as opposed to existential individualism (the right to not give up one's freedom to outside coercion). "As far as anarcho-communism, it explicitly denies a right to private property." In the capitalist sense, yes. In the sense of individual ownership, no. If a person uses something to produce for themself, whether it be an oven or a field, it's a personal possession. Apparently you still don't grasp the anarchist concept of "possession". All anarchists from Individualists to Communists don't really think of things in terms of "property". So you should stop trying to impose your non-anarchistic concepts into anarchism. "it doesn't matter whether it's the product of HIS labor or not." It does if you're trying to claim it's their "product of labor". You said, "It wishes to abolish private ownership of means of production," If a worker owns their own tools of production or has their own private means of production for themself, no we don't. If a person has a factory and insists on trying to get people to work for them so they can sell other people's products of labor, yes we do. You said we wish "to abolish trade". Some do, some don't. I personally support trade such as anarcho-syndicalism. In fact, I prefer a communist form of trade such as P2P economy. I believe trade is necessary when dealing with other communities or countries. You also said we wish to, "abolish money". No argument here. We believe that money can eventually lead to capital which leads to wage work. I for one am against the concept of work. We also know that money is a form of regulation because it dictates what you can and cannot have in life. Anarcho-communists are against regulations. "Therefore it does not recognize the sovereignty of the individual" We recognize the sovereignty of the individual so much that we are not willing to sell our freedom or time to anyone else. Nor are we willing to give up land to anyone who wants us to labor for them. Nor are we willing to be controlled by a wealthy minority. Nor are we willing to be deprived of "property" and have to end up working for someone with property. Nor are we willing to allow ourselves to be denied things in life because we don't have enough money. Nor will we follow the dictates and rules of some boss, or the laws set by some "anarcho"-capitalist company that owns all the property in town, or abide by the laws that "libertarian law-markers" set down. If you think anarcho-communists are opposed to individual liberty, you're just plain uninformed. You said, "It's not true anarchism but an imposter." I thought you said that you didn't care for what is considered "real anarchism"? And for somoene who belongs to an anarchist school of thought that is not considered to be legitimate by most people in every other school of anarchism, that's mighty big talk. Full Shunyata 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got too many things jumbled together there for me to understand or be willing to take the time to sort through. Sorry. But, when I skimmed over it, I saw you opposed work. That's very funny.Anarcho-capitalism 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You said, "You've got too many things jumbled together there for me to understand" in other words, you have nothing to say in defense, but want to save face and not admit it. I understand. One key thing I said was, "I am starting to see what Jacob Heller meant about the "anarcho"-capitalist attachment to instrumental individualism (the right to sell one's freedom) as opposed to existential individualism (the right to not give up one's freedom to outside coercion)." I don't know how I could possibly make that any more clear. "You said, "...when I skimmed over it, I saw you opposed work. That's very funny." Not funny at all. I have an ethic similar to Bob Black's when it comes to the concept of work. You should read his works "The Libertarian As Conservative" and his essays against work. He goes into how "anarcho"-capitalists, statis conservatives, and authoritarian Marxists are all very similar in the regard that they hold hard work to be an unquestionable sacred cow value in and of itself. If nothing else, all I wanted you to take away from what I said is that you can't learn about the anarcho-communist movements simply by reading Dejacque and Kropotkin.


 * Back in the "Voluntary Servitude" talk section, I said this about the anarchist movement, "You seem to assume that anarchists have the same mindset as Marxists. We don't hold to "tradition" and we don't confine our thought and organization to individual intellectuals. Anarchism is a labor class movement that's a way of organization and radical democratic process and decision-making. We encourage and fiercely believe in change and growth, we are constantly evolving and changing and coming up with new ways of thinking and organizing. We have intellectuals and philosophers, but in no way are they held by us in the same god-like regard that Marxists hold their intellectuals. We don't view or hold Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tucker, Proudhon, etc. in the same way that Marxists view Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, etc. They were just prominent men of the anarchist movement who introduced valuable ideas to us. They are not "founders" that we must hold to or organize around. So quoting Dejacque is nigh worthless because anarcho-communists don't have to agree with him, and many don't. And I could just as easily bring up the fact that Bakunin was an anti-Semite and how Lysander Spooner's property philosophy tied him into such an intellectual knot that it caused him to agree with White settlers taking away Indian land. That doesn't mean that Individualist anarchists agree with Spooner's accidental acceptance of imperialism, and it doesn't mean that Collectivist anarchists are anti-Semites. We are thinking men and women who have or own minds, our own thoughts and our own ways. Intellectual and academic orthodoxy and tradition be damned. We are not Marxists and we are not academic State Socialists. We are Anarchists and ours is a tradition where any man and woman can invent their own ways of organization (as long as they hold to basic things that make it anarchistic, such as liberty, equality, non-hierarchy, etc.). This is not a movement of middle-class intellectuals. Please address anarchist philosophy accordingly. Don't hold up Dejacque as if he's some sort of god who layeth down the 'law' of anarcho-communism and we all agree with him." If nothing else, just know that. Full Shunyata 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject of undue weight, I notice there is also an undue weight on opposition to communism. A-C seems to be fond of adding in anti-communist quotes to signify that certain anarchists were opposed to communism. Should anti-capitalist quotes to signify their opposition to capitalism from the same anarchists be added in to even it out? Full Shunyata 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A-C really has no business editing these pages. He's shown a penchant for coming up with some really outlandish original research about anarchism. Chuck0 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. It's pretty difficult find a 19th century individualist anarchist explicitly saying he opposes "capitalism." "Capitalism" back then meant private ownership of the means of production, but they supported that. Some of them understood "capitalism" to mean state protection of banks from competition. And I have a source saying that that's what they understood "capitalism" to mean. So, it's not the same thing as what capitalism means today, which is a free-market economy.Anarcho-capitalism 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all, I have many close by right now. The only problem is, you would keep contesting, saying that they didn't really mean "capitalism" (the way you define it) when they condemned it. But then, I could make the equally silly case that they didn't really mean or understand "communism" when they condemned it. However, in the case of some like Tucker, some anarcho-socialists in the 19th century truly didn't understand anarcho-communism. By some of the things he said. "the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 404] That's just one I have lying around right now. Full Shunyata 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What Tucker is saying there is that he doesn't like the idea of an employer making money if he's not working. If an employer labors too and makes money from it, he has no problem with it. It's not employment itself that he's opposed to. Because he was deceived by the religious labor theory of value, he thought there was something WRONG with having income without exerting oneself, which is absurd. There's nothing at all wrong with it. If anyone can do that, good for them. Everyone should aspire to that.Anarcho-capitalism 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The nineteenth century individualist anarchists did oppose capitalism. I don't dispute that. That's why I reject them. They're not true anarchists, but close (with the exception of those like Spooner and Byington that allowed people to own land while not using it). But, I'm saying that you're going to have a hard time finding them saying that they opposed "capitalism," because back then it usually simply meant private ownership of the means of production. They reject capitalism by MY definition, but not by all definitions. But, you're going to have an even hard time finding them saying that they oppose anarcho-capitalism, because it didn't exist yet, at least not in name.Anarcho-capitalism 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can come up with all the convoluted reasoning you want (I know what Tucker is saying, and he isn't quite saying what you said), the fact is that he and others condemned capitalism. Likewise, I could come up with convoluted reasoning to explain away their oppositions to communism as well. At least be consistent. You put anti-communist quotes out from them all the time and expect them to understand what they are against, yet when someone cites and anti-capitaist quote from them (which are just as plentiful, if not more so), you want to resort to saying "Oh they just meant....", "They didn't understand how "anarcho"-capitalists define capitalism, so......." If you're going to add in your own convolulted reasons about how they didn't really condemn capitalism, then others should be able to add in convolunted reasoning about how they didn't really condemn communism either. Full Shunyata 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh?Anarcho-capitalism 23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh* You keep on trying to explain the quotes of 19th century individualists in such a way to make them not opposed to capitalism. Even when they use the word "capitalism". However, when they say they are opposed to communism, you don't go through the same mental gymnastics. You just accept it at face value. Full Shunyata 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read what you're replying to. Look what I said: "The nineteenth century individualist anarchists did oppose capitalism. I don't dispute that. That's why I reject them. They're not true anarchists, but close (with the exception of those like Spooner and Byington that allowed people to own land while not using it)." I'm saying that you're going to have a problem find a quote from them saying they oppose "capitalism." They rarely used the term. Another problem is that they had a different definition of capitalism than we have today. Tucker understood it as state protection of the banking monopoly. And, even if you found that a quote where they say they oppose "capitalism," that is not the same thing as opposing anarcho-capitalism. That's like saying someone opposing "communism" is also opposing anarcho-communism. That's not necessarily true.Anarcho-capitalism 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, there are plenty of people who are in favor of capitalism but are opposed to anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A-C, you are right in that 19th century individualists and mutualists didn't use the word "capitalism" as frequently as social anarchists. However, they didn't mention the word "socialism" as often as social anarchists either. Even when they don't mention the word "capitalism", you can clearly tell when they are talking about capitalism by the way they describe what they're speaking against. Just like you can say that you think non-Whites are inferior without ever using the word "inferior" by saying things that would suggest inferiority. 19th century anarcho-socialists would do things like condemn "socialism" while praising "socialism" in the next breath. That's because they would be referring to State Socialism then refer to Anarchism while still using the word "socialism". You said, "That's like saying someone opposing "communism" is also opposing anarcho-communism. That's not necessarily true." I know. That's why sometimes when anarcho-socialists condemned "communism", it's not clear whther they mean libertarian communism, anarcho-communism or authoritarian Marxism. The fact that the term "communism" is quite vague (even vaguer than "capialism") doesn't help the matter either. Lastly you said, "Also, there are plenty of people who are in favor of capitalism but are opposed to anarcho-capitalism." Yes, I know. There are also people who call themselves libertarian capitalists who are not anarcho-capitalists. That's why saying "libertarian" is a synonym for anarchism is kind of like saying that "circle" is a synonym for "oval". Full Shunyata 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we say "Anarchism (a subset of libertarianism)" instead? Jacob Haller 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because it's simply a synonym for anarchism in the language of anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On the topic...
Does anyone want to consider making a Libertarian (word) article, discussing the history of the word? The article, obviously, would discuss the word's origins in philosophy, its use by Dejacque and subsequently as a synonym for anarchism, its recent use by minarchist capitalists, and everything in between, including terms like libertarian socialism that have sprung from it.

That way, the opening sentence could read thus:
 * Anarchism (occasionally known as libertarianism)...

Without too much confusion. There would still be problems, but they would be lessened.

Even without that edit to the lead, I'd still like to see the article created. Thoughts? ~  Swi tch t 09:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems OK to me. -- Vision Thing -- 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist trolling
I'd like to suggest that people read the talk page for Anarchism in the United States and my talk page for examples of the nutty things that Anarcho-capitalism is doing to anarchist-related entries. He's clearly using Wikipedia to publish his rather own theories about anarchism, which have no basis in reality. He just posted on my talk page that anarchism isn't anarchist and also claimed that anarcho-capitalism is bigger than "socialist anarchism." Anarcho-capitalism argues this despite my best efforts to educate him on the subject of anarchism in the United States, pointing out to him that anarchist distributors such as AK Press don't carry any Rothbard books, nor do any of the standard anarchist anthologies include Rothbard. I also have good reason to believe that this user was edit-warring with me several weeks ago using a sock puppet called "Your Honor". If any real anarchists want to work with me on this problem, please contact me via email (chuck@mutualaid.org) Chuck0 04:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never seen anyone who cites their additions to the extent that I do. If there's one thing I'm not guilty of, it's original research. On the other hand, you keep deleting the whole Rothbard section out of that article, which is extensively sourced. You've been provided with tons of sources. So, you're essentially vandalizing the article. "Your honor" is a sockpuppet of me? Wow. I've got my very own sockpuppet?Anarcho-capitalism 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You and your sockpuppet have an obsession with keeping Rothbard on that page. I did a little poking around on your history pages and the sockpuppet came into existence in December, right after I deleted the Rothbard section for the first time. As I've established on the talk page for the Anarchism in the United State entry, the section on Rothbard is original research because the inclusion of it is out of balance for the subject of the page. Rothbard is not a notable American anarchist, even if you grant the dubious idea that he is an anarchist in the first place. There are other, far more important and influential anarchists who should be featured on that page. I looked through anarchist anthologies and other sources in my collection and found no articles and only a few references to Rothbard. Chuck0 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tons of source have been provide. The Rothbard section is going to stay, and there's nothing you can do about it. Take this "sockpuppet" nonsense up with someone else. Go complain to an authority or something, because I'm not interested.Anarcho-capitalism 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some anarcho-capitalist sockpuppets are trolling. I've been Wiki-stalked by a couple in the past. User A-C in particular doesn't seem to be trolling, he's actually one of the more relatively reasonable anarcho-capitalist editors. However, I do feel that he seems to have an extrodinarily difficult time being objective and seperating his own personal ideology and opinions from his editing. Some of the things that he writes in the articles talk from an anarcho-capitalist POV instead of just a neutral objective perspective. And some of his edits as of late seem designed to push the articles to try to suggest or hint that "anarcho"-capitalism is the only or at least "truest" form of anarchism. Full Shunyata 14:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me the evidence. Show me any edits where I am pushing an article "to try to suggest or hint that "anarcho"-capitalism is the only or at least "truest" form of anarchism." I would never do such a thing. I'm an ardent supported of the NPOV rule.Anarcho-capitalism 14:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, on second thought, User A-C is stooping to trolling now. He recently took out a quote from Proudhon in the anarcho-communism article (click on History) because it spoke against tyrannical forms of private property. His only explanation for taking it out was, "Proudhon didn't support equality, he supported people becoming rich." This is not only bollocks, Proudhon can clearly be seen supporting equality many times in his writings. Proudhon never said anything about "becoming rich" (he never guaranteed that mutualism would make people "rich", only give them the "full product of their labor"), nor did he condemn equality. A-C seems to be trying to edit out anything from Proudhon or Tucker that would make them opposed to anarcho-capitalism. He seems down and determined to edit Wikipedia to suggest that the only types of anarchism are capitalism and communism with nothing in-between. Full Shunyata 14:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You were claiming that Proudhon supported equalized ownership of private property. That's not true. How could it possibly be true in a market economy where private property is in a constant state of flux? You provided a quote from Proudhon but it said nothing of the sort. As far as your other claims about what I "seem" to be doing, it may "seem" like it to you, but it's not the case. I have not edited "out anything from Proudhon or Tucker that would make them opposed to anarcho-capitalism." And I have not "edited Wikipedia to suggest that the only types of anarchism are capitalism and communism with nothing in-between." You're probably confusing my comments on the discussion page with my edits.Anarcho-capitalism 14:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummmmm.... Proudhon is the man who coined the famous Anarchist phrase "Property is theft!". You do realize this, right? Seriously, have you ever read Proudhon? You really should probably start with "What Is Property?" - Proudhon was strongly opposed to private property. KxWaal (talk)


 * I fixed it. My explanation was a bit off. Proudhon didn't exactly call for equal property, he called for equal condition which he believed would negate differences in amounts of private property. He believed that inequality in condition would lead to those with more property becoming tyrannical towards those with less. It was an error on my part, but you could have handled it better. Proudhon certainly never said anything about "becoming rich". He spoke against money monpolies like Tucker. Full Shunyata 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you realized your error about property. Besides him not advocating that, it's not possible in a market economy because property is constantly in trade (and Proudhon wanted people to be paid according to their labor; not all people want to work equal amounts). Some people are going to be wealthier than others. But Proudhon certainly did say that people should strive to become rich. I'll see if I can find the quote. And, yes of course he spoke against money monoplies like Tucker and Rothbard. Anarchists who support markets think money and banking should be totally unregulated.Anarcho-capitalism 14:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A-C, I agree that equal private property is something hard to do in a market economy (ANY market economy whether socialist or capitalist, etc.). If he did indeed say that he desired for people to "become rich", that seems like a curious statement. How exactly would a person become rich without having a money monopoly? Doesn't being "rich" imply that someone else is poor or at least that one has some sort of excess of currency? At any rate, most anarchists whether indie, mutualist, syndicalist, communist, collectivist, etc. today aren't so concerned with becoming rich. There's much more to life than money and riches don't ensure happiness. We're concerned with building free societies without coercion, hierarchy and authority. Even if one doesn't become "rich" in such a society, we think it's preferable to a society of authority, inequality and coercion. Full Shunyata 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "money monopoly"? As far as inequality, true anarchists (individualists) are not opposed to unequal wealth distribution and support the right to become rich. "Anarcho"-communists are opposed to it. They want everyone to be an equal. I can't think of anything more repulsive. As Rothbard said, "At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity." And, sure, if you're speaking in relative terms, becoming rich implies that someone else is poor. But that's because we're using "poor" as a relative term. Someone today you consider rich can be poor tommorow while having the same amount of wealth as he had today, if everyone else tommorow becomes much more wealthy than him. Everyone in the world can't be "rich" because rich means wealthier than others. Again, what do you mean by "money monopoly" and what does that have to do with being rich? Apparently you mean something different than Tucker and his buddies.Anarcho-capitalism 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A-C said, "What do you mean by "money monopoly"?" I don't know how I could make this any clearer. You do know what a monopoly is, right? Then you said, "As far as inequality, true anarchists (individualists) are not opposed to unequal wealth distribution" 1) No one here cares about what a "true anarchist" is or if there even is such a thing. 2) Individualists were certainly opposed to coercion, hierarchy and inequality. User:William Gillis already explained that. "Anarcho"-capitalists are not. Then you said, "Anarcho"-communists are opposed to it. They want everyone to be an equal. I can't think of anything more repulsive." What do you mean by "equality"? What are anarcho-communists opposed to? You said you are opposed to equality. Well, for a person who plans to be someone's boss in an "anarchist" society, I'm sure you do find the concept of equality repulsive. "Anarcho"-capitalist want to perserve authoritarian economic relations such as boss and worker. Until you can show what you mean by "equality" when you say anarcho-communists support it, all the Rothbard quotes in the world won't make your point more valid. "But that's because we're using "poor" as a relative term." Don't act like you don't know what "rich" and "poor" mean. We're speaking on economic terms here, and we know what a comfortable living is in a market society. Come on now. "Everyone in the world can't be "rich" because rich means wealthier than others." I agree. Which is why it would be silly of Proudhon or anyone else to say that they want everyone to be rich in a market economy. Unles they're using an alternate definiton of "rich". "Apparently you mean something different than Tucker and his buddies". You have yet to show that Tucker or Proudhon ever said such a thing. And they used words differently than "anarcho"-capitalists and anarcho-communists.Full Shunyata 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, when I was looking through the History of anarchist articles, in the Anarcho-Capitalism article I came across a user called "Anarko-Kapitalizt". They doesn't seem to have a user page, and they mainly hangs around the anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism articles. Their name is supiciously close to that of User:Anarcho-capitalism. A-C, do you know this guy/gal? Full Shunyata 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him. Maybe he's my sockpuppet or something.Anarcho-capitalism 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If Bookchin is notable I am definitely inclined to give Rothbard notability on the Anarchism in America page. Sorry Chuck, all you're proving is that ancaps are outside the Anarchist SOCIAL movement. Which is obvious and proves nothing. Of course those from the Red & Black tradition reject Rothbard, they also go out of their way to re-write history to marginalize individualist tendencies and famous figures. Those books are written with sectarian intent and that's painfully obvious. BUT, User:Anarcho-capitalism, reviewing the logs your underhanded techniques are pretty hard to empathize with and you seriously need to knock off the trolling. No way was Proudhon okay with people getting filthy rich. That's just bald-faced lying. Anarchism has ALWAYS been about opposition to RULERSHIP not some tiny portion of formalized "government." Insofar, and ONLY insofar, as "Anarcho-Capitalism" or any other school opposes ALL FORMS OF POWER do they hold any tenuous grasp on "Anarchism." Furthermore, I note with particular delight that "Anarcho-Capitalism" is giving way to "Market Anarchism" in the social sphere. Go fight Long and Spangler's insurrection in your own backyard and stop vandalizing.--William Gillis 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bookchin was a notable American anarchist, whereas Rothbard had little to no influence on American anarchism. This is fairly easy to verify if one spends some time with anarchist books and magazine. Bookchin wrote such influential anarchist books as ''Post-scarcity anarchism" and many others. He participated in some significant debates with other anarchists, ranging from the debates of libertarian municipalism to social anarchism to deep ecology. Bookchin's essays and articles were regularly published in anarchist periodicals. He was quoated in newspapapers such as the New York Times as an anarchist. I believe that AK Press is republishing several of his books. Chuck0 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Soures disagree with your claim that Rothbard has little or not influence on American anarchism. You've seen some source I provided you, so you're just giving your personal opinion, which is fine. That's your POV. But your POV doesn't matter when the sources contradict you.Anarcho-capitalism 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Proudhon certainly did say that individuals should strive to become wealthy and comfortable. Why wouldn't he? Unfortunately I don't have the quote on hand. Being wealthy isn't ruling over someone. I don't understand where you're coming from with that. As far as me "vandalizing," let's see some evidence of that. Put up or shut up.Anarcho-capitalism 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Deleting a quote by Proudhon because it didn't fit in with your weird perspective that "Proudhon didn't support equality, he supported people becoming rich." Supporting striving for material "comfort" is quite a far leap from that. Furthermore, I note your later change in semantics. "Wealth" has subtly different connotations from the state of being Rich, which very clearly invoke (then and today) power and authority. You must at least accept the Austrian reality that no one gets "rich" these days without being complicit in Statist oppression. As such the word (though it may be possible to reclaim it in a later world where oppression is impossible, the market is incapable of starving people to death, and the popular connotations of "rich" refers only to personal wealth that can be feasibly obtained without coercion) is effectively statist and authoritarian. Arbitrarily deleting an ACTUAL QUOTE is vandalism. But your stated rationale is also revisionist, plainly ludicrous, and implies a contradiction with the spirit of anarchism.--William Gillis 05:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * William, I also noticed that as of late, A-C seems to have an interest in the Collectivist Anarchism article and seems intent on trying to claim that collectivist anarchism is a "mix of inidividualism and collectivism". He seems to be using "individualism" as a synonym for markets and "private" ownership. This is original research by any standards since this is an unusual and revisionistic definition of "individualism". Full Shunyata 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what "original research" means? It means something is not cited or citeable. I cited the statement that "Collectivist Anarchism" is a mix of individualism and collectivism. Do you understand what "private" ownership means? It means INDIVIDUAL ownership. Moreover, do you understand that "Collectivist Anarchism" is a proper noun and refers to specfically to the philosophy of Bakunin? "collectivist anarchism" and "Collectivist anarchism" are not the same thing. There are collectivist forms of anarchism that are not "Collectivist anarchism." (capital C).Anarcho-capitalism 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A-C said, "Do you understand what "private" ownership means? It means INDIVIDUAL ownership." Yes, but that is not the same thing as "individualism". That's why I clarified saying Bakunian collectivism is a mix of Mutualist economcis and collectivization of property. It's less confusing. I don't see what was wrong with the clarification. "There are collectivist forms of anarchism that are not "Collectivist anarchism."" What are you talking about? Full Shunyata 21:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have a source saying it is mix of mutualism and collectivization of property. Bakunin was a severe critic of mutualism. To answer your question about what I mean, anarcho-communism is a collectivist form of anarchism, but it's not "Collectivist anarchism." "Collectivist anarchism" specifically refers to Bakunin's philosophy, even though anarcho-communism is much more collectivist.Anarcho-capitalism 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not evidence at all. A comment in the explanation box explaining an edit does not constitute vandalism. Vandalism would be vandalizing an article. I was deleting the claim that Proudhon supported equalized wealth distribution, which was wrong. Proudhon was not a communist. I deleted a quote that was supposed to indicate that Proudhon supported equal ownership of wealth, but it did not. I was right to remove the quote that was falsely being used as a source to say something it did not say. The editor realized his error and admitted he misinterpreted Proudon. Thanks to my removing that claim, and my comment, and the article is better and more correct as a result. So, no, I did not vandalize a thing.Anarcho-capitalism 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as being rich, being rich is a good thing. It doesn't mean anyone is oppressing anyone. Your neighbor is wealthy and you live a shack. So what? Get rich yourself if you're envious.Anarcho-capitalism 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as "the spirit of anarchism," what the hell is that? "The spirit of anarchism" is nothing more than tangle of contradictions. The egoists individualist anarchists believe might makes right. Benjamin Tucker said, "Man's only right to land is his might over it." Stirner said "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." According to them stealing, coercion, and aggression are fine. Many anarcho-communists preached and practiced terrorism. So, don't talk to me about "the spirit of anarchism." "Anarchism," as a whole, has no spirit to speak of.Anarcho-capitalism 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard use of the term "socialism" by Tucker
SwitChar, why are you removing the SOURCED note that Tucker did not use the term "socialism" in the standard way that it is used today? Socialism is by definition opposed to private ownership of the means of production. It advocates state or collective ownership, both of which Tucker opposed. You referred me to socialism article, but since when is Wikipedia a reliable source for anything? I don't see anything in that article that is sourced to say that socialists support private ownership of the means of production. Anarcho-capitalism 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it because it's stupid and blatantly false. Socialists are not universally opposed to private ownership of the means of production. Maybe Wikipedia won't do, but the Encyclopædia Britannica should. "(Some socialists) have proposed selective nationalization of key industries, with controlled private ownership of the remainder." Can we declare this finished now? ~  Swi tch t 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No we can't declare it finished. That's an accurate statement about socialism, and that's why Tucker wasn't a socialist. He was opposed to both state, or social, ownership of means of production as well as state, or social control, over private means of production. Look at the definition at the top of that article: "system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces." That's dead opposite Tucker's philosophy. Tucker was for the liberty of individual control over one's own means of production. Socialism is for social control over the means of production. Individualism=individual control. Socialism=social control. Get it?Anarcho-capitalism 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nonstandard" is pure POV language which does not help to clarify the actual history. We're slowly but surely getting this stuff into the definitional concerns entry, but it would also be very simple to refer readers to Lesigne's "The Two Socialisms" or Tucker's "Armies that Overlap" (both from Liberty) in order to show what Tucker meant (and to show the persistent tradition of non-state socialism.) Libertatia 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. Saying in the article that Tucker was a socialist is "pure POV language." It misleads the reader. Everyone today understand socialism to mean collective control, whether that collective is a state or a community, over the means of production. Tucker was most definitely not a socialist. It's a simple fact that Tucker calling himself a "socialist" is non-standard of the term today. The reader needs to know that, if the article says that he called himself a socialist.Anarcho-capitalism 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it is simply not true that "everyone" understands socialism as state socialism. Second, you cannot impose your very narrow definition of what it meant to be a "socialist" on history, nor can you impose one definition of "socialism" on the field of language0-use, based on OR about "what everybody thinks." Individualists were organizationally affiliated with the rest of the socialist movement in the IWA and subsequent radical congresses. The primary sources from the period show a constant debate over the limits of "socialism," as we would expect from a broad movement, containing libertarian and authoritarian factions. We do need clarification, and we have very good sources for that. The approach here ought to be to give readers the most accurate sense of Tucker's position. Tucker's position was that he was a non-state socialist and that characterization was intelligible according to the usages of his time, just as it is in ours. To attempt to efface the non-state socialist position can be nothing but POV, according to Wikipedia standards. Any such imposition of ignorance about the actual history, pursued doggedly and purposefully, has to be suspect on scholarly and ideological grounds. Libertatia 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say everyone understands socialism as state socialism. I said they understand it as collective control or ownership of the means production, and that collective may be a state or a community. And, It's not "my" definition, dude. It's the definition from probably every source out there. Socialism is defined by advocating social control over the means of production. Anarcho-communism is a form of socialism because it's for social control over the means of production, but individualist anarchism is obviously not. Social anarchism=social control. Individulaist anarchism=individual control. If it's stated he's a socialist, then it needs to be stated to the reader that he's not using today's definition. Obscure terms or obscure uses of terms need to be clarified in Wikipedia when you use them. There are sources saying that it's non-standard usage. If you delete them, you're being disruptive. If you disagree with them, then find a source that disagrees that it's non-standard usage, then cite that one too. That's how Wikipedia works.Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Dude," even if your etymological games actually made logical sense, they're still OR. We can easily clarify exactly what Tucker meant by "Socialism," and, as easily, clarify what Brad Spangler or Kevin Carson mean. Most people think "anarchy" means disorder, and this has always been the case, but I don't see you inserting a "nonstandard usage" disclaimer every time we talk about anarchism. Your POV is showing. Libertatia 19:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what "original research" means? That which is cited is not original research. The statement that Tucker was using the term "socialism" in a non-standard way was cited.Anarcho-capitalism 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you had left it at that, then we might not have had to have that part of this conversation. But you, as you so often do, continue to make claims about the "standard" meaning of terms which simply are not substantiated by any sources. You are basing editing decisions on original research. Your source may or may not be getting undue weight. Once again, it would be easy to cite a source claiming that anarchism is "really" just chaos, but we do not give those sources weight in this article. Libertatia 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes my claims are substantiated. Look for definitions of socialism, in reference books, dictionaries, encyclopedia, political encylopedia, philosophy encylopedias, etc. The common definition of socialism is social ownership of control over the means of production. Tucker does not qualify as a socialist for any of the definitions of socialism. Just because someone calls themself a socialist, it doesn't make them one. I can call myself a socialist too, but it contradicts the standard meaning of "socialism," because I support individual control over the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as my "POV showing," I should hope so. I think I make my POV pretty clear and am not afraid to hide it. But, I don't "POV push" in articles. This is to benefit the readers. They need to know that Tucker was not a socialist as socialism is commonly defined (and as I, as well, define it. He was not a socialist but an individualist).Anarcho-capitalism 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I see you fight as hard for the inclusion of "nonstandard use" clauses every time "anarchism" or "anarchy" is mentioned, I will take your claims of objectivity more seriously. As to the solution of the problem, it is obviously to make clear what Tucker meant, not to claim that he didn't know what he was talking about when he said it, or to further marginalize one of the two major socialist traditions. The solution is good history, without the editorializing. We have the sources. We do not have a problem, unless it is the undue weight being given an obviously biased and historically inaccurate source. Libertatia 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows anarchism refers to doctrine, and not chaos. So, don't give me that.Anarcho-capitalism 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming that "everybody knows that," do they also know that anarchism isn't a violent movement? These uninformed "consensus" definitions are social facts that we have to deal with, but they should not dictate our course. Libertatia 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It IS a violent movement(s). There is anarchist doctrine that supports violent terrorism and there's the peaceful philosophical anarchim. The association of anarchism with violence is well justified and accurate.Anarcho-capitalism 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So a widespread popular understanding of anarchism as a violent movement is no more conclusive about the actual range of anarchism than a widespread popular understanding about the nature of socialism. You make an exception is one case, but not in the other. Be consistent. Libertatia 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Tucker didn't know what he was talking about when he called himself a socialist. It's just that "socialism" didn't really have a consensus definition back then. He came up with his own idiosyncratic definition, which is very obscure. If you think Tucker was a socialist by today's consensus definitions, then you're one in a million, and so are the 3 or 4 other people in the world that believe that. Speaking in contemporary English, I can say with certainty that Tucker was not a socialist. Look at the Wikipedia definition (sourced) even: "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." Who in their right mind would say that that corresponds to Tucker's philosophy? Anarcho-capitalism 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you haven't even read the sources from Liberty, as they make it clear that Tucker had at least some company in his "idiosyncracy." If you were better read in the primary material, you would know that he had lots of company, and always has had. In any event, there is a simple, NPOV solution to the problem, which is to respect the diversity of "socialisms" and clarify the differences. It involves no falsification of history, creates no confusions among informed readers, and does not pander to the misconceptions of uninformed readers. Real history: what could be better? Libertatia 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, some other anarcho-capitalists and me can choose to call ourselves "socialists," but that wouldn't make us socialists. Since we support individual ownership of the means of production, we're not socialists. It's the same for Tucker and his buddies. Since he supports individual ownership then he's not a socialist, even if he calls himself one. Socialists support social control over property. Individualists support individual control. And I have the consensus of contemporary definitions with me on that.Anarcho-capitalism 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should add a short paragraph on definitional concerns to the intro. Basically saying that anarchists oppose the state and other compulsary government, so anarchists criticize state capitalism [which has its own definitional problems, what with Lenin's NEP] and state socialism... Jacob Haller 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * State capitalism is a form of socialism. Therein lies the dilemma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SR - RE (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Until User A-C comes up with sufficient evidence that ALL forms of socialism are opposed to private ownership, his "non-standard" add-on will be deleted. Full Shunyata 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be disruptive. Don't delete cited information. I don't delete your cited information, those rare times when you do cite your edits. You should have the same respect for others. The sources is not saying that "all forms of socialism are opposed to private ownership." It's saying that Tucker is using the word "socialism" in a unconventional way. It's like me calling myself a socialist. I can do it, but it's contrary to the ordinary definition.Anarcho-capitalism 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep saying "non-standard". First, you'd have to prove, with cited sources, what exactly is the "standard" definition of socialism. Second, the source, Wendy McElroy, is an anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly a NPOV source to talk about what socialism is. Third, like others have been saying, the note is not needed because no anarchist used the term socialism in the "standard" sense. Libertatia already referenced "The Two Socialisms". I deleted the note because there is no one standard definition of "socialism". If the article on Tucker needs a note, then there should be a note in the article on Anarcho-Capitalism saying that "anarcho"-capitalists don't use the term "capitalism" in the "standard" sense. It's that silly. Full Shunyata 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No I don't have to prove what the standard definition of socialism. Look it up in any encyclopedia, dictionary, dictionary of politics, or dictionary of philosophy. Look it up in the Wikipedia article even. Socialism refers to social control over the means of production or other other property. Individualists, such as anarcho-capitalists, are for individual control over the means of production and other property. It doesn't matter if McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist (good luck finding a source for that claim, as she's never called herself an anarcho-capitalist and neither has anyone else. She calls herself an individualist anarchist.). She's well-established as an expert on the 19th century individualists. Of course there should be a note in anarcho-capitalism article saying that anarcho-capitalists don't use the term capitalism in the standard sense. They don't. And there is such a note there. You're being disruptive by deleting a statement sourced by an historican of 19th century individualists. Tucker's use of the term is so alien to how it is ordinarily defined that it needs to be pointed out to the reader that he did not support social control over the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nineteen century indivualist Victor Yarros said Tucker was opposed to "all forms of socialism and communism." How can you explain that other than that Yarros was using the ordinary meaning of the term "socialism" and Tucker made up his own idiosyncratic definition?Anarcho-capitalism 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I could, for example, say that Yarros had made up his own definition, and that Tucker was correct. More to the point, I could point to the historical fact that there was, as there continues to be, ideological struggle over the breadth of "socialism." Libertatia 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides not being socialists, because they oppose social control over the means of production, the 19th century individualists are much closer to being capitalists than socialists. Lysander Spooner, for example, is indistinguishable from an anarcho-capitalist. Yes, he had a labor theory of value, but so did Adam Smith.Anarcho-capitalism 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already given a "mainstream" definition of socialism from a major (the major) encyclopaedia, and it disagrees with your analysis of what "everyone knows", AnCap. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he was using it in a non-standard way from a reliable, neutral source. Sources that will claw and maim and revise history in an attempt to link their philosophy with anarchism are just not reliable in this case.
 * And the anarcho-capitalism article has a source identifying McElroy as an ancap last I checked.
 * I can explain Yarros' statement by saying that Yarros was the one not using the "ordinary meaning". Try a real argument next time. ~  Swi tch t 03:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one that gave and accepted this as the definition of socialism" "(Some socialists) have proposed selective nationalization of key industries, with controlled private ownership of the remainder." That is the opposite of Tucker's philosophy. He was opposed to social control over private property. Like all individualist anarchists, including me, we support individual control over the means of production. We reject social control over our justly acquired property. I can call myself a socialist but that doesn't make me one, because I oppose social ownership and social control over private property. Likewise, Tucker can call himself a socialist but that doesn't make him one. He's simply came up with his own idiosycratic definition that is not commonly accepted. That's because "socialism" did not have a precise meaning back then.Anarcho-capitalism 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole insertion of the quote is pretty superflous. One could just as easily say that Kropotkin had some 'individualist' elements because he said, "a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate," and "a family inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space... considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would not be interfered with. Act for yourselves. N.Walter and H. Becker, eds. (London: Freedom Press 1985) [p. 104-5] So the quote is superflous overall. And you ARE trolling the Anarchism article because you keep editing the quote from Tucker to leave out the term "Anarchistic Socialism" simply because you believe (but can't prove) that it doesn't mean what socialism "usually means". In other words, you believe there is some monolithic definition of socialism, but can't prove it. Your personal opinion on what "socialism" is should not be entering the article. Someone could just as easily say that "anarcho"-capitalism believes in capitalism in a different way from what capitalism "usually means". If you keep this up, it definitely should be considered trolling. Full Shunyata 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed it is because you removed the sourced statement from McElroy noting that it was a non-standard use of the term "socialism." Don't remove my sourced entries. If Tucker says he's a socialist, it misleads the reader to think he supports social control over the means of production. We individualists support individual control over the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your source is biased (it's an "anarcho"-capitalist speaking on "socialism"). It's like quoting Matthew F. Hale on the Mumia case. And it is a personal opinion, not an undeniable fact. There is no note needed for the section because there is no monolithic or "standard" definition of socialism. This is Wikipedia, not LibertarianWiki. There will not be a note simply because he doesn't fit YOUR definition of "socialism". This is not a board for you to push your POV. Full Shunyata 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A-C, where in the blue hell did you get the information that "socialism" means collective or social control? Just like you asked "What the hell is anarchist spirit?", what the hell does "socialism = social control mean"? And where is your proof that your very limiting and over-specific definition is the "standard" or "mainstream" accepted definition of socialism? And why should it be considered correct? The "common opinion" (amongst the White majority in the US) is that European civilizations are superior to African civilizations. Should that be considered to be correct just because it is a mainstream opinion? If you had read "The Two Socialisms", it is a much more scholarly conclusion that the most basic tenant of what would constitute as "socialism" would be worker ownership. Not necessarily collective or social ownership. Defined as worker ownership, socialism varies from individualistic to collectivistic. But you want to limit what "socialism" means because you want to revise anarcho-socialist schools of anarchistic thought to be non-socialistic and move them closer to capitalism. You said it yourself that you don't consider them to be "socialistic" because they don't fit YOUR convenient definition of what "socialism" means. Full Shunyata 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you. The source, an historian of individual anarchism, reports that when Tucker called himself a "socailist," he was not using it in the standard sense, which is, as the sourced definition in the Wikipedia socialism article points out: "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." If that's the standard definition of socialism, which it is, then Tucker was not a socialist as defined today. Don't delete the statement from the source, that's all. You may not agree with it, but don't delete it. It's disruptive. Respect cited edits. Look for things that are unsourced and question them. Don't delete things that are sourced. That's backwards and not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.Anarcho-capitalism 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting a Wikipedia article isn't exactly the most objective source. Wikipedia is a site that is supposed to be neutral and not argue against mainstream opinions too much. "Social control" is a rather vague and fuzzy phrase that can mean just about anything. Tucker and Proudhon's economics put property under "social control" in the sense that workers individually owned their own tools of labor. Everyone owning their own tools of labor and productive property could be "social control" in the sense that everyone in society owns some form of productive property. But then again, this is so vague that some forms of capitalism could fall under the definition of "socialism" using this vague description. Anyway, you can keep repeating the same thing over and over until you are blue in the face, but there is nothing to prove that YOUR definition of what "socialism" means is the "correct" or "standard" definition. Other than Wendy McElroy, who isn't exactly a non-biased source. Libertatia and others have already gone through this with you. Full Shunyata 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, social control of property is collective control over it. Individual control of property is individual control over it. Individualists reject any attempt by society to exercise owership or control over means of production. The definition in the Wikipedia article is sourced, otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. Wendy McElroy is a well-respected scholar of individualist anarchism. You have no basis to reject the source just because you think she's an anarcho-capitalist (which she does not call herself. Even if she did, it would still not disqualifier her. She's a published author on the history of individualist anrachism whose books are cited and reviewed in peer-reviewed journals). You want a source from a 19th century individualist anarchist too? Victor Yarros said Tucker was opposed to "all forms of socialism and communism." Yarros did not subscribe to Tucker's idiosynratic definition of socialism. He did not regard Tucker to be a socialist. So there.Anarcho-capitalism 06:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to say that Tucker (and other individualists, indeed, most other anarchists) used the word "socialism" in a somewhat different way to the way it is primarily understood today. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But it's misleading to say that his use to the term was "idiosyncratic," because it is not the case that Tucker meant by "socialist" something different from what other people at the time meant by socialist. I would hope we can find a way to clarify the use of "socialist" by non-collectivist 19th century anarchists, while not effacing the fact that they (including Tucker) considered themselves part of the socialist movement as it existed at that time.VoluntarySlave 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of them, that is. Not all of them considered themselves socialists. Tucker's terminology didn't catch on with all to individualist anarchists. Yarros, for example. I'm not sure if there was such as thing as "the socialist movement" as you call it. If anything there was a variety of socialist movementS, back when the definition of "socialism" wasn't pinned down yet and anyone that wanted social reform could themself a socialist.Anarcho-capitalism 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ownership and control are not necessarily the same thing. Worker ownership can be a form of social control, even if it is not a form of collective ownership. This is exactly the reason that major encyclopaedias use the phrase social control rather than collective ownership. Preventing boss ownership is a form of social control. As for what Yarros thinks, I couldn't care less. "So there" nothing; one man's opinion, when not backed up, and in fact opposed, by his (more prominent) peers, means nothing for a definition. And he may, like others at the time, have mean state socialism when he said socialism. There are numerous examples of 19th century individualist anarchists, and even collectivist anarchists, criticising "socialism" and then turning around and espousing what is clearly socialism. ~  Swi tch t 10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Worker ownership of the means of production can be social or individual. Individualists anarchists support individual ownership. Socialists support social ownership and oppose individual (private) ownership. It's very well established that socialists are opposed to private ownership of the means of production. Maybe there's some obscure definition of socialism somewhere where it can include private worker ownership of the means of production, but I've never seen it and neither has anyone else. So, it makes sense, to help the reader. just to point out that the guy was not using "socialist" in the standard sense. He was not opposed to private ownership of the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Worker ownership can be either individual or collective, yes, but either way it is social control. Social control of ownership does not mean collective ownership.
 * Your definition of socialism is not supported by anything. You want to claim that, you can prove it. It's clear no one agrees with you, so there's no point in claiming that "everyone" knows your definition is right. ~  Swi tch t 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Individual ownership is not social control. It's individual control. Social control means society controls what someone does with his own property. Individual control means the individual himself decides and society has no say so. Under socialism, the community owns or otherwise exert control over the means of production, not the individual. That's fundamental.Anarcho-capitalism 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Tucker's philosophy would not allow what we'll call "boss ownership" of the means of production. Restricting who can own what, and what they can do with it, is social control. Tucker's socialism was socialism. ~  Swi tch t 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's anything that's clear about Tucker, he opposed social control over property. And yes he would indeed allow "boss ownership" of the means of production. He didn't oppose that. The problem he had was that he thought wages weren't high enough, because he thought the labor theory of value was prevented from kicking in because of state intervention in the economy. He said "[I support individuals] carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty or Authority. He said that if the state stops intervening that "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines." (Instead of a book) You have to face that not everybody wants to run their own business. Many prefer simply to just go to work in the morning and come home at 5pm with nothing to worry about.Anarcho-capitalism 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "And yes he would indeed allow "boss ownership" of the means of production. He didn't oppose that." A-C, where did Tucker ever say he supported boss ownership? Give us some quotes from Tucker here where he specifically said such a thing. Mind you, an "employer" is not the same thing as a "boss". In the same way that the leader of an egalitarian team (like a team of students working on a group project, or the quarterback on a football team) is not a dictator or president. Bosses contradict the idea of individual ownership. If someone has a boss who owns the property they work on, the individual has no property ownership. "Many prefer simply to just go to work in the morning and come home at 5pm with nothing to worry about." And many simply prefer to elect leaders to make decisions for them and allow the State to take care of things for them with nothing to worry about. For someone who considers themself an "anarchist", you sure seem to have little concern for freedom or self-authority. Tucker and Proudhon certainly never would have supported the idea of propertyless workers who work for a boss in a 9 to 5 job in which they have no self-management or ownership. If anything, it can be said that the main difference between anarcho-socialism and "anarcho"-capitalism is that anarcho-socialists want everyone to own their own productive propety and support self-management, self-employment, and wage-sharing (along with renumeration). "Anarcho"-capitalists don't. Full Shunyata 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Employer and boss is the same thing. The employer teaches you how to operate the machine, and the boss does the same. No relevant difference. That's just silly semantics anyway. Who cares? The difference between self-employment and employment by someone else is that in the former the person owns his own means of production and in the latter he asks to use the means of production of someone else. When Tucker says he supports the the freedom for someone to be self-employed or employed by someone else, whichever one chooses, that's what he's saying. What else could be the difference between self-employment and employment by someone else? Think, man. And, you're dead wrong that anarcho-capitalists don't want people to be self-employed. One of the two most famous anarcho-capitalists ever, David Friedman, says he prefers a society of all self-employed people, and "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces." The other famous anarcho-capitalist, Rothbard, doesn't express a preference either way. It's all about freedom to choose, for all market anarchists. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I'd love if everyone would own their own business. Why would I oppose that? But I also recognize that not everyone wants to run their own business. So, I think that saying that everyone should own their own business is kind of utopian and futile. Running a business entails planning, accounting, etc. A lot of people choose to work for someone else so they don't have to hassle with the complexities, and RISKS (remember, when you get a loan to buy means of production, you have to pay it back - even in Tucker's imaginary world where loans always come with only a 1-2% interest rate), of running a business. As far as "wage-sharing," you're saying "anarcho-socialists" support that? As in social anarchists? I don't know who you're talking about but individualists anarchists of any stripe are not in favor of "wage sharing." They want individualized wages. (And what's this about "renumeration"? Don't you mean "remuneration"? "Remuneration" just means payment for a service. A wage is a form of remuneration. So, you get a spelling lesson, a grammar lesson, and an education in individualist anarchism in one shot. Hows that?)Anarcho-capitalism 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Employer and boss is the same thing." No it isn't. In our current system, is every employer a boss? No, most aren't. And employers certainly aren't bosses in Tucker's ideal system. "The difference between self-employment and employment by someone else is that in the former the person owns his own means of production and in the latter he asks to use the means of production of someone else." Tucker and Proudhon believed that everyone should be their own small proprieter. They reason there is a system of employers is because they believed that people would eventually merge small businesses for mutual benefit. The people who already work at the merger business would act as employers to allow another small business owner to merge with their business. I could care little about David Friedman and Rothbard because they are not Tuckerites or Proudhonians. Their input is rather irrelevant here. "As far as "wage-sharing," you're saying "anarcho-socialists" support that?" Anarcho-socialists believed/believe that sums of money made from selling products on the market should go to each of the worker-owners of labor-owned cooperative businesses (which are the type of businesses in an Individualist or Mutualist Anarchist society). The differences in wages come from renumeration for difference in effort or output between different employees. "A wage is a form of remuneration." In a capitalist system it's a partial renumeration. Most workers in any society (including Marxist-Leninist ones) receive only part of the value that their products of labor are sold for on the market. In an anarcho-socialist society, there is no central boss or central proprieter for 'profits' to go to. It's split amongst the worker-owners with differences coming in difference in effort and output. "So, you get a spelling lesson, a grammar lesson, and an education in individualist anarchism in one shot. Hows that?" You have given me nothing. First of all, your spelling isn't so hot, your grammar is limited and often juevenile (such as childish phrases like "good thing" and "bad thing" that you use often), and your knowledge of anarchism is atrocious. You know nothing about anarchism beyond the filtered history that you read from Rothbard and Friedman. I know more about indivdualist anarchism than you, 1) Because I used to be one (I used to be a Proudhonian mutualist); and 2) I've read far more anarcho-socialist books and texts than you have. You talk big for someone who isn't even familiar with standard anarchist concepts and who knows next to nothing about anarcho-communism yet vehementely opposes it. Even claiming that anarcho-communists practice "terrorism" (yet never provided any instances), and claims Proudhon supported people "becoming filthy rich" (yet never provided any quotes) and claims Tucker supported bosses (yet never supplied any quotes). Hell, you even believe that dictionaries are a scholarly source. You would be laughed out of anyone's college using the arguments that you use here on Wikipedia. You kind of remind me of White racists who abhor Black people yet almost never come into contact with Black people in real life and know nothing about Black people outside of BET. But then again, you probably aren't incompetent as much as you are authoritarian (because you plan on being someone's boss in an "anarchist" society), conservative (at least economically), middle-class suburbanite claiming to be an "anarchist"; and intellectually dishonest. Full Shunyata 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anarcho-socialists believed/believe that sums of money made from selling products on the market should go to each of the worker-owners of labor-owned cooperative businesses (which are the type of businesses in an Individualist or Mutualist Anarchist society"? You're certainly not talking about individualist anarchists. None of them ever said such a thing. It looks like you're talking about some kind of employee profit-sharing arrangement. None of the nineteenth century individualists advocated such a thing (but they would not be opposed, nor would any anarcho-capitalist be opposed - allowing employees to buy stock is a great strategy for improving employee performance). Now, in reponse to your other musings, again, if you volunteer to work for someone, you volunteer to give the product of your labor to the person you're working for. If you volunteer to paint someone's house, they pay you, and that paint job is theirs - not yours. And if they turn around and sell that house, regardless of the price they sells it for, the income is theirs, not yours. As far as your talk of "value" you seem very confused. The complaint from the 19th century individualists was they thought people weren't receiving enough pay to compensate them for their labor. They thought that if the state stopped regulating the economy that that would cause people to receive an income in proportion to their labor - whether it's from an employment by someone else or from self-employment. It's as simple as that. Modern individualist anarchists, on the other hand, are also oppose state regulation of the economy but don't believe it would cause pay to be proportional to labor but proportional to marginal utility. As far you as you bringing up the race card, and saying I remind you of a "white racist," that just tells me that you nowhere else to turn because you've proven yourself thoroughly unknowledgable about individualist anarchism. So now you're resorting to person attacks such as that and calling me an "authoritarian" and "intellectually dishonest."Anarcho-capitalism 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "You're certainly not talking about individualist anarchists. None of them ever said such a thing." I am indeed speaking of Individualist and Mutualist anarchist. Go read the articles on them. And go read Proudhon's ideas and their implication in things such as the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. You said, "nor would any anarcho-capitalist be opposed - allowing employees to buy stock is a great strategy for improving employee performance" I'm not talking about stocks. I'm talking about actual ownership. "Now, in reponse to your other musings, again, if you volunteer to work for someone, you volunteer to give the product of your labor to the person you're working for." That is the thing, in a capitalist society, people do not freely volunteer for work. In a capitalist society, if you own no independent means of production, you have to work for someone else. This is true voluntary or not. So it has little do with voluntarism, unless you consider the option of starvation to be a non-coercive (which is part of being free) choice. "As far as your talk of "value" you seem very confused." There is no confusion in me. "They thought that if the state stopped regulating the economy that that would cause people to receive an income in proportion to their labor - whether it's from an employment by someone else or from self-employment. It's as simple as that." It was more than that, they also opposed the monopoly of ownership that they believed/believe capitalists have on means of production as well as workplace authority. The reason a person (a capitalist) is able to make a profit is because of their ownership of the means of production and the ability to sell their employees' products of labor on a market. Individualist and Mutualist anarchists were/are opposed to this as well as the state. Again, this is what I mena about your intellectual dishonesty. You keep trying to reduce their philosophy to a variant form (albeit a "misguided" one) of "anarcho"-capitalism when in fact it is not. And as for marginal utility, I don't accept any theory of value although I generally believe that the STV is more useful today than the LTV (except for one it comes to thorough explanations of how markets affect wages for producers). As far as the "race card" (interesting choice of words on your part) is concerned, I was not actually calling you a racist. I said your hatred of anarcho-communists reminds me of White racists who hate Minorities yet truly know little about them and rarely come into contact with them. You hate anarcho-communism yet have a very flawed and poor understanding of it and don't seem to know any personally. But then again, your knowledge of anarchism in general (outside of "anarcho"-capitalism is very poor and misguided). I called you authoritarian because of your support of workplace hierarchy and coercion. And it's obvious why I accused you of being intellectually dishonest. You have a knack for historical revisionism and re-writing of anarchist history and convenient omission to support your own worldview. I'm still waiting for that quote from Proudhon about becoming "filthy rich". Full Shunyata 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you don't even know what stocks are. Stocks are shares of ownership in a company. If you own shares of stock that's your share of the collective ownership of a company. Any employee that wants to own part of the means of production can purchase stock. And no you don't have to work for someone else in a capitalist society. A capitalist society is a "free enterprise" system, meaning you can start your own business if you want. It's your choice whether you want to work for someone else or yourself. No individaulist anarchists ever advocated that individuals be GIVEN a means of production for free. If you want a means of production you have to purchase one. And, no, the 19th century individualists did not oppose "workplace authority." Those, such as Spooner, that preferred all self-employed people preferred that, not because of "workplace authority" but because you can make more money if you work for yourself. The only individualists anarchist I've seen that might have approached being opposed to "workplace authority" is the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman who expressed desire for a society where "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority." The nineteenth century individualists had no problem with "workplace authority." As the 19th century individaulist anarchists Stephen Pearl Andrews said, "every individual being so employed as to be his own 'boss' and to work solely for himself...is [not] desirable of feasible. It is not all men who are made for designers, contrivers, and directors." Benjamin Tucker said, "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines." Again, those that preferred self-employement preferred it not because they were opposed to "workplace authority" but because they thought state regulation of the economy reduced competition which they thought caused wages to not correspond to the amount of labor exerted (of course that would not happen, but they were bad economists who accepted the labor theory of value). About, Proudhon, I never said he advocated being "filthy rich." (I personally advocate that people strive to become trillionaires).Anarcho-capitalism 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Ok, you don't even know what stocks are. Stocks are shares of ownership in a company." I know what stocks are ver well. I'm an Economics major. You presume too much. Stocks are not the type of ownership of which Tucker and Proudhon spoke of, they believed that people should own their own individual means of production (ie. their own stores and such). Not simple stock ownership which is a very small type of ownership for most employees. Thus, in the quest of propertied producers/workers seeking to make more money, they join with other propertied consumers to form cooperative companies. They are employed by such cooperatives. Anarcho-socialists believe in employment in a horizontal manner. One person employs another, but the employer does not excerise control over the person they employ, nor does the employed person have to work for someone else. They own their own property and tools of labo and can produce for themself. It's a rather simple concept. Since every person owns the tools of their own labor, they keep the full value that their products are sold for on the market. It has nothing to do with a labor theory of value or a marginalist or subjective theory of value. That is, in essence, what Tucker and Proudhon supported more or less, and what anarcho-socialists on Wikipedia support as well. Read up on the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation. It is a worker-owned Mutualist firm in Spain. Full Shunyata 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, collective ownership (such as through stocks) is not what Tucker spoke of. The 19th century individualist anarchists advocated INDIVIDUAL ownership of the means of production (and were therefore not socialists). By the way, mutualism and individualist anarchism are not the same thing. You're wrong about Tucker believing that individuals should only be self-employed (own their own means of production). As has already been pointed out to you, Tucker supported the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or employed by others, whichever they prefer (just as is the case in capitalism). You're very misguided if you think that the philosophy of the nineteenth century individualists had nothing to do with the labor theory of value. It had nothing to do with the monetary price that a product sells for on the market. It had everything to do with labor theory of value (what "value" refers to "price"). They thought that individuals were not receiving the full worth of their labor, and they believed that if that were to happen then all individuals laboring equal amounts would receive equal pay. In other words, the price of labor would be proportional to labor exerted. Tucker that that if the state stopped regulating the economy then people would receive and income in proportion to their labor (and consequently those who did not labor would not have an income). That's why he said "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines." He's saying that if the state stops regulating the economy, that everyone will receive an income according to their labor. This includes employers. Employers would receive income in proportion to their labor as well. (Of course it's bad economics, but their knowledge of economics wasn't sophisticated enough. Prices in a free market would not be proportional to labor.)Anarcho-capitalism 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "The 19th century individualist anarchists advocated INDIVIDUAL ownership of the means of production (and were therefore not socialists)." No, they were socialists. Simply a seperate type of socialists from that of collectivist socialists or state socialists. Again, socialism is a vague word (vaguer than capitalism) which can mean many things. The most rudimentary definition of "socialism" is "ownership of the means of production by workers/labor". Individualist and collectivist socialists alike fit this description. No amount of "but this is what is commonly meant by socialism" will change that. Correctness by association is a logical fallacy. "It had everything to do with labor theory of value" with Tucker and Proudhon, yes. As did most capitalists back then as well. Today, not necessarily. As Kevin Carson pointed, out, an LTV (which you haven't even sufficiently proven that Tucker or Proudhon ascribed to, they ascribed more to a use-value theory of value) is not a prerequisite to be an anarcho-socialist. "You're very misguided if you think that the philosophy of the nineteenth century individualists had nothing to do with the labor theory of value." YOU are the one who started using the term "labor theory of value" to describe their theory of value. Not Tucker or Proudhon themselves. If you truly believe that Individualist and Mutualist anarchists believe in a form of "free-market capitalism", you should read some essays from Mutualist and Individualist (non-capitalist) anarchist sites. Such as this one from the Mutualist Anarchist FAQ site. It proposes that "anarcho"-capitalist privatization is not privatization at all and dismisses other "anarcho"-capitalist ideas:


 * http://www.mutualist.org/id45.html
 * http://www.mutualist.org/id6.html
 * http://www.mutualist.org/id58.html


 * Since you like quoting anarcho-socialists, may I quote Proudhon: ""To tell a poor man that he HAS property because he HAS arms and legs,--that the hunger from which he suffers, and his power to sleep in the open air are his property,--is to play upon words, and to add insult to injury. The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief." Bosses (capitalists), by definition, simply own land, productive property and tools of labor (capital), but do not use it to produce. They hire other people to use it for them to produce things for the capitalist to sell. Neither Tucker nor Proudhon supported such a thing. Their "employers" were certainly not capital-owners who hired other people to work it for them. Nor were their employees property-less workers with no independent means of production other than stocks. This has nothing to do with a labor theory of value or any theory of value. It has to do with workplace and property organization and ownership. Full Shunyata 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject, since you believe that Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists are not socialists, do you think the article on them in the libertarian socialism article should be taken out? If they supposedly aren't socialists, they shouldn't be in that article. Full Shunyata 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, apparently you're not aware that there are different forms of a labor theory of value. The nineteenth century individualists had a normative version of it. This is different from Adam Smith's version. People like Tucker (as well as Proudhon) thought that prices OUGHT to correspond to labor amounts and that if this is not happening then labor is being exploited. Adam Smith simply theorized that prices do correspond to labor amount in a market economy - not that they should - it was simply an attempt to explain why things are priced the way they are. Tucker, on the other hand, thought that just trades occured when equal amounts of labor are being traded - if unequal amounts of labor were being traded then someone's labor was being stolen from him. Big difference between that labor theory and Adam Smith's labor theory. As far as the libertarian socialism article I don't care. If someone calls themself a socialist that's good enough for inclusion. It should just be noted that this is not a normal definition of socialism. Today, socialism is normally understood to be a collectivist philosophy, and there is nothing collectivist about the 19th century individualists in America. Proudhon, on the other hand, was a bit collectivist and that's why he's often seen as between individualism and collectivism. And, no, "bosses" by definition are not non-producers. "Bosses" work too. But, it looks you may be starting to understand Tucker's position on employment. It's not employment he was opposed to. What he was opposed to was an employer recieving an income without working (as if employers don't work). But he thought what would prevent this was to deregulate the banking industry. He thought that would cause interest rates to drop, and this would cause more people start businesses. Demand for employees would go up and wages would become proportion to labor (also meaning that those who did not labor would have no income). Of course, we know today that that would not happen. There is no reason to think prices of goods in a free market would be proportional to labor. But, again, Tucker and Proudhon were misled by Adam Smith and David Ricardo to think that they would (again, that they would and that they SHOULD are two different versions of the labor theory).Anarcho-capitalism 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A-C, this should be my last post to you in this section since we're pretty much talking past one another. "Ok, apparently you're not aware that there are different forms of a labor theory of value." I'm the one who keeps reminding you that there are many forms of the LTV. You seem to lump any kind of economics that you find questionable under "LTV" which is either ignorant or just intellectually dishonest. I'm guessing the latter because I'm sure you're an intelligent man and know better. And you should stop assuming that I don't know things about economics, I happen to be an amateur Economist myself, thank you. As forn owning shares, owning shares of a company doesn't make one an owner; it makes one an investor. If you don't understand that, you don't understand much about business, ownership or investing; or you're just being intellectually dishonest in order to dodge the fact that anarcho-socialists believe in worker ownership (rather than simple worker stock purchasing). I'm sure it's the latter, you understand this but don't want to admit it because it takes the wind out of the sails of your theory that Indies and Mutualists are "not socialists". As I said earlier, this has little to do with economic theories and has everything to do with organization and ownership. Capitalists believe in ownership by capital (hence the name), that is they believe in ownership by the owners of capital. Individualists and Mutualists believe EVERYONE should own productive property and tools of labor (ie. capital). In essence, in an anarcho-socialist society everyone is a small business owner or landowning farmer. Since workers own the means of production (in the sense of every worker owning their own means of production instead of workers owning property as a collective), it is indeed a form of socialism. It happens to be an individualistic form of socialism as opposed to the collectivistic forms of socialism from social anarchism. Companies in a Mutualist or Individualist anarchist society are worker-owned (I mean every worker owns the property since companies are an amalgamation of the property of individual propertied workers; not simple employee stock investing). It's stated in the Mutualist anarchism article. The fact of the matter is that Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism are included in the Libertarian Socialism article. If you truly believe they are not "real" forms of socialism, then you should make a movement for them to be take out of that article. Full Shunyata 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand stocks. When you purchase stock in a company, you then OWN a part of that company. It is a purchase of a percantage of the collective ownership of that means of production. Corporations are owned collectively by whoever owns shares of stock. When you receive dividends you are sharing in the profits. If the company goes out of business, the machines and buildings are sold and the proceed go to the stockholders. Now, on 19th century individualists and modern individualist anarchists. Both 19th century individualist anarchists and modern individualists anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) support the right of an individual to own a means of production. They both also support the right of an individual who owns a means of production to operate it himself or to contract with others who don't own a means of production to operate it (the right to employ). Tucker, for example, is clearly not opposed to a person who owns a means of production to hire someone for pay. He simply believes that if banking is deregulated that wages would rise to be proportional to labor exerted. He said, "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines." You saying that everyone owning their own means of production is socialism, is patently absurd and dismissive of the commonly-accepted meaning of socialism. If the means of production are individual owned, it's economic individualism. If they are socially owned, then it's economic socialism. Murray Rothbard supported the right of an individual to own and work his own means of production, as well as the right to help others out who don't own their own business to work for pay. By your own definition (that you made up), anarcho-capitalists who prefer a society of all self-employed individuals, like David Friedman, are socialists. Are you saying that anarcho-capitalists are socialists? Is Friedman a socialist? Is Rothbard a socialist?Anarcho-capitalism 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The goal of collective ownership of the means of production is for all the WORKERS of a particular workplace to equally control the workplace. currently, stock owners are generally not also workers at the company whose stock they own. in the cases where workers do own stock in the company it is still not collective becuase all the workers do not own the same amount or have the same voting power. there is only collective control when two criteria are met. first, the current workers control the same amount of equity as any other stock owner in the firm. this usually means that each worker, usually after a probationary period, is presented with a single non-transferable share of stock. Second, only the workers currently involved in production have voting rights. a worker who quits or is dismissed via collective decision no longer has any control of the company and the share of stock reverts back to the collective to be redistributed to a new worker. since the stock is non-transferable, no accumulation of control is possible. Blockader 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of all that, but all I was doing was refuting FullShunata's claim that owning stock isn't owning a portion of a business. The 19th century individualists never advocated collective ownership of the means of production in the first place. The overall point I've been trying to make clear to FullShunyata, which he doesn't seem to get, is not only did the 19th century individualists support the right of individual ownership of the means of production, but they also supported the right of an individual who owns a means of production to hire someone that doesn't own a means of production and the right of an individual to take that job - in other words, they supported the right of individuals to contract as employer and employee. Benjamin Tucker simply thought that if laissez-faire ensued that wages would correspond to labor exerted. He said that in laissez-faire "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines." FullShunyata wants to believe that only anarcho-capitalists support the right of employment but that's not true. And for some reason he chooses to ignore the fact that anarcho-capitalist David Friedman even expresses a preference for a society with no corporations and all self-employed individuals (which FullShunyata bizarrely defines as socialism, which would make Friedman a socialist!). Both 19th century individualists and modern individualist anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) support a right of self-employment and employee/employer contracts between those that own a means of production and those that don't. There is no difference between the two schools on that except for the fact that the 19th century individualists had a labor theory of value.Anarcho-capitalism 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: "no diffence"—You mean, then, that an-caps believe that everyone should be equally dependent on wages, as Tucker believed? Libertatia 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I said no difference EXCEPT for the 19th century individualists had a labor theory of value. In other words, because of the 19th century individualists insufficient understanding of economics, they thought that if the state stopped regulating the economy that wages would correspond to labor exerted (which also means that zero labor would get zero wages, of course). Therefore, if a business owner hired someone to work, the owner of that business would also receive an income proportional to the labor he exerts. That's the only difference - what they thought would happen in laissez-faire - whether under self-employment or employee/employer. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, think that incomes would be proportion to the marginal utility of the labor exerted or the marginal utility good that that labor produced - or if they're not versed in economics they simply do not have the belief, that in lassais-faire, incomes would be proportional to labor exerted.Anarcho-capitalism 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My question was less about expectations, than about a vision of "equal liberty." I know an-caps who clearly do care about equal liberty, and who understand that a commitment to some small-m form of mutualism is required in order to achieve equal liberty. Marginal utility theory is not an answer to any of the LTVs. It simply reflects an interest in a different question. It is useful in explaining prices, and in explaining the behavior of economic actors within a given set of market conditions. It is as useful in that regard to mutualists as to capitalists. But the question of equal liberty is a different question entirely. If your standards for "equity" or "laissez faire" are loose enough to accomodate the power of capital (concentrated under other than free market conditions) to command labor, then they are simply too loose to bear scrutiny as genuine free market thinking. If you think that our ability to explain current economic choices in any way justifies them, then you have made a severe philosophical error. Tucker didn't just expect equal dependence on wages; he felt it was one of the conditions of an "equal liberty" worthy of the name. Libertatia 17:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you understand what "equal liberty" means? You don't appear to. All Rothbardians, including myself, advocate equal liberty. It's a foundation of anarcho-capitalism. It entails the non-aggression principle. In other words, for every person to have the same liberty, then each individual must refrain from aggressing against every other individual. If some are allowed to aggress against others, then the aggressors have more rights than those they are aggressing against. That would not be equal liberty, but more liberty for some than others. The "law of equal liberty" is necessary in order to have a universal ethic. How are you relating equal liberty to employment? As long as a person volunteers to work for someone else and that person volunteers to hire them, no one's liberty is being diminished. Contracts are the exercise of equal liberty. Slavery, on the other hand, would be a violation of the law of equal liberty. Tucker was shortsighted enough to believe that a person working more should be paid more than a person working less regardless of the marginal usefulness of what they're doing, because he was corrupted by the labor theory of value, but he didn't say that equal dependence on wages was necessary for equal liberty. That wouldn't make any sense. All that's necessary for equal liberty is the absence of invasion.Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Even Rothbard believed that existing conditions, based as they are on gross violations of equal liberty, could justify positive attempts to extend equal liberty—up to, and including, worker take-overs of existing industries. In Libertarian Forum, you'll find examples like this: "But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the 'private property' of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. (from 'Confiscation and the Homestead Principle')" Fun stuff, that. Libertatia 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your point? There is no individualist anarchist that would deny the right to expropriate stolen property from thieves to bring it back into the private sector.Anarcho-capitalism 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your point, when you claim that "absence of invasion" is all that's necessary to equal liberty? If "absence of invasion" can/must involve redistribution or even nationalization(?!), then much of what you have argued against the predictive or proscriptive elements of traditional individualism is hard to fathom. "Property" becomes a very complicated issue, undercut at every turn by state-business connections. In any event, Rothbard seems here completely in agreement with Hess when he calls libertarianism a "liberation movement"—a whole lot more active a notion than just the "laissez faire, but don't look too closely at the history" kind of position you seem to be advancing most of the time. Libertatia 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure don't understand individualist anarchism. To "invade" - to "aggress" is, among other things, to take what belongs to someone else. If you expropriate nominal "private property" that was put into private hands by the state through seizure (per Rothbard's example), then that is not invasion at all but reclaimation of property to bring it back into the private (voluntary) sector. The taxation was the invasion. Of course Rothbard agrees with Hess. The right to own the product of labor and what one receives in trade is fundamental to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. That right entails the right to take back what was stolen. You've never seen me anywhere say that expropriation of "private property" was incompatible with anarcho-capitalism (I discussed it in the article on my userpage, even, which by the way is something you should read in order to understand these basic concepts). What anarcho-capitalists oppose is the expropriation of LEGITIMATE private property. Legitimate property is that which was created through labor and what one receives in trade or gift.Anarcho-capitalism 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What is this you are saying about "extend equal liberty"? You're not using the term "liberty" as positive liberty are you? If so, you're not speaking in the language of individualists at all. That's not what is meant by "equal liberty." The only way to ensure equal "positive liberty" is to engage in aggression - to steal from legitimate owners to bring about an egalitarian wealth distribution. That would be communism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For Tucker, following Proudhon (as did several of the Liberty egoists), "equal liberty" is the greatest liberty all can enjoy equally. It is, therefore, not simply a state achieved by removing some barrier. In wishing to eliminate the "four monopolies," Tucker pursues negative liberty primarily, but in proposing a wide range of competitive banking and currency projects, he moves to create conditions of greater liberty. "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order." Is is not order itself, nor is it an end in itself. Libertatia 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the individualists anarchists, "liberty" is simply freeedom from restraint. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "positive liberty." You don't even understand the point of the statement "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order." It means that in order to have spontaneous order, there must be freedom of each individual to pursue his own aims free from aggression - that aggression makes less organized what could be more organized. It's the idea that's also put forth by Friedrich von Hayek and is central to classical liberalism. It's the pragmatic justification for laissez-faire.Anarcho-capitalism
 * I'm sure it's fun to trot out all manner of abstract philosophical terms, drop names, and repeat "you just don't understand" over and over again. But all of that's useless if it doesn't add up, or add up to the argument you want to make. Victor Yarros makes it clear that equal liberty—the goal of the traditional individualists—is not mere freedom from restraint but is "freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others." ("Supreme Imbecility," Liberty, Nov 29, 1890, p. 5.) You, who have defended at such length "voluntary subordination" and constraint, can hardly have trouble with the notion that the pursuit of the greatest degree of individual liberty is likely to involve establishing some projects, with their own built-in, voluntary constraints? Libertatia 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others." Exactly. And what are the conditions for people having the same freedom from restraint? The absence of aggression. You only proved my point by providing that quote. The law of equal liberty is about freedom from restraint, whereas every person has the same freedom from restraint. Understand yet?Anarcho-capitalism 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1) People, all encased up to their knees in cement, say, could enjoy a certain kind of "equal liberty" without having much liberty at all, so there really is a question of maximizing liberties. 2) A non-aggression principle already constitutes a positive limit on the liberty of individuals. It is ridiculous to say that "freedom from restraint, except for this one restraint necessary to equity" is the same as "freedom from restraint." Libertatia 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If a person is up to his knees in cement, then no one is obligated to break him out of that cement. That's the law of equal liberty. Assistance must be voluntary. Naturally, a welfare state is incompatible with equal liberty. On your other point, are you saying Yarros' wording is redundant? I agree that it is. But it's necessary to help people understand the concept. If it's just saying people should be free to do whatever they want, people that haven't thought about the implications of that will object "That's crazy, so you will let people kill each other." By saying that each person has the "same" liberty it helps one see otherwise. The law of equal liberty says that each person is free to do whatever he wishes as long as he doesn't use aggression to prevent anyone else from doing what they wish. Everyone has equal liberty. Everyone is free from aggressive restrain from others.Anarcho-capitalism 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're point is about employment but if you think employment would be a violation of equal liberty, that's not the case at all and no individualist would say it is. If I ask you to give me a ride to the store and you decide to help me out and do it, you've acted voluntarily. If I pay you for it, and therefore you now have a job, it's still voluntary. If I tell you to take me to Broadway and Wall, and you do it, you're still acting voluntary. We have equal liberty, beause you're free to not help me out - to leave the job. I'm not using aggression to prevent you from doing what you want, and you're not using aggression against me. Sure, you may go hungry if you decide not to work for anyone else, if you're not ingenious enough to start your own business, but the employer is not aggressing against you. He's not obligated to feed you, just as you're not obligated to feed him. Employment is merely an association in equal liberty. Only slavery is a violation of equal liberty.Anarcho-capitalism 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Base your edits on your own sources, not on positions you attribute to others. Libertatia 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete sourced information just because you don't like what it says. Stop POV-pushing.Anarcho-capitalism 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you (Anarcho-capitalism) saying the term isn't contested? In the first place, we can go back to the 1820s and 1830s (largely via Libertatia's research) and we find that some people define socialism in terms of egalitarianism and some people define socialism in terms of cooperation, and the same is true today. In the second place, while there are differences of degree between Tucker and Proudhon and Bakunin, there are few differences of kind (offhand, both Tucker and Bakunin allow larger roles for labor unions than Proudhon does). I think it best to use Tucker's own words on the matter. (e.g. selections from Armies that Overlap.) Jacob Haller 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the term contested. Libertatia says he has a source for a debate taking place in the mid 19th century concerning whether it refers to state control or not. But MCelroy's point is by the common definition of socialism today, Tucker would not be considered a socialist, because he's for individualist property rather than socialist property. What does labor unions have to do with anything? Capitalists support labor union negotiations as part and parcel of free market capitalism. What they oppose, and what Tucker also opposed, was labor unions requesting that the state enact minimum wage legislation and other forms of coercion against employers.Anarcho-capitalism 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might begin to "see the term contested" by reading the texts cited in one of your own edits. Both the "Socialistic Letter" and "Armies that Overlap" are linked elsewhere on the page. Rothbardian Brad Spangler's approach to the term is something I'm guessing you might be aware of, since an anonymous user posted your exact objection from these pages. You have also "seen the term contested" by individualist anarchists on these pages, over and over again. If by "haven't seen the term contested" you mean you haven't seen it contested by anyone you think you have to pay attention to, then that is another question, and perhaps you should just say that. In any event, I see that you are aggressively adding dubious claims in inappropriate places in this and other articles. This may, in the end, be a good thing, as it will undoubtedly require the complete rewriting of some of the sections you have scrambled. Libertatia 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the meaning of term "socialism" contested in books or articles. If it has been I don't really care. My main point is to try to make clear that Tucker was not a socialist in the ordinary sense. He was for individualist property, rather than socialized property. As far as the rest of your message I don't understand what you're talking about. What "dubious claims" are you talking about? And who the hell is Brad Spangler?Anarcho-capitalism 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Anarcho-Monarchism - articles for deletion
Heya,

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


 * Yep, here we go: old deletion discussion.  Ungovernable Force  Poll: Which religious text should I read? 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's been deleted before, and with a fairly strong consensus too, it won't survive this time probably. ~  Swi tch t 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Template talk
And now a break from the arguments about anarcho-capitalism.... This debate has been removed to its proper talk page: Template talk:Anarchism

Merger of history and origin
As of now, the origins of Anarchism are found on three different articles on WP-
 * 1) Anarchism
 * 2) Origins of anarchism
 * 3) History of anarchism

All three refer to the same ideas, with considerable effort to present it from different angles. I propose we merge all three together, either on the main page Anarchism or on a seperate page - either Origin of Anarchism or History of Anarchism.

xCentaur | ☎  20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that those articles expound upon issues more briefly touched upon here and should remain as seperate but linked entries. Merging those articles into this one would result in greatly lengthening Anarchism which i don't feel would be beneficial. i would support keeping the current arrangement but will refrain from officially voting until i have reviewed other editor's impressions of the proposed merger. Blockader 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support merging history and orihin with each other but not with the main anarchism page (which is already over 100 kb). If necessary some info from the main page can be copied or perhaps transferred to the combined history page. Jacob Haller 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (Replying to both above) Fully agree, it would make this page more massive than it already is. How about a short explanatory para here, and then a link? Either origin or history could stay, but either way all the content from the 3 pages should end up on one page. All other editors views on this would be appreciated. Cheers! - xC -  |  ☎  11:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support merging Origins into History, and this article containing a summary of the history with a header link. ~  Swi tch  t  c   g 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also support merging Origins into History, as history of the subject definitely deserves its own article and the main Anarchism page is already too long.  Marc Mywords 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Origins of anarchism talks about origins of the term "anarchism", while History of anarchism talks about history of the movement. That are two different things, so I don't see why these two articles should be merged. -- Vision Thing -- 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then Origins of anarchism should be moved to Etymology of anarchism. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I put back the tags for the merger which had been removed by someone before we could reach consensus here. Its already been noted that Origin speaks of origin of the term, while History talks about history of the movement. I'd like to point out that History can also contain etymology of the term, but not the other way around, meaning Origin could be very well contained in History. Any ideas about this? xC | ☎  07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for the merger of Origins into History and against the merger of Origins or History into Anarchism? That was my impression. Jacob Haller 02:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There don't seem to be too many opinions here, but I'm guessing there is rough agreement. The page is massive as it is, shifting the section Origins into History of anarchism would help a bit. Secondly, there isn't much reason for Origins of anarchism to exist independently, its content would be more useful within History of anarchism. Thats all there is to it, I'd do it myself, but I believe strongly in community discussion and consensus. If there aren't any objections in the next week or so, I'll go ahead with the merge, since this merger has been on the cards since before August 2006 (have a look at WP:PM). Thanks xC | ☎  18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't really have a single proposal on the table yet. Merging "History" and "Origins" is fine with me, but if we're going to move any portion of this page, that's going to take some more thought. Back in November of 2006, I made a proposal for a general reorganization of the anarchism pages, with the goal of slimming down this page and getting the details in on specific pages. Perhaps that deserves another look, or perhaps someone can provide a better model. I'm opposed to any significant modification of this page without some fairly clear plan. Libertatia 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by We don't really have a single proposal on the table yet.? We have plenty of proposals, actually. Right now I'd like to point out -
 * Blockader and Jacob Haller oppose merging origin and history into this page, because that would make this page massive.
 * However Blockader refrains from voting until other editors have their say.
 * Jacob Haller,Switch,Marc Mywords support merging origins into history.
 * Vision thing opposes all the merger proposals.
 * All of the above would imply that we have consensus for merging origins into history. There also appears to be consensus to NOT merge origins and history into this page, since that would make the main article Anarchism huge. Since doubts have been raised about the exact plan, I'd like to write them out pointwise.
 * Shift content of Origins of anarchism into the article History of anarchism.
 * Turn Origins of anarchism into a redirect to History of anarchism.
 * Remove section Origins from this page and shift that content to History of anarchism.
 * The above three proposals would have the following benefits-
 * It would consolidate both history and origins of anarchism on one page.
 * Slim down this main page (as you proposed in Nov06).
 * I hope the proposals are clearer now.
 * I count one vote of all-out oppose (Vision Thing) while there are 3 support votes for merging Origins into History (not counting myself). Theres also Blockader, who's vote I'm not clear about. Libertatia votes support for merging Origins into History, but opposes anything else being done.
 * All in all, I believe we have consensus for merging Origins into History. Since that is the case, then within 48 hours I'll complete the merging. I'll be leaving the section Origins on this page as is, since it seems a more thorough discussion is needed there. Thanks xC | ☎  16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um. Yes. As I said, we didn't have a single proposal on the table, but apparently we have reached "consensus." Although at least one of the seven(?) votes is unclear. And my proposal for reorganizing this page is a vote opposing "anything else being done." I don't see any consensus on merging the "Origins" section of this article with the others, which appears to be the point of contention. I don't even see a rationale, beyond shortening this article. Libertatia 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only vote unclear is Blockader. Vision thing opposes anything being done to any of the pages. Everyone else here agrees with merging of Origins of anarchism(article) into History of anarchism (article). xC | ☎  04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Libertatia. I don't think we should move the Origins section into the History article at this point. Sorry for the ambiguity. Jacob Haller 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well both of you have just said what I summarized in that monster of a post of mine. I'll complete merging Origins of Anarchism (article) into History of Anarchism (article) when I'm free, and leave the Origins (section) of this article as it is right now. xC | ☎  04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging Origins of anarchism (article) into History of anarchism (article): [[Image:Green tick.svg|20px]]Done.
 * Hope the intial merge is satisfactory. I'll do a further cleanup as soon as possible.
 * I'd like to point out some of the refs in the article Origins of Anarchism were a little strange, one of them, such as this dont really support the sentence written in the article. Its a little misleading, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could have a look at that page?
 * I'll do a cleanup of the refs asap, and point out any further such discrepancies on the talk page of History of anarchism.
 * Thanks xC | ☎  17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialism page needs work
As currently written there are no references to libertarian socialism, no references to voluntary socialism, no references to market socialism in the anarchist sense of the term, no references to mutualism, one reference to collectivism (referring Saint-Simeon's and Owen's systems, not to Bakunin's), two references to syndicalism, and no references to communism in the anarchist sense of the term (and frequent use of uncapitalized communism/communists to refer to Marxist-Leninism/Marxist-Leninists). There are six references to anarchism (including sidebars and the list of political philosophies).

There is one reference to Proudhon (wedged among the Utopians) with no discussion of his ideas, of his influence on Marx, of his critique of property, of his critique of the state, or his defense of markets as socialist. There is one reference to Tucker (as the author of SS&A). There is one reference to Bakunin (very simplistic). There are no references to Malatesta. There are no references to Dejacques. There are no references to Kropotkin. (!!!). There are no references to Bookchin.

It looks like almost all discussion of anarchism, one of the most important strains of socialist thought in the 19th century, in the early 20th century, and at the present, has been purged from the article. Jacob Haller 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that purge to have been initiated and carried out by User 172. He was in the process of doing so several months ago with several of us countering his efforts. he is impossible to deal with though and eventually wore me out. good luck.Blockader 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He actually claimed that libertarian socialism was a neologism despite libertatia's sourced proof otherwise. Apparently, he thinks his claim to be a "professional historian" means his positions are infallible and that he has more editing legitamacy than other users. i don't care if that is a personal attack, he is an absolutely impossible editor to work with. Blockader 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's us he has a problem with. I believe he was busy removing "nonsense" about anarchist communism from the communism article a while ago as well. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck in dealing with him. He shows very little will to achieve consensus on any subject. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now WGee keeps reverting my edits - no matter how straightforward and neccessary. I've used up my three reverts restoring my edits there. Jacob Haller 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would back you up but dealing with the main editors at both socialism and communism is so taxing that it hurts physically. also, i would like to congratulate this article and all the editors here on the stability and taglessness this article has enjoyed for many months. never would have thought it possible 6 months ago. Blockader 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason we're quiet is that we've lost a handful of active, talented editors, who got tired of the squabbling, and are, in some cases, devoting their time to finishing other projects. As for the academic-marxist bloc who dominate the socialism and communism pages, they pretty obviously have thier agenda and are sticking to it. Libertatia 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And some of the most active and knowledgeable editors, like Hogeye and RJII, were driven away. But still, I have to agree with Blockader, good job everyone. -- Vision Thing -- 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can sorta understand their POV here. We have another space (anarchism). Then again, they have another space (Marxism), and they are misrepresenting the nature and history of socialism. Jacob Haller 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can seperate the history of anarchism (even ancap) from the history of socialism (inclusive of radical liberalism). I suggest merging History of anarchism into History of socialism. Jacob Haller 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also expanding the Class struggle page on similar lines. Jacob Haller 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)