Talk:Definitional concerns in anarchist theory

I've started to fill in the content on this page. Libertatia 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Enumerating the Concerns
The outline already provided is useful, although we'll probably want to adapt it as new issues arise. Here are some of the things that, it seems to me, need to be addressed here: In each case, we really need, in my opinion, to stick with more-than-ordinary tenacity to the job of documenting different uses of the terms, editorializing as little as possible. If this page is to be useful, we'll have to stay clear of anything that smacks of OR. Libertatia 21:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mutualism: We need to differentiate at the very least the early theories of Proudhon and Greene, which explicitly attempted to synthesize and harmonize existing systems, from the later use of the term to designate the economic aspects of individualist anarchism.
 * Socialism: It should be possible to document the long-standing struggles over the meaning of this term, referencing texts like Ernest Lesigne's "Socialistic Letter" and Brad Spangler's recent post on anarcho-capitalism as "socialism."
 * Capitalism: We need to clarify the two common uses of the term, as we have done on a couple of the related pages.
 * Property: Most importantly, we need to document Proudhon's use of the term in its various steps: his initial distinction between "possession" and "property", his association of the term "property" with capitalist economics and his rejection of Leroux's strategy of using the term "property" in two opposing ways, and his adoption of the term "property" in order to forward "its aims."