![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I've moved the Criticisms of anarchism section to its own page to cut down the length of this one. Seems reasonable to have one page deal with what it is and another dealing with the criticisms / responses to it.
Chaikney 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on Wilson itself describes him as a libertarian, though his work certainly shows a strong left-leaning tendency. I didn't remove him from the list on this page, but added a note that he may be better described as a left libertarian. This is consistant with every interview and discussion of his politics I've seen, though if someone has something definative, I'm certainly open to concede the point.
Why did infinity0 remove Nozick from the passage about minarchists who have influenced a-c? — Tamfang 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Saw his page, it wasn't very big, so I thought he wasn't too notable. Two is enough anyway, we're not trying to provide a full list. -- infinity 0 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In Theory of Property, Proudhon writes: "In my System of Economic Contradictions, I reiterated and confirmed my first definition of property and then added another, quite contrary one based on considerations of quite a different kind. But this neither destroyed or was destroyed by my first argument. This new definition was: property is liberty. Property is theft: property is liberty: these two propositions stand side by side in my System of Economic Contradictions and each is shown to be true." (Edwards, ed. Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon. New York: Doubleday, 1969. p. 140.) See page 141 in the same source for the argument in favor of "property" "by its aims." But note that Proudhon, at this point, is also arguing for an "antinomic" balancing of anarchy and the aims of the State. I'll leave it to each to decide how to read these developments in Proudhon's thought, but this much is clear: the move in relation to "property" and "the state" is exactly the same move. So, either we read each move in terms of the irreducible dialectic and maintain Proudhon's original critique of property (though now in a complex tension with new thought), or we decide that Proudhon's anarchism is as abandoned as the notion of possession (although he denies the abandonment), and consider his embrace of property concurrent with an abandonment of anarchism. Libertatia 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Proudhon is absolutely clear, in Theory of Property, about maintaining both the original critique of property and advocacy of possession and the affirmation of property "by its aims." The question of whether he "distanced himself from anarchism" is open to interpretation, since "anarchism" as such was in its earliest stages of development, but Proudhon's own testimony about his thinking on property and possession are hard to argue with. Libertatia 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
RJII, while it is true that Proudhon changed his rhetorical strategy—as I have already mentioned above—and while that might be useful information in the Proudhon entry, or in an expanded discussion here, the trend has been to cut such explanations. And it remains clear that he did not change his basic ideas about property and possession. To mention the change in rhetoric without mentioning the antinomies, for example, presents a very deceptive picture. Libertatia 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I dispute that Proudhon opposed wage labor. That's one of the main reasons why the anarcho-communists don't like him. RJII 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. - under wage labour the employer takes sole ownership of the products. -- infinity 0 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely that "the idea" refers to "labour cheques", as it is the preceding noun??? -- infinity 0 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. You still think "wage labour" is the same as "wages for labour". -- infinity 0 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Kropotkin is refusing to acknowledge a significant difference between a system based on labor notes and wage labor under capitalism. That's understandable, coming from an advocate of communist anarchism. From that point of view, any system that makes access to goods contingent on specific quantities of labor falls short of the goal. But that doesn't mean that the labor note system actually is wage labor in the generally accepted sense. Kropotkin is critical of Proudhon because he's not a communist. We need to be a little more specifically critical, since the issue here seems to be how to distinguish between capitalist and mutualist labor-contingent systems. Libertatia 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better to try to keep to the actual words used by Proudhon and Kropotkin than for Wikipedia contributors to keep trying to put their own spin on what they wrote. Here is what Proudhon said about communism and wage labour in What is Property:
"In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the conscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be the duty of the strong to aid the weak, they prefer to do it out of generosity, — they never will endure a comparison. Give them equal opportunities of labor, and equal wages, but never allow their jealousy to be awakened by mutual suspicion of unfaithfulness in the performance of the common task.... Thus, communism violates the sovereignty of the conscience, and equality: the first, by restricting spontaneity of mind and heart, and freedom of thought and action; the second, by placing labor and laziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality in point of comfort. For the rest, if property is impossible on account of the desire to accumulate, communism would soon become so through the desire to shirk.... The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal."
All quotations can be verified at the following on line source: [3]
As these quotations show, Proudhon advocated two things opposed by anarchist communists: 1) an exchange economy; and 2) a wage system (equal wages, not the complete abolition of wage labor).
Lastly, I think it is unnecessary to include in this section the claim that "As such, communist-anarchism is based on the same distinction between possession and property as found in Proudhon's work." That is a matter of debate. As I indicated in a previous (now deleted) posting, Proudhon's notion of possession is different from the anarchist communists. The anarchist communists had no objection to people possessing something simply for the purpose of using it to satisfy their needs (in fact, that is what they advocated), and of course the actual means of production would have to be possessed by someone in the very limited sense that someone would actually be using the means of production to produce things that people need. But Proudhon's position was quite different. He advocated that people should be free to exchange their possessions for goods of equivalent value, and that in collective enterprises the workers in each enterprise would share in the profits and losses of the enterprise, and would be compensated for the labour they contributed to the enterprise. As Kropotkin and other anarchist communists have argued, this is a "wage system," even if it is supposed to be different from the capitalist model. In Proudhon's mutualist schemes, "possession" includes elements of more conventional notions of private property, such as the right to exchange one's possessions for commodities of equal value. So Proudhon's notion of "possession" provides the basis for a completely different kind of economic system, an exchange economy with remuneration based on labour (i.e. a wage system).
Let's quote Proudhon again (for all the good it does!). "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . he will become an associate." He stressed that "in the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" and "in the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." (The General Idea of the Revolution) I'm sure that RJII will ignore this quote as he has the others, but I live in hope! User:BlackFlag 09:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Proudhon's notion of possession is different from the anarchist communists." You misunderstand. Proudhon's vision of how a society based on possession would work *is* different from communist anarchism, but the underlying principles are the same. There would be no private property, just possession. Those who rejected communism would be free to utilise the land and tools they used and exchange the product as they saw fit. Communist anarchists argued that Proudhon's position was contradictory, advocating common possession for the means but not the product. Proudhon disagreed, of course, but the basic concept is the same. Use would be the key, not property. No one is arguing that the systems based on the principle of possession would be the same. User:BlackFlag 08:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the point. Let's deal with wage labor first: in the passage from What is Property quoted above, Proudhon says "the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal." He advocated equal wages, not the abolition of wages. Receiving wages for your labor is a form of wage labor. What you don't understand is that one can be opposed to capitalism without advocating the abolition of all forms of wage labor. Proudhon did not advocate the abolition of wages (or wage labor - i.e. remuneration for one's labor). Neither did most 19th century socialists.
Marx, despite his attack on Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy, was in favour of a wage system during the transition from socialism to communism (see his "Critique of the Gotha Program"). By the time Kropotkin was writing about anarchist communism in the 1880s, this was the position of virtually all Marxists. The Marxist position (which Kropotkin included in the "collectivist" category in his essay, "The Collectivist Wage System") entailed the payment of wages to workers for their work, with higher skilled workers receiving higher rates of pay, and individual ownership of consumer goods. Opposition to such schemes became a defining feature of anarchist communism, which advocated the immediate abolition of wage labor and all forms of private property, and the immediate implementation of distribution according to need, rather than "postponing" it to the distant future.
The collectivist anarchists, including the early Spanish anarchists such as Ricardo Mella, and Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume, adopted a position similar to Marx's. In Guillaume's essay, "Ideas on Social Organization,"(1876) he writes: "Whatever items are produced by collective labor will belong to the community, and each member will receive remuneration for his labor either in the form of commodities (subsistence, supplies, clothing, etc.) or in currency," i.e. wages. Only later will it be possible to progress to a communist system where distribution will be according to need: "When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste." [4]
Your refusal to acknowledge this point distorts the historical development of anarchist ideas, as well of the ideas of the anarchists you quote. As for the notion of "possession," while you may claim that it is the same for Proudhon and the anarchist communists, many others disagree. Thus, your statement, being a disputed one, should not be included in the article. Proudhon did not merely advocate possession for use; he also advocated being able to retain the products one produced and to exchange them with others. That is a concept of "possession" which incorporates elements of more conventional notions of property, something which Proudhon acknowledged when he later wrote that "Property is Freedom," not just theft (in The System of Economic Contradictions and in his posthumous Theory of Property),which is precisely why anarchist communists like Kropotkin rejected Proudhon's position. For a more recent critique of socialist schemes which retain some kind of wage system, see John Crump and Adam Buick's book, State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management (Macmillan, 1986). Robgraham
User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy - a few points we noticed about some issues and events on wikipedia. -- infinity 0 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Wage_labour#Suggestion_to_merge_this_with_wages. -- infinity 0 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of useful quotes from Marx (as RJII considers him an expert on "wage labour"). From Capital ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm):
That was why Proudhon argued for workers to form *associations,* as I have shown, in order to ensure the "abolition of the proletariat". Obviously, I'm expecting RJII to ignore his own expert in these matters, as Marx is obviously explaining why independent producers (who sell the product of their labour) are *not* wage workers, i.e. not subject to wage labour. BlackFlag 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems like we're tripping over semantics, rather than clarifying anything. Blackflag has presented plenty of evidence that "wages" would function very differently in a mutualist society than they do under the capitalist "wage system." I don't think anyone is really disputing that difference. Therefore, simply saying "wages are wages" seems likely to distort the account every bit as much as denying Proudhon's acceptance of "remuneration for labor" would. The distinction between "wage labor" and "labor for wages" is not really intuitive, so perhaps some clarifying language could be inserted. Libertatia 19:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. Many people (me, Jim6sch, Arthur Rubin, etc etc etc) have already explained why RJII is wrong on this point; it's time to move on and quit whipping a dead horse. -- infinity 0 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I will remember my own advice, and not respond. Instead, I point RJII to the various responses already given in many places more than which is enough to explain the difference. -- infinity 0 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You can say that all you like, but you need a source from Proudhon showing that he thought of them as the same thing, and that "wage labour is labour for wages" is the majority view. Also, to allay any accusations in the future, "don't feed the trolls" is a referral to your current behaviour on this point of wage labour, not your personality in general. -- infinity 0 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a total joke. This is what Proudhon wrote: "wage-labour abolished." Now, perhaps RJII will explain how this means anything other than what it says? But, obviously, what Proudhon thought seems irrelevant to RJII. As it stands, RJII has provided *no* evidence at all to support his claim while I have provided more than sufficient. This "dispute" is closed. That he continues to repeat the same disproved claim shows he is a troll (at least on this issue). BlackFlag 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not resist. RJII's denial of reality is becoming very funny (in a sad sort of way). RJII is denying that Proudhon opposed wage labour, arguing that he supported a system where a capitalist hires workers and pays them a wage the same as the full product of their labour. I note he has provided no evidence in support of this claim. I have presented plenty against. I just wonder how he explains Proudhon's continual call for "industrial democracy"? In "The General Idea of the Revolution" he argued that workers had two options, either be "the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter" (as now) or become "an associate" (in anarchy). "In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" (note, *obedience* so showing Proudhon's opposition to hierarchy in production *as well as* exploitation). "In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave." He stressed that "every" capitalist workplace must become an association and that *every* position "subject to election." For "we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers." Otherwise, there would be "subordinates and superiors" and "two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society" (Proudhon calls this the "wages-system" or "wage labour" and wants it "abolished"). I know, I know. He will ignore this like he ignores all facts, but it would be interesting from a pyschological point of view to see how he denies the obvious, namely that Proudhon (as he himself said) clearly opposed "wage labour" in favour of co-operatives. BlackFlag 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII your a damn liar and a cunt. You also have way to much time on your hands.--FinnMacCool
You know, it's interesting how much attention is being given to the exact wordings of guys who have been dead for over a hundred years. And the thing is, it doesn't matter exactly what they said or believed, but what others took away from them. You see, who would care what Proudhon or Bakunin wrote, unless they influenced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
I suggest shifting the focus of debate to how certain ideas were adopted by anarchists, not the particulars of those ideas. It is more interesting to see how the Spanish anarchists of the 1860's and the Parisian communards of 1871 largely embraced Proudhon's Mutualism, and that this idea was brought to Spain by Bakunin, actually. It is more interesting so see how certain ideas were applied (like the Makhnovschinka creating worker-run communes in 1917-1920) and how those ideas have changed (like the new form of "mutualism" which embraces alternative economic strategies).
The battle over semantical nuances is only a distraction from the greater things the article can do, and just another obsession of the fanatical-factionalists. -- albamuth 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not allowed to edit the main page (apart from minor edits) as per my agreement to be unblocked, but I don't think this edit is a good idea. Whilst the change to the first paragraph is good, the additional paragraphs bloat up the section - and one of the paragraphs is a complete quote, which is unnecessary. -- infinity 0 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This new stuff about Bakunin, Marx and Action Directe belongs, if anywhere, in the First International section. The quote from Aubron is way too long. This section isn't about the relation between anarchism and Marxist versions of "communism." It's about anarchist communism, as the previous heading and text made clear. Robgraham
I made several slight changes attempting to improve the neutral point of view in the anarcho-capitalism section. Because there is controversy about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, I removed the assumption in the first paragraph that it is not. My new phraseology is more neutral and, I hope, does not try to manipulate the reader into agreeing with one side of the argument. I also removed the slightly inflammatory reference to "right-wing" libertarian historians; the term is not in keeping with an encyclopedic style and readers are liable to interpret it (or "left wing", for that matter) in a variety of ways. Lastly I corrected an apparent misreading of David Hart's essay about Molinari. If you read the linked PDF, Hart describes not one "system" but an evolution of thought, the latter parts of which may well have supported "competing governments"; in Molinari's earlier work, however, Hart claims that what Molinari was calling government was not government at all, but more like an insurance or defense agency (of the sort anarcho-capitalists argue in favor of.) In that respect, Hart was certainly not admitting Molinari's "system" was one of competing governments, but rather he was trying to explain Molinari's confusing terminology. Go easy on me, I'm a new poster (and still too lazy to create an account!) -anon
Why is it being deleted that Proudhon favored "individual" possession. In What is Property he specifically says "individual possession." Proudhon wants to make it clear that he's not a communist. We should represent him as accurately as possible. RJII 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
We should find a way to incorporate the history of American anarchist participation in the First International. Individualist anarchists were prominent in the English-speaking New York Section 12 (Stephen Pearl Andrews) and the French-speaking Boston Section 1 (William B. Greene). The "Yankee" sections were censured and then finally expelled at the Hague Congress. Timothy Messer-Kruse' The Yankee International covers some of this, and the Address of the Delegates of the Boston section n° 1 (French) of the Working People’s International Association (mostly written by William B. Greene, and published by Ezra Heywood) gives a contemporary account.
I'm a little hesitant to mess with the flow of the section as it is now. Perhaps a paragraph at the end, noting this other lesser-known history would be appropriate. The facts are of considerable interest, as they link the individualists organizationally with the much broader movement. But the Yankee Internationalists' struggle with Sorge's group is perhaps still best presented as a sort of "side-show" to the Marx-Bakunin conflict. Libertatia 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I dispute that anarchists are necessarily against "government." They are not against self-government. For example, individualist anarchist James Lloyd says: "No Anarchist has any logical objection to a government to which all its members consent; only he carries the logic one step further and says that if the individual withdraws his consent, in that moment the just power of the government over him ceases." [5] And, Richard Slyvan, says in his article Anarchism "First, a variety of political arrangements and organization, inluding governments of certain sorts are entirely compatible with anarchy." I think Proudhon even says that anarchy is a "form of government" (I don't have the quote right now). RJII 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a joke, right? Is RJII arguing that "anarchy" which most people agree (at the minimal) means "no rulers" really means "voluntary rulers" and "no government" really means "voluntary government"? Is he *really* suggesting that Wikipedia change the meaning of a word so he can pursue his own pet little ideology? I'm not surprised, though. I saw it coming. And I can understand why, though. It ensures that "anarcho"-capitalists and people like Herbert can be more easily squeezed into the anarchist tradition. But, to be honest, it simply shows how far these people really are from anarchism (imho) User:BlackFlag 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
btw, people may find this essay of use here, "The Libertarian Case for Slavery" [6] by "J. Philmore." It is really David Ellerman, exposing the autocratic nature of classical liberalism and right-wing libertarianism. People may find it useful in understanding where RJII is coming from and why it really has *nothing* to do with anarchism. User:BlackFlag 09:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrore that anarchists are against rulers, not against leaders. // Liftarn
I agree with RJII. If voluntary, hierarchical relationships are not opposed to anarchism. Current definition is misleading. -- Vision Thing -- 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII is trying to prove that defining “anarchy” in terms of opposition to hierarchy is “communist” and inappropriate. To do so, he presents the case that anarchism is compatible with government. Given that Anarchy is defined as “no government,” the idea of ‘“no government” government’ is a contradiction. This is proof by contradiction and so he proves that “anarchy” *is* incompatible with hierarchy. Case closed. BlackFlag 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read the article which RJII points to. RJII states that Llyod is an "individualist anarchist" ("circa 1920") and quotes him as supporting "government." I would like to point out that by the 1920s Lloyd had become an *ex*-anarchist, a social democrat in fact. As the essay RJII references indicates. It *starts* by him saying many "may know me only as a Socialist, and may doubt my qualifications to explain Anarchism, I will say that for some 20 years or more I was a professed and active Anarchist." Near the end he states "I had no thought of becoming a real Socialist, but I studied the thought and the literature and in time came to feel that the Socialists had the best of the argument." So, just to stress the point, RJII claims that Lloyd was an "individualist anarchist" in the 1920s when, in fact, the essay he uses as proof states the opposite. Now, if RJII cannot even get this right, what hope is there?
As it stands, LLoyd's essay is riddled with inaccuracies ("Samuel" rather than Albert Parsons, Bakunin as a communist, and so on). I would also suggest that by "government" he was referring to social organisations rather than "private defence agencies". I would say this from the context and the example used (the US government). So the example is inconclusive, I think. I would also note that he thinks that Napoleon would be considered as a "Nietzschean Anarchist" and so if we use this essay as evidence of anarchist support for government we must use it for anarchist support for coercion, too. And I should note he admits that social anarchism has "largely outgrown the Individualistic-Anarchistic division in numbers and political importance." So, surely, any definition of anarchism should reflect this. User:BlackFlag 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, what is your reason for suggesting social hierarchy is acceptable in anarchism? BlackFlag has given plenty of sources but you are supporting your claim with only your words. -- infinity 0 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
YOu said, more or less, a voluntary government is anarchistic. Anarchism is anti-government. Your objection makes no sense.
Provide your opposing source. -- infinity 0 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It says anti-hierarchical. You're not disputing this. What's the problem, then? -- infinity 0 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't given any source that says supports your comment that a voluntary hierarchy is anarchistic. That's what the real point is. I have given one source with this definition. Many definition miss out a lot of things. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the definition. Anarchism is anti-hierarchical. -- infinity 0 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, those definitions all imply it severely.
As we all know, hierarchy is a euphemism for authority and control, whether voluntary or not. Burden of proof is on you. -- infinity 0 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The intro doesn't mention social anarchists. Neither does the wikiquotes. I just handed out 4 definitions to you on a plate showing that anarchism is anti-hierarchical. You haven't provided any sources stating the opposite. -- infinity 0 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Authority is synonymous to hierarchy. Those four definitions support the one source. Provide an opposing source, or else there is no dispute. -- infinity 0 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
But for others, it doesn't. So then, what's your problem? Bakunin quote? -- infinity 0 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Administrative functions" isn't hierarchy. Hierarchy involves controlling those further down the hierarchy. hi·er·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "hierarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rärk, hrär-) n. pl. hi·er·ar·chies
RJII, I don't want to waste space, so I point you to Libertatia's reply above explaining the flaw in your logic that dictionary definitions are total and absolute and a comprehensive, detailed and accurate source. -- infinity 0 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What was the line: "Some say yes. Some say no."? The slogans say "against all authority," which probably isn't exactly right. On the other hand, most anarchist appear to oppose more than just the state. It's likely that most actual anarchist activism is aimed targets other than the state per se: racism, patriarchy, environmental degredation, economic inequity, hunger, etc. It probably does come down to the question of "coercion," and the differences between anarchists largely break down according to there definitions of the coercive. Libertatia 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is simple. An-Archy, against *archy.* Hier-archy, a form of *archy.* Anarchy is against hierarchy. This does not mean that people cannot form hierarchical organisations, just that such organisations are not, by definition, anarchist. For example, if a religious cult creates a little community based on the worship and obedience to their leader then as long as they don't impose it on others, that is fine. It is *not*, however, an anarchist community. Similarly, if a group of Leninist form their own little "dictatorship of the proletariat" somewhere. That is the difference. BlackFlag 08:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Another perspective. Anarchism, as a political theory, was born when Proudhon wrote _What is Property?_ specifically to refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware that in such circumstances property "violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." He, unsurprisingly, talks of the "proprietor, to whom [the worker] has sold and surrendered his liberty." For Proudhon, anarchy was "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" while "proprietor" was "synonymous" with "sovereign" for he "imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control." This meant that "property engenders despotism," as "each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property." [_What is Property_, p. 251, p. 130, p. 264 and pp. 266-7] I've already noted Proudhon's opposition to wage labour and support for "industrial democracy", so suggesting that the father of anarchism would have agreed that anarchism is against hierarchy in the workplace). BlackFlag 09:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The idea that anarchism is against hierarchy is not one limited to "communists" (as RJII). As I've shown, Proudhon was against the concept. Not only that, he used the actual word (hierarchy). For example, we find him stating "As you cannot conceive of society without hierarchy, you have made yourselves the apostles of authority" He wonders "Is it, then, impossible that, in the present condition of society, the workshop with its hierarchical organization, and machinery, instead of serving exclusively the interests of the least numerous, the least industrious, and the wealthiest class, should be employed for the benefit of all?" He notes that the "workshop, after having degraded the laborer by giving him a master, completes his degeneracy by reducing him from the rank of artisan to that of common workman." He does indicate an alternative, association but "In order that association may be real, he who participates in it must do so, not as a gambler, but as an active factor; he must have a deliberative voice in the council . . . everything regarding him, in short, should be regulated in accordance with equality." (obvious links with The General Idea there, as quoted before) He also calls for "a war of labor against capital; a war of liberty against authority; a war of the producer against the non-producer; a war of equality against privilege" (System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery) I think we can safely say that opposition to hierarchy is a long standing anarchist principle, as shown by Proudhon. Moreover that he thought that "hierarchy" was a result of wage labour and he favoured workers' control (association) to end it. BlackFlag 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to track down RJII's article by Richard Sylvan. It was, to say the least, an interesting read. As well as the claim that anarchists are not opposed to government, I discovered that "hostility" to the state "is not a feature of anarchism." I think that we need to ensure that any definition of anarchism should read "anarchists are not opposed to government or the state", that seems very accurate!
In addition, I was impressed to discover that anarchism "is in fact the most recent and novel of political philosophies"! And there I was, under the impression it pre-dated Marxism by at least 8 years! Obviously 1840 comes *after* 1848, silly me. I was also impressed to discover that the "notion has recently been extended beyond political arrangements." Silly me, to have thought, for example, that Goldman and de Cleyre had "extended" the "notion" to attack sexism in the 1880s and 1890s! I suppose it all depends on what "recently" means! After all, Proudhon had "extended" the "notion" to attack wage labour in 1840 but, then, I forgot 1840 comes some time *after* 1848 so, maybe, it is more "recent" after all!
So, what to conclude? Well some may conclude that the article is pretty flawed and, consequently, not really a firm basis to change the definition of anarchism. After all, "no government" government is an oxymoron of the highest order. Moreover, if we accept that we need to accept that anarchists are also okay with the state. Which makes the definition of "anarchism" a bit tricky as it no longer means what most people (and anarchists) would think it means. Or we may conclude, with RJII, that based on this one article the definition of anarchism should be changed and, as a result, anarchism becomes compatible with government, state and numerous other "voluntary" arrangements (such as dictatorship, contractual slavery, and such like).
I would suggest that changing the definition of anarchism would be a mistake based purely on this article. BlackFlag 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If government is that which organizes and constrains human behavior, then it must include custom and contract as well as the coercive authority. Most people think of the latter as the source of all order, and thus it's natural that government is commonly a synonym for state. Natural but unfortunate. Now: to be a good anarchist, would I have to oppose custom and contract? — Tamfang 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think anbarchosocialism is when everyone owns something and then fights to see who gets to use it what abnout you? And i think this is a really great system because people are always fighting instead of everything being set up by THE MAN! what about you
AgreeToBe
I have tidied up Anarcho-syndicalism section:
Removed the following sentence: Because it does not oppose profit or capitalism, most anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, apropos the discussion above, as not only is it totally speculative (in terms of "most anarchists..." and utter nonsense, but it is also a total non-sequitur - anarchism has nothing whatever to say, per se, about profit or capitalism. ElectricRay 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Great, just what we need -- another zealot. -- AaronS 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
HAHA. Nozick, an anarchist! — no. -
FrancisTyers
16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
How I see it, anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of anarchism, but only after you take the anarcho-capitalist definition of anarchism ("the abolishment of the state"), which conveniently puts it at the very center. But seeing as only anarcho-capitalists use this extremely limited definition, the point is moot. Anarchism didn't begin as an opposition to "the state", it began as an opposition to domination, to authority, to governing of any sort. It's such a trap that people like RJ are now having to argue that anarchism doesn't oppose government to explain why "private defense agencies" (or "competing governments", as Molinari called them) and so-called "voluntary governments" are compatible with anarchism. So sure, anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, even the perfect anarchism, after it completely abandons anarchism and redefines the word around itself. Sarge Baldy 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
AaronS evidently didn't like my paragraph breaks, I think, so I will just reinsert the substance of my post (with apologies to AaronS if this amounts to "flamebait" - but I don't think it does, and it certainly isn't intended to). ElectricRay 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sarge, I don't think the world can grow forever, and so I don't think my conclusions are even remotely utopian - if anything they're nihilistic. the one problem we face, which none of us, by ourselves, can control, is consumption of resources. We can try to be as efficient as possible about how we consume them - how we get the best bang for buck - but I don't see how any form of anarchism can temper our demands and desires to be less desirous of resources altogether. If you don't compel people not to consume and breed, they'll consume and breed until equilibrium is reached. What is equilibrium? The point at which the additional person, or consumption, isn't possible. It can be reached either in the good old fashioned apocalyptic Malthusian fashion - ie there are no resources left, or it could be acheived by people taking control of all the resources, so no more are freely available. Once a resource is yours, you're incentivised to look after it (or exchange it for fair value) in a way you're simply not if it's communally owned (two examples: the fastest car in the world: the rental car, and the time-honoured teacher's cry of "would you do that at home?"). If a finite resource is free to everyone, then everyone will try to gobble up as much of it as is possible for themselves before it all gets eaten. Any account of societal organisation which denies or disputes this is practially useless. A society must be orginased consistently with the interests of the people in the society. The tragedy is not that there is private ownership, but that some really vital things aren't susceptible of private ownership. Air, for example.
Each of us tries to master (or dominate, perhaps) our environment, be it people, or trees, or insects, or viruses. And each of these organic things in our environment is trying to master the environment, too. The species who survive are the ones who are best at that. If your anti-humanism is inconsistent with that, you're welcome to it. But don't take malaria tablets next time you're off into the jungle - that wouldn't be fair on the malaria bugs.
If I were in your anarchy I wouldn't try to go it alone. Anarcho capitalism isn't about going it alone - if you think it is, I don't think you've grasped it. I have skills, I would offer them for some reward acceptable to me for the effort. And if my reward is more than I need to survive I would put the excess to use in creating more rewards, so that I didn't have to just survive, but thriving. I might even use some of them to buy the skills of someone else to help my enterprise. And so on. I don't see why this is such an outrageous idea, but it seems to send "textbook" anarchists into apopleptic fits.
Slavery is a the utter worst case example, but fine - let's deal with that: Yes, it's one way of getting people to cooperate with the grand plan. But consider how inefficient it would be: you would have to spend too much time, money and aggravation finding slaves, incarcerating them, guarding them, stopping them from running away, and supervising their work, and most likely at they'd not be especially skilled or productive because the slave would be resentful and disincentivised to turn out a good product. Another guy might make the same product with correctly incentivised, voluntary labour, paying them a lot more (he doesn't have to sink costs into finding, capturing, incarcerating, supervising and tracking down truants, after all). The slave owner would think, stuff this for a lark ... ElectricRay 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think this is getting to the end of the part where there's an valuable exchange of information or views, and down to fundamental perspectives, and like christians and atheists, we're not going to persuade one another, and so I'll pull up now. Let's agree to disagree. Nice talking to you, all the same.
ElectricRay
23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your tip, my friend, but can I suggest that what is important is biology, not anthropology. Try The Selfish Gene, or Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
I think the last iteration of this discussion was in archive 27, section 15. Also stuff on Nozick about then. Eternal recurrence of the same, eh. And even prisoners dilemma further down that archive. Bengalski 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, “most” is OR and “many” would be more neutral. Does anyone disagree? -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is kind of a tricky issue. There is nothing in the core tenets of anarchism that says it must be the syndicate style, and excluding anarcho-capitalism based on the predominant school of modern anarchist thought just causes a self fulfilling prophecy/no true scotsman fallacy. On the other hand, it's not really neccesary to throw anarcho-capitalism under the umbrella of anarchism at this point, as we already have libertarianism as an overriding philosphy that it could be considered a flavor of. Though if you do that, you better also consider whether or not Agorism should be thought of as anarchist thought. - Mike May 8, 2006
"As has been indicated, many writers about anarchism have taken opposition to government to be the most distinctive characteristic of the theory...However, there is further reason for questioning such a characterization: the distinction that some anarchists have themseleves made between government and state. While there runs through all anarchist writings an unmitigated contempt for the state, the anarchist position on government is far from unequivocal hostility." (What is Anarchism, John P. Clark) I think we need to note somewhere in the article that government is not necessarily incompatible with anarchism. It's only government that initiates coercion that is incompatible. RJII 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I’ve checked the essay. Guess what? RJII has hardly done it service. Take his quote. The part he misses out starts "This is, in fact, probably the means of defining the term.” Funny what a "…" can hide! Clark admits that "the use of the term ‘government’ is quite atypical of that of anarchism in general." And (surprise!) Clark is *not* talking about “private defence firms” but rather Nock’s ideas, noting that his use of the term "government" is "unusual" and a "limited sense of the term."
So, apparently, we should change the definition of anarchism based on an edited quote from an author who states clearly that it is "unusual" and "atypical" to use the term in this way! Clark also notes that "no government" is "probably the means of defining the term". Presumably RJII has read the article in question and so his doctoring of the quote is intentional, as is his ignoring of the relevant discussion and quotes Clark provides on the matter. I have to admit to being a bit sick of having to track down RJII’s sources in order to find the context of them.
Clark himself discusses the anarchist definition of anarchism, noting that anarchists use the term "no government" or "no authority" as a definition. He summarises that "Anarchism can be described not only as a theory that opposes such things as government, the state, authority, or domination, but also as a theory that proposes voluntarism, decentralisation, or freedom." He also says that "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism, saying "what they propose is a system in which the affluent voluntarily associate to use force and coercion against the poor and weak in order to maintain class privilege. The abuses of the state are thus perpetuated after the state is allegedly abolished." Needless to say, he draws a clear distinction between it and individualist anarchism. BlackFlag 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I see there have been several new debates over anarchist theory again. Please keep in mind that you are not obliged to answer someone's points. This is the talk page for the article anarchism, not for anarchism. Understand that not answering does not automatically make the other person right. Furthermore, if you think the opposing view is ridiculous, why bother dignifiying your opponent with a reply?
In short, these sort of debates are pointless, you can't win, they waste a lot of time and they aren't productive. Please don't start them, and please don't carry them on. -- infinity 0 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Infinity, a good anarchist would just leave everyone else to debate if they feel like it. If you don't want to debate, don't. ElectricRay 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A good anarchist also gives helpful advice to friends. -- infinity 0 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A good anarchist - and a good Wikipedian - also mentions on the talk page why he has reverted the patently stupid "most anarchists" comment, especially in light of the careful reasons - explaining the non-sequitur - set out on this talk page. How can you say with any sincerity or credibility that you know what most anarchists think? This is just plain daft. ElectricRay 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Prose is not mathematics. -- infinity 0 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And petulance is not a sort of air freshener. ElectricRay 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
More like a grumpy old man and a wise-guy teenager. Look, all I want to know is this: why is there so much resistance to saying "a number of prominent anarchists think" - which is a defensible assertion - and not "most anarchhists think" - which, even you now concede, isn't? ElectricRay 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"What most anarchists think" is not really relevant as to whether a philosophy is a true form of anarchism. It's all too common for someone to think their anarchism is the true anarchism. Does anyone really expect an anti-capitalist anarchist to grant that anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism? There are anarcho-communists who claim anarcho-syndicalism is not true anarchism. There are labor-value individualist anarchists that claim anarcho-communism is not true anarchism. And, so on. Anarchists can't really be relied on for this. Now, if an anarchist with a doctorate in political philosophy makes the claim in a peer-reviewed journal that's another story. That would be a credible source. But, it's best to reference non-anarchists, if possible, on this question. RJII 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
-- 88.155.0.123 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It's just a suggestion, but hasent there ought to be a section on the red scare, where anarchy was protested and communism was feared, with V.I. lenin asking the world to revert to communism, i have nither the time nor writing skils to write one, maby just a link to the red scare.-- Teh Teck Geek 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for a FAQ or contrives articles on the net anonymously then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him on the Auberon Herbert article, that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?" [12] that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy. [13] Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? I don't think so. He's been citing these things as sources on this article as well. Here is another article that magically appeared just a couple days after a dispute about Herbert for which he had no sources: [14]. It looks like BlackFlag is this "Anarcho" character. If what it appears to be true, is true (it appears to be too much of a coincidence to not be), then this is fraudulent. RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
RJ, there is a class chasm between u and the blackflag (the crimson one). The faq I have to see but other stuff is sourced.could do with one more. But at least he's not misquoting ehh? ---
max rspct
leave a message
22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2. If anyone has comments, please feel free to input. Thanks. -- infinity 0 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The RfC is only a comment. Its very nature is to be a consequent-free thing. As for your attitude, have you not even read what I wrote? Your attitude is exactly the problem. You think you're right all the time (in fact I have yet to see you admit to a mistake). You keep explicitly insisting your edits are NPOV and sourced, though many editors have found fault with them, and you have distorted policy to attack others' edits. -- infinity 0 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Unethical? You are on probation for being unethical. Even if BlackFlag wrote this specifically to piss you off, I see that as poetic justice. And, even if your accusations are true, that doesn't give you the right to attack An Anarchist FAQ like this. The editors may be assuming in good faith that BlackFlag is contributing content, which I'm sure has been checked for factual accuracy. -- infinity 0 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's just one example. Look for yourself at the rest of the content.
Here is an example of me requesting a source for weasal words/original research: [18] There is no source for him to cite until he gets it in the FAQ, then he comes back and puts it back in with a citation: [19] That part of the FAQ did not exist when he put the sentence in the Auberon Herbert article. (Again, that F7 section [20] has not been added to the mirror sites yet (at the time I'm writing this), such as at Infoshop [21]) There are many more examples. The F7 part of the FAQ was written directly as a result of my dealings with him in the Auberon Herbert article, and used for citations. It's clearly a scam. RJII 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As RJII has "proven" that supporting governments and states (aka Auberon Herbert) is compatible with anarchism, I was wondering why Ayn Rand is listed as a minarchist in the "anarcho"-capitalist section. Like Herbert, she supported an elected "central agency" to define and combat crime. Like Herbert, she was in favour of limited government and the state. Like Herbert, she was in favour of free market capitalism. Like Herbert, she was in favour of voluntary taxation. Like Herbert, she was against "the initiation of force". And, like Herbert, she explicitly denied being an anarchist. It seems highly illogical that one should be listed as a "minarchist" while someone with identical politics should be classed by RJII as an "anarchist." It suggests one of two things. That Rand should be classed as an anarchist or that RJII is wrong. Obviously, the latter is not possible so perhaps people could explain why Rand should not be re-labelled as an anarchist. BlackFlag 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't possible for all coins to be counterfeits. Why? Because counterfeiting has significance only as an effort to imitate something else. Anarchists, including the anarcho-cap kind, would create a world in which "all coins are counterfeit" which (since that is impossible as just explained) means a world in which the idea has lost its significance. So the remaining problem would be ... what? If I make a deal with you to build you a house in return for an ingot of gold, I build the house, and you give me a brick painted yellow ... that's just garden variety fraud, isn't it? -- Christofurio 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Baldy, what's the hint of coercion in an insurance or pyramid scam
I suppose you've looked at Albania and decided that in "anarcho-capitalism" there would be no irrational human beings, or alternatively blame it all on the government. - FrancisTyers 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
State 1. (historical) the organization of legitimized plunder (Oppenheimer) 2. (legalistic) an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area (Max Weber) 3. (Rothbard) that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive geographical monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a feature of all governments; as well, historically speaking, it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services rendered but by coercion.
Comment: 3 is basically conjoining 1 and 2.
government
1. State
2. an organization intended to secure the rights of individuals
3. the person or persons who organize and lead and/or exert a guiding influence over an organization.
Comments: The distinction between 1 and 2 is discussed by Albert Jay Nock in chapter 2 'The Origins of State and Class' in Our Enemy the State (whole book online!!!).
Definition 2 is practically synonymous with PDA (private defense agency) Definition 3 is rarely used in political discussion except perhaps to obfuscate, as Tetra aptly noted.
This should resolve the verbal arguments re "state" and "government." Anarchists are (by def) against all states in principle. Anarchists are not necessarily against government in the sense of definitions 2 or 3.
Another confusion I saw: Someone pointed out that Herbert used the term "state" in his writings. Also, Proudhon and Bakunin did so. Of course, none of these used it in the modern sense. In context, we see that these guys were using "state" to mean government(def 2). Please realize that meanings of some words (e.g. state, socialism, capitalism) were different back then. Max Weber had not yet precisely defined "state." - An Observer
I’m not sure how anything coming from infoshop concerning anarchist theory and practice can be considered credible. On theirs forum they are censoring all topics on anarcho-capitalism and banning all anarcho-capitalists writings 1. I guess that is how their anarchism would work in the real world, very much like Stalinism. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I hardly believe that stuff about BlackFlag, The FAQ doesn't update that often; when it does, it's not in response to Wikipedia.
I am the founder and main coordinator of Infoshop.org. The person who claims that Infoshop censors people in our forums doesn't have a clear understanding of censorship or why websites have a right to moderate and control discussions. Every website which runs forums and discussion boards has some kind of moderation policy. Even the boards which look like they have no rules will moderate posts which may put the site in trouble with the authorities. Websites like Infoshop have a right to set moderation policies because this is part of free speech and freedom of association/disassociation. You would be laughed out of the room if you demanded that some magazine publish your words and then screamed censorship.
Infoshop has a variety of moderation policies for forums on our website. We have a set of guidelines for our popular Infoshop News forum (which have been copied by other websites). We have very few rules for some of the boards on our Infoshop forums and more rules for other boards. We don't allow anarcho-capitalists to post to the website because we've found that many of these people are simply ignorant about basic political and economic theories. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron and we feel that anybody who pushes this nonsense is just confusing people about anarchism. People who are interested in "anarcho-capitalism" really should familiarize themselves with mutualism and the works of Kevin Carson. Mutualism is a much more sophisticated take on capitalism which also overlaps with anarchism. If you really, really love capitalism and want to exploit working people, you might want to join the American Libertarian Party or the GOP.
Infoshop mirrors "An Anarchist FAQ" on our site. We work closely with Iain, in fact, he just sent me an update tonight. It's not true that the FAQ is just a rebuttal to anarcho-capitalists. Many people have helped with the FAQ over the past 10 years and many more have offered their feedback. I've sent Iain more than a few emails taking issue with various parts of the FAQ. Overall, the FAQ is a pretty good overview of anarchist theories, albeit one with a few serious problems. Chuck0 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, Libertaria, but there is a significant flat-earther element amongst the "current" anarchist community (being the ones who hotly dispute the inclusion of anarcho-captialism). Saying that the "the mechanisms at work in the academy and in the publishing industry are hardly value-neutral" might be right, but I doubt it, frankly, and it sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory to me: that is certainly the simpler explanation at any rate. I didn't know much about Socialist Anarchism before getting involved in discussions on these pages, but it strikes me as being not especially coherent a philosophy, and to the extent it is coherent, it's not materially different from anarcho-syndicalism, which is only really championed these days by Chomsky, whose political philopsophy is (quite fairly) taken much less seriously that his linguistics, and which in turn isn't materially different from good old fashioned Marxist-theoretical communism. An-Cap, on the other hand, has its own problems (revolving around the moral justification and natural law), but at least has a more recent credible academic track record than an-socialism. Neither has a good answer to the problems posed by relativism, other than highhandedly wishing them away. What I've surmised from all this is that "anarchism" as a serious political movement, however you define it, is a bit of a dead-letter these days, for all the enthusiasm of the contributors (including myself) on these pages. Like creationism it's strictly an amateur pursuit, and the reason it doesn't get much academic attention is, frankly, because it doesn't deserve it. ElectricRay 10:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
@Chuck0 I'm not saying that you don't have the right to censor and ban other people from writing on your forum. I'm just saying that censoring and banning practice makes you a hypocrite because you are claiming that the anarchism is opposed to social hierarchy. Allowing anarcho-capitalists to present their views on certain subjects wouldn't get your site into trouble with the authorities anymore than allowing social anarchists to present their views. Or do you think that AC viewpoints are greater threat to the authorities than SA viewpoints? -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
List of anarchism web resources is up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchism web resources. I doubt many of you know this, so here is the news. -- infinity 0 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Requested by Sarge Baldy, even though they've already been discussed extensively.
Oh yeah, some idiot thinks that anarchism is not against rulership, but only competition in rulership. I reverted that. Hogeye 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction imo. Since capitalism by definition means head of state or head of government, any relation between anarchism and capitalism is very suspect. [27] -- 88.152.120.125 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What a loaded vocabulary you have. I don't buy into the typical ideology of development being "good", or "civilization" and "advances in technology" good, so they don't quite work as selling points.
That's nonsense. You're on the internet. Of course development is good, of course advances in technology are good, civilisation is a loaded word. How the hell else are we going to get off this planet ? Having said that, I think in most civilised countries both running water and medicine are subsidised for those who can't afford to pay. Having clean drinking water is not a luxury.- FrancisTyers 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are assuming far too much about what my preconceptions are, and what my beliefs are. I don't subscribe to Rothbard or Nozick, for example, and I certainly don't believe my preferred society is the right one - mny whole patter, if you'd trouble yourself to read it, is that there is NO right one, and my view is no more valid than yours, or anyone else's. What appeals to me about what I see as anarchy is the complete dissolution of concentrated societal power. In a statist environment an individual gives up his ability to act on his values irrevocably to the state. In capitalism he doesn't. I always have the ability to quit my job, sell my stock, go live in a forest, not buy your stuff, buy his stuff, save my money, spent it foolishly, and my small action can have a small impact on any social hierarchy you might have created. But no greater (nor less) an impact than my total value in the grander scheme of the community. Now it might be that everyone in the community sees the world as you do, Sarge, in which case your view and mine are identical: without a state, our interests will be aligned anyway and we'll live in peace and harmony and at one with nature, because that's what each of us values and how each of us acts (but wouldn't that be the case if everyone agreed even with a state?). But frankly, I'm extremely skeptical about that. This is not a theoretical point but an empirical one. For your view to work, everyone has to share your view. Everyone. It can't work if there are a core of dissenters, because they'll exploit the rest. All I am saying is, if those conditions of unanimity aren't met (and I've been around long enough to know they won't be - indeed 5 minutes on this talk page should be all you need to understand that!) your vision won't work. Now you can call me names and put this failure down to my capitalist brainwashing if you like, but I'd be more persuaded if you'd explain how you'll get all these selfish, greedy, disagreeing people to buy your vision. ElectricRay 23:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is, if you defect, in anarcho-capitalism, it's nobody's problem but yours. Anarcho capitalism doesn't need a state to gang up on you to keep you in line (as, with respect, anarcho socialism does), indeed it doesn't care whether you're "in line" or not; in any case, because of how the interests are aligned, the blind algorithmic processes will take care of that. Defector strategies (be they of the oppressive or tree-hugging variety) will eventually wither. In Anarcho socialism, the defector (be he an oppressor, a capitalist building a dam upstream, or even the member of the community who wants a bit more water than his fair share) gets a positive advantage by defecting, hence, as you suggest A-S is unstable; in A-C, the defector is at a disadvantage over time, hence it isn't. In the limit, in the short term, A-C is susceptible to domination by a single agency which is so successful it can afford the "expenditure" of repressing everyone else to the point where it is a dictatorship. But only in the short term, unless it leavens itself with a pretty good story to the people about how it is really doing what the people want, and the people, on the whole, buy it - that's called democracy. A-C is also susceptible to the tragedy of the commons, as I have said frequently - but because under A-C the "commons" will tend to be minimised by private ownership (rather than being maximised, as in your account, it is about as good as any strategy for dealing with that conundrum. The part I think you're ignoring is that your account is susceptible not just to cartoon style big bad capitalists, but to the evoluntionary impulse everyone of us has to eat a bit more, breed a bit more, and live in just a bit more comfort. ElectricRay 06:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Biiiiiig dilemma... What you've described is the Dodo, or the Moa ... fine, and absolutely perfect for its environment ... until someone bigger and smarter, with a different set of values, arrives. You can't provide for a community where there are conflicting values. HUGE problem. And your vague and somewhat euphemistic "non anarchist means of accomplishing an anarchist solution" - "anarchist solution" in particular has an extremely unpleasant ring to it - must involve the inculturation of everyone in the community with the same set of values (and surpirse surprise ... they're YOUR values!). Also, did you not say "elder" of the tribe... sounds like some form of social hierarchy, no? ElectricRay 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See if you feel the same way in 15 years, Sarge. I hung out with a lot of wild-eyed political idealists when I was at university - they're mostly running their own businesses now, 15-20 years later. Conversely, I don't know too many MBA students who are now living in communes. For what it's worth, I think the fallacy you're falling into is directly analogous to the "group selection" one - that people somehow act on the basis of what they perceive to be the best for their group as a whole. It appears that way, but no adaptation that didn't have a predominant personal benefit for the adapter would survive the evolutionary process. This "tyranny of the selfish gene", as Richard Dawkins puts it, and it's a trait we share with animals, trees and microbes. I recommend Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) and Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea; Breaking the Spell) - note that neither of these authors is even remotely capitalistic in outlook (Dawkins in particular is famously a fairly wet Lib Dem), but what they have to say has a direct bearing on any political philosophy which assumes people will see the common sense in acting in the best interests of everyone else over their own interests. Also - and I know he's anathema to you lot, but still: a lot earlier than Proudhon et al, Adam Smith had this to say, and this remains (with Darwin's dangerous idea) one of the cleverest observations in modern philosophy:
Yes, the cited FAQ page is amazingly weak. We've covered this many times before - just look up "dildo" in the Talk archives. Why dildo? Because the main argument on that FAQ page is: [b]A dildo is whatever traditionally has been considered a dildo.[/b] IOW it uses a totally illegitimate "definition." A good definition needs to have a genus and a differentia. A circular appeal to past usage doesn't hack it. We even used to have a template for this:
Libertatia> "It strikes me that the an-cap vision being presented here makes the freedom of the market primary, and the freedom of individuals secondary." No, you have it backwards. Freedom of individuals is the primary; freedom of the market is simply the application of freedom of individuals with respect to production and trade.
Hogeye
20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Libertatia> "Anarchism has never been whatever remains in the absence of the state" Right. Anarchism is the philosophy with the goal absense of State. Of course, anarchists can have other values, too. E.g. We have various additional values which we want in addition to no state. But statelessness is the primary and defining value of anarchism. Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Libertatia> "No capitalist I know of espouses capitalism on a moral basis ..." ??? Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, hell, just about every anarcho-capitalist I know bases it on the NAP (non-aggression principle) except Friedman and Narveson.
Libertatia> "... on the basis it "knows" what is best for everyone." Right. We generally abhor utilitarianism, but of course that is not the only moral basis. We tend to prefer Natural Law rather than utilitarian moral justifications.
Libertatia> "Capitalism, like evolution, is nothing more than a blind algorithmic process, which tends to have a certain effect in terms of efficient allocation of resources. It is entirely agnostic, of itself, to "what's best for the society", or even whether there is a society..." Right on. We see society more as an ecosystem with emergent order, as opposed to the statist view of society as a machine to be fixed by some imposed planned order.
Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it gives any village idiot the ability to create a yellow box and put the dumbest arguments into it. It's common for people who are ignorant about anarchism and who want it to mean something they make up to cite some dictionary definition of anarchism to justify their new take on the idea. The fact is that anarchism is much more than a dictionary definition. It describes a global movement of millions of people with a history that goes back over a century. There is a significant body of anarchist works which explain the ideas of anarchism. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, which is a logical extension of the anarchist hostility to the state. While it may be possible to have trade or a "free market" without the state, capitalism requires the state in order to exist. Chuck0 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant singular, of course. — Tamfang 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to fix links that go to the disambiguation page Radical. I cannot find a suitable article to redirect 'radicals' to from here. In anarchism, 'radical' usually means other anarchists, right? The nearest to this is probably Far-left. All there is on radicalism is Radicalism (historical). If I've not missed it, is there any point in starting a new page about radical activism in the anarchist sense, in opposition to liberalism and conservatism? Any suggestions appreciated. -- Cedders tk 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism? Yes or no? There is a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism? Yes or no?
The point of the poll above is to find out if there is really consensus that schools of anarchism do not exist. That is the rather absurd claim of the assholes who keep deleting the AnarchismSchools chart. Of course, the real reason they don't want the chart is probably more like: 1) they want anarchism to appear to naive Wiki readers as some kind of unified doctrine, and/or 2) they want to hide/sandbag the schools they don't agree with. - Hogeye
The slashes are caused by Hogeye using a broken open proxy to evade his ban. - FrancisTyers 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hogeye, have you even noticed that you're using the wrong syntax for the image? An unexplained link is nearly pointless. — Tamfang 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed that 88.152.120.125, whose contributions usually amount to "boo capitalism," should insert a link to that a-c Bryan Caplan! — Tamfang 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the sense of the sentence in the entry is that, since Proudhon understood "anarchy" as a kind of unreachable limit, and came to privilege justice over any of the things that would be balanced to achieve it, he is "more distant" in the later writings, where this is clear, than he is in the writings where he will boldly say, "I am an anarchist!" Since all of Proudhon's work was written before "anarchism" really existed as a movement, there's a bit of anarchronism here, but the phrase is at least intelligible and not particularly inaccurate. I'm not sure the dispute tag is necessary. Libertatia 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no basis for this objection. In The Principle of Federation, Proudhon concedes that anarchy is an unrealizable ideal (i.e. a "perpetual desideratum"). Consequently, as footnote 16 already indicates, in that same work he advocated a confederation of "sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees." That's a direct quote, not a paraphrase. I think it's fair to say that someone who regards anarchy as an unrealizable ideal and who advocates a confederation of sovereign states has clearly distanced himself from anarchism. If you want a secondary source tracing Proudhon's political evolution in this regard, you can read Robert Graham's introduction to the 1989 Pluto Press edition of Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, now posted on the Anarchy Archives website (under "Proudhon Commentary"). Proudhon began to distance himself from anarchism (i.e. a doctrine that espouses anarchy as an ideal) as early as 1852, when he called upon the new dictator, Napoleon III, to continue the work of the 1848 French Revolution in his book, The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d’Etat of the Second of December (extensive selections from The Social Revolution are reproduced in December 2, 1851: Contemporary Writings on the Coup d’Etat of Louis Napoleon, ed. John B. Halsted (New York: Anchor Books, 1972), pp. 236-310). In his 1857 work, De la Justice dans La Revolution et dans l'Eglise, Proudhon wrote what he described as a "decisive concession" in his lengthy section on the state: as history has proven witness, anarchy "has no more reason for being in human society than disorder in the universe" (Proudhon, Oeuvres, nouvelle édition, vol. 8 (Paris: Rivière, 1930), vol. ii, p. 160). If you read Stewart Edwards' Selected Writings of Proudhon, you will see that by the 1860s Proudhon no longer identified himself as an anarchist, recognizing that his theory of federation was based on the continued existence of sovereign states. Robgraham 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you're not disputing the accuracy of the citations or the above comments regarding Proudhon's theory of federalism being based on the continued existence of sovereign states, then I think you should remove your "disputed" tag. Some people would go further than the current statement and say that Proudhon had completely abandoned anarchism, not simply distanced himself from it. Liberals, some conservatives, and some Marxists (i.e. those who have given up on anarchy as an achievable goal) would all agree that some kind of anarchy would be an ideal situation. What distinguishes them from anarchists is precisely their view that anarchy is a utopian and unrealizable ideal. To describe them as anarchists would deprive the term of any meaningful descriptive content. Robgraham 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a definitive discussion on the qualities of the "anarch" missing in this discussion of anarchy. I would like to define the anarch as "that which is the determining drive inherent within the individual." Can anybody come up with a better definition of the anarch than that? I'll wait a few days to change it.
Fight Back!
jedi
I thought the anarch was simply the absense of an arch. -- Christofurio 00:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The abscence of an arch, is a good way of explaining it, but it isn't the whole explanation of it. The internalized ideological and social constructions of the capitalist state is the "arch", and the negation of this is the "an" + "arch". As the internalized state is negated, the natural potential within man comes forth. In other words, without the inhibition of the internalized capitalist state, the full potential of an indivdual can be met, and since the internalized social control of the state is that which inhibits social development, then the "anarch" is the "determining drive inherent within the individual." Maybe I should add the term "uninhibited" to the definition of the anarch, thus making it "that which is the uninhibited determining drive inherent within the individual."
Fight Back! Jedi
Unless you can find an original or scholarly source that would show that the concept of the "anarch" as you define it has even been expressed or used by someone (other than yourself) expressing anarchist views, I don't see why this definition should be added.18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it was either Kropotkin or Malatesta that used the term anarch as such. It just requires me finding the passage. I'm sure it exists, since I did have to read it somewhere, so I'll wait until I find it to make the edits. Should I put the source in the article itself, or should I just quote it here? I don't want to clutter an already exhaustive article.
Jedi
Okay, I'm back. I found the anarch in, of all places, wikipedia!
"The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist..." Ernst Jünger. So, based upon this assertation of Junger, I simplified it to be the determining drive inherent within the individual, because the monarch is the determining drive of the state. Now, before I get jumped on, I'm not saying that the monarch was the ONLY determining drive of the feudal state, as there was class struggle there as well. But, the anarch is the determining drive of the individual. This concept would fit with the concept of the individual struggling against society inherent in anarchism.
Good enough?
Jedi
I hear ya bro, but check it. I would prefer to use a fascist source such as Junger due to the fact that anarchy does NOT need to prove itself since it exists naturally in the social order, world around us, and is the basis of the organic universe within which we all dwell. Those who attempted to use and abuse the inherent truth of anarchy, in many ways only validated its essence as truth. I think that Junger's quote is quite succinct.
Having said that, I do understand your apprehension of using an outright fascist source to verify such an integral aspect of anarchist theory as the anarch. Makhno advanced the idea of the individual aspect of anarchism in much of his polemical defence of the platform. The whole argumentation of anarchism provides a great synthesis of much of the streams of anarchist thought coalescing during the movements height. So, what I'll do is use the quote, give the explanation, and then verify the quote with Makhno. Is that cool?
Fight Back!
Jedi
Makhno never used the concept of the "anarch", nor did any other anarchist. They called themselves "anarchists" and did not postulate some kind of superanarchist archetype. You can't verify a quote from a one time Nazi sympathizer by citing something by Makhno which in no way relates to Junger's statement. The concept of the "anarch" simply has no currency in the history of anarchist thought.
I commend those who are participating in this discussion on anarchy for their anarchist principles. Let's analyze your assertation using anarchist principles. I will synthesize the "superarnarchist" idea you are putting forward, and say that the "anarch" isn't the super of, but the essence of anarchy.
Makhno said that anarchy is inherent in people today, and that only (libertarian) communism can bring it out. Malatesta and Kropotkin both said that anarchy exists within the people but that the state inhibits it. All of these said numerous times that anarchy does not need experts, a rational, nor method of analysis since it exists naturaly and only needs to be brought out by directly attacking the state.
A person who is outside of the anarchist thinking and objectivelly states that "anarch is to the anarchist what the monarch is to the monarchist" is making an objective statement as to what the primacy of anarchy is. Anarchy would be a society wholly dedicated to unleashing the latent drive and potential of each anarchists anarch. The sovereign individual will only create a community that has everybody as soveriegn individuals.
How about this for an addition? I'll clean up the language a bit first, but this is the essence of what I propose for an addition.
"Ernst Jünger, a one time Nazi sympathizer remarked that the "The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist..." meaning the determining drive inherent within the individual. Further advanced by Nestor Makhno when he said that "It is on the basis of the will of the individual that the libertarian [anarchist] teaching can be embodied in real life and clear a path that will help man to banish all spirit of submission from his bosom...could only be, for him, a means through which to achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst continuing to develop. " So, in effect, the goal of anarchists was and will be the emancipation of the anarch through the principles, struggle, and eventual creation of anarchy.
I believe that this paragraph should encompass the various streams of anarchist thought, and should easily fit into the introduction.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/ourtimes.htm for the source material
Fight Back! Jedi
I am so happy that you pointed out a serious potenial misreading of the concept of the "anarch" to be a person that replaces an anarchist. I thought I made it explicitly clear that the anarch is not a person, thing, or station, but the "inherent potential living within all of us." Malatesta reffered to the "spirit of revolt", but this requires anarchists to fire up through struggle against the state. The monarch is an exterior, hiearchical, state of coercive control embodied in a cult of personality. The anarch is the uninhibited driving desire within a human being. It is implied by the term "id" within Freudian psychology, but only if we interpret "ego" and "superego" to be internalized conscious aspects of the social state.
So, a state of anarchy, I hate using this term to conceptualize anarchy, would be based on the internal drive, the "anarch" being primary to the motivation of all to meet the needs of all. whereas, a state of hiearchy requires an executive to carry out the aspirations of the ruling class to meet the needs of the ruling class.
I should abstain from using "sovereign individual" since it implies bourgeois individualism -- the ideal that you are your own god and all should bow to your will. I meant it in purely anarchist terms as someone who has seized control of their conscious and is able to percieve the state in all its forms and desires to struggle against it.
Does this discussion clear up what I mean by anarch?
Fight Back
Jedi
I'm going to put in a few paragraphs from "The Platform" on anarchist communism. I find that it is completely divorced from this vital aspect of Anarchism.
Fight Back! Jedi
All that is necessary in the "Anarchism" page would be a short reference to Makhno. If you want to add a few paragraphs on Makhno, the Platform, and their relationship to anarchist communism, then you should add that to the "Anarchist Communism" page. 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How about a short reference to both Makhno, the makhnovschina, and the platform. I would suggest using that here since it did illustrate a form of anarchy in action, and was a document based upon that experience. After I type it, I'm sure that you'll guys will make sure that it's unbiased, but I fully believe that it is integral to understanding anarchy as a whole.
Is it time to trim the intro again? Putney debates, Polish nationalists ... really needed in the intro? Also the Proudhon section. Bengalski 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I made some more cuts to the intro:
I changed:
To:
I thought the first version had unnecessary repetition (we also have 'coercive structures' in the sentence above). I cut 'balanced reciprocity' because I don't think it's a concept used by many anarchist writers. All this about 'voluntary association', 'mutual aid', and 'self-governance' is a bit vague and abstract, but at least these three are common themes in the history of anarchist thought: you could find them or synonyms in anyone from Proudhon to today. Balanced reciprocity I think is rather less central.
In the last para I cut the quote: "total communism to zealous individualism. In between are found sundry recipes, from anarcho-syndicalism to anarcho-capitalism."[3] Everyone who has ever edited this page knows that the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism is controversial. I am not saying the article should deny that a-c is a form of anarchism. But given that so many dispute it, we shouldn't have it featured in the intro. Also, the quote really didn't add anything substantial.
I'm still concerned about the Cromwell etc. quotes - these reference 'anarchy' not 'anarchism'. Bengalski 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel the removal of the piece about the Wielkopolska Uprising was a little presumptory. It clear links up with Bakunin subsequently becoming such an ardent anarchist. Of course once one has a grasp of Bakunin's pan-slavism, it is easier to see how Aryan Anarchism could arise. Harrypotter 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here\'s an essay from Spunk Library by L. Gambone: Proudhon and Anarchism. Gambone takes the opposite viewpoint from RobGraham - that Proudhon was consistent in his anarchism and never wavered from anarchism. (Although he did change his terminology.) After reading both RobGraham and Gambone, I agree with the latter.
One point of contention is in the interpretation of \"perpetual desideradum.\" Literally, it means \'\'permanent primary goal\'\'. If someone asserts that their primary goal is anarchism, it is rather absurd to claim they\'re rejecting anarchism. Yet RobGraham does just this. Gambone emphasizes that Proudhon was \'\'anti-utopian\'\' - he wanted a practical anarchism. Thus Proudhon wrote about transition programs rather than what things might be like if the State magically disappeared. Contrary to RobGraham, an anarchist can talk about transition programs without losing his anarchist credentials.
RobGraham gives a partial contextless Proudhon quote when Rob writes: \"he advocated a confederation of \'sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees.\'\" The question here is whether Proudhon was writing about the anarchist ideal, or about a practical transition program. While Rob tries to spin it as a final goal, it\'s pretty clear to me that Proudhon is talking about a transition program. Why else would he emphasize that it is not the ultimate goal (\"perpetual desideradum\") but merely a program for the real world.
Unfortunately, I don\'t have a copy of \'\'Principle of Federation\'\', so I cannot judge for myself first-hand. (If someone has a copy, would you scan it in, OCR it, and put it on the web, please? Or send it to me and I\'ll put it on my site.) But my present take is that Proudhon was writing about a transition program, and being anti-utopian, recognized the fact that States exist and will continue to exist for some time. So if I ever get unblocked, I intend to delete the claim that Proudhon abandoned or distanced himself from anarchism.
Another claim made by Rob that I would contest is that federalism is (somehow) contrary to anarchism. Most Proudhon fans would say the opposite, that Proudhon\'s federalism is an essential part of his anarchism. Again, the fact that Proudhon wanted decentralization and federalism before States magically disappeared should not be construed as an endorsement of States. It is merely recognizing reality - shit happens and States exist. Get used to it, and plan accordingly.
Anyhow, I recommend the Gambone essay for those interested in Proudhon. - Hogeye
A much more complete reading of Proudhon which emphasizes his consistency and development, is Robert Hoffman's Revolutionary justice; the social and political theory of P.-J. Proudhon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972). I haven't seen anything that deals as fully with the untranslated sources. Libertatia 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How anti-authoritarian to simply remove the link to my essay on Proudhon because some people disagree with it! My essay has numerous references to original sources that clearly demonstrate that Proudhon was never a consistent anarchist and that by the time he wrote The Principle of Federation and On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes he had ceased to identify himself as an anarchist and no longer advocated anarchy as a viable alternative to the state. For an assessment of Proudhon as a democratic socialist rather than an anarchist, with extensive references to the original sources, see Steven Vincent's Proudhon and The Rise of French Republican Socialism. For those of you who read French, the introduction to the Riviere edition of Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century is very instructive. For those of you who don't, try reading Richard Vernon's introduction to his translation of The Principle of Federation (University of Toronto Press, 1979). Robgraham 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so what's up with this new section? I've never heard of this, it seems way to obscure to be mentioned in this article, especially considering that we are trying to find ways to decrease article lenghth. I mean, I thought we were compromising enough just to have an-cap in here, but what is up with this? Am I just missing something? I'm going to delete this section within 24 hours if there is no objection here. The Ungovernable Force 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
One article on non-western anarchism: [ [32]} Also Britannica has an article on east asian anarchism if anyone has access to that. And a reference to a book: Doctor, Adi Hormusji (1964): Anarchist thought in India, Bombay; New York: Asia Pub. House. Bengalski 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Jason Adam's article on non-Western anarchisms doesn't refer to "aryan anarchism." I doubt the other references do either. I think it would be better to include a section on non-Western anarchisms rather than this obscure entry with so far unsubstantiated factual claims.
Please do not remove this claim -- backed-up in the bottom-up democracyarticle -- without some kind of counter-argument.
Skovoroda 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you just say "Noam Chomsky says it's bottom-up democracy?" Preferably lower down in the article. Bacchiad 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This article comes up as 69Kb. Ideally articles shouldn't be more than 30kb (although WP:SIZE allows exceptions, but 69kb is really pushing it). As parts of this article are well referenced, I propose removing all unreferenced claims to the talk page (or a sub page thereof) this could enable the article to even gain featured article status. Comments, ideas, objections (please don't bite my head off, I am proposing this on the talk page rather than just doing it unilaterally :)). Captainj 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Posted on User: Harrypotter's talk page by User:Captainj: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
Also, if I may make a suggestion? The term Aryan Anarchism does seem non-notable, but perhaps some of the content you added may be notable. Is there no where else you can put this content such as a new article (but please avoid the word "anarchism" in the title). The anarchy page is too long, and adding content which has at best a very tenous link to anarchism isn't helpful. Captainj 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This maybe replying to two discussions in one but I hope it makes sense. (Harry, honestly I take your points very seriously and I agree with much of your general approach):
My impression from what I've seen so far (and not having access to the books either on the Ghadar party or on Indian anarchism, I admit I don't have much to go on): Hardayal was involved in anarchist movements in the USA, he was a leading figure in the Ghadar Party and there's every reason to believe that anarchist ideas will have influenced his contribution there. This would be interesting for the article on the GP, and maybe a wider discussion of anarchist influences on other political movements.
However, I don't see anything to say that the GP itself was an anarchist movement. It being anti-white or anti-english isn't the issue. None of your sources Harry say that it "very clearly is a variant of anarchism".
On the particular quotes you provided:
1) as we have discussed before, the IWW itself wasn't a purely anarchist movement. Also, as above, H's anarchist involvement doesn't necessarily translate into GP being an anarchist movement.
2) as also has been discussed before, propaganda of the deed is not a uniquely anarchist concept.
3) 'heterogenous democratic, syndicalist and anarchist notions' - indeed, maybe a movement influenced by anarchism ...
4, 5) again, I'm not questioning that H at least at one point was involved with anarchism. this is some way from being 'as much an anarchist as Proudhon and Bakunin' - anyone can point to texts by P and B that are cornerstones of anarchist theory and major influences on all subsequent anarchists - though maybe you've got a point about Stirner. My view is Stirner wasn't an anarchist, but he needs mentioning for the influence he had on anarchists.
On your two forces a and b these are both good points.
Still, without more evidence I'd peg the Ghadar Party as a movement with anarchist influences (at least from one founder - I don't know about the other leaders), but not itself explicitly advocating anarchism, and with many of its central tenets (eg. universal suffrage) very non-anarchist.
Which leads to CaptainJ's points - this article is already too long for us to start including 'movements partially influenced by anarchists'. Yes. We should maybe create another page (or category?) for that. Including fascist movements with anarchist influences.
I agree with Harry there is a load of other shit in this article that could be cut or moved elsewhere. The detail on amarican individualism and anarcho-capitalism shouldn't be here - but it's here because of edit warring not because of its intrinsic merits. Similarly all this US post-left and 'small a' stuff is overdone. This whole article is far too skewed to the US - even as for US versus much bigger and more notable European movements, and when we come to "non-Western" movements ...
Yes the article needs cutting, but actually there should be more on India, China, Latinamerica etc. All in all I can't really see it going much below 60K, and I don't think that's necessarily a big problem - the emphasis on the USA and anglophonia in general is a bigger issue. As I understand it the 30K idea comes from when there were browsers that couldn't handle more. I think many featured articles now are some way over, and on a topic like this I'm doubtful we'd ever get it down that low. For my browser at least I don't have a problem with the article length - though if genuinely there are people who still have technical problems with the length then yes we should make more effort. Bengalski 00:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Somalia is anarchic, but not an anarchy. It is anarchic because competing claimants to sovereignty and thus to governance are each trying to stake their claim. A society would become an anarchy properly speaking only if and when a sizeable majority ceased to believe in sovereignty as a premise, so no organization could plausibly claim to be the government. -- Christofurio 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Should he really get his own section, and so far up at that? I mean, he didn't even consider himself an anarchist. And he shows up before Bakunin!!! The American Indivualist Anarchist section already lists him as an influence on Tucker - who seems to be the only important thinker he influenced. Isn't that enough? Bacchiad 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Somalia an example of various forms of anarchy (no central government, completely free market) although it has many problems and abuses?-- Exander 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't trust western mass media regarding Somalia. (Or much else, for that matter.) It may well be that people are fighting for the right to join the arbitration/legal system of their choice (Xeer, Sharia, or whatever). Note that, as in Iraq and elsewhere, the USEmpire is managing to make terrorist factions of Islam more popular by intervening militarily - military aid to the non-Muslim faction in the recent Mog fighting. - H
User:AaronS keeps reinserting the claim "(Anarchism) has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist, and is to this day" and cites the Encarta article as the source. [34] This article's only mentions of capitalism are: anarchism's rise during the rise of large-scale industrial capitalism; Proudhon describing an alternative to capitalism, and the mention of A/C. It does not support what he posted there. See his post on my talk page. Note that this isn't new for AaronS. In the past, he claimed that an article, clear from its title that it was a critique of anarchy, was written by an anarcho-capitalist. He also thinks "strawman" is a generic catch-all for "argument I deem to be flawed". MrVoluntarist 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the "traditional" thing. Isn't something that's been around since at least the 1960's or 1970's (anarcho-capitalism) traditional? RJII 05:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The MS Encarta articles are clear and leave little to subjective interpretation. The Microsoft Corporation could hardly be considered to be a source biased in favor of socialism or anarchism. It would be an unimaginably mysterious feat of semantic voodoo to claim that the articles do not clearly state that anarchism was traditionally socialist and that anarchism is not "basically anticapitalist" today. And MrVoluntarist, you seem to be confused. I have made it clear which articles I have been citing since the beginning. The UK article establishes the traditional socialist relationship, and the US article establishes that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist" to this day. That's quite clear in the notes section of the article. -- AaronS 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The old version of the article claimed that anarchism is "a manner of organizing society." Anarchism is the opposite - it opposes a planned order in favor of emergent decentralized ("spontaneous") order. Anarchism is a political philosophy, not a planned or imposed order. If there's something anarchists vehemently disagree about among themselves, it's the manner of organizing society. - anon
Will you please stop reverting this article back and forth. It's hard to tell what the reverts are about and its getting silly. I can't even work out who's reverting and why (there are a lot of anonymous IP edits are they all from one person?). If this carries on I think the page should be temporarily protected, or semi-protected until we agree on content. At the moment, I can't even work out what the discussion is about. Incidentally, if someone has nothing else to do, this talk page really could do with archiving... CaptainJ ( t | c | e) 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
by Murray N. Rothbard
This article first appeared in The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.
Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.
Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.
And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.
It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.
Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.
If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.
They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.
Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence – all of which are corollaries of each other – anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."
The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.
Or would they?
Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.
Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.
On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.
Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.
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.
Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice – all this in the name of "freedom." The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.
Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.
Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources – labor, land, and capital goods – to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about – in vain – to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.
The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.
It is no accident that it was precisely the economists in the Communist countries who led the rush away from communism, socialism, and central planning, and toward free markets. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of anarcho-communism.
The same comment can be made on the widespread belief, held by many New Leftists and by all anarcho-communists, that there is no longer need to worry about economics or production because we are supposedly living in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems do not arise. But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man, we are still living in a world of pervasive economic scarcity.
How will we know when the world has achieved "post-scarcity"? Simply, when all the goods and services that we may want have become so superabundant that their prices have fallen to zero; in short, when we can acquire all goods and services as in a Garden of Eden – without effort, without work, without using any scarce resources.
The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown, one of the gurus of the new "counter-culture":
The great economist von Mises tried to refute socialism by demonstrating that, in abolishing exchange, socialism made economic calculation, and hence economic rationality, impossible … But if von Mises is right, then what he discovered is not a refutation but a psychoanalytical justification of socialism … It is one of the sad ironies of contemporary intellectual life that the reply of socialist economists to von Mises' arguments was to attempt to show that socialism was not incompatible with "rational economic calculation" – that is to say, that it could retain the inhuman principle of economizing. (Life Against Death, Random House, paperback, 1959, pp. 238–39.)
The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.
If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:
In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.
It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization – you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
From the US version of MS Encarta: "...in 1872 the anarchists were expelled from the International. Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." Stop removing the sourced claim that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist" from the article. I note that anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the 20th century, so it is NPOV. -- AaronS 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone feel the need to revert the article as currently written? If so, why? Please give specific complaints. BTW, I finally registered. BillyBong 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the second time today I accidentally hit save before finishing an edit summary. I just reverted sarge's last edit because the way you did it made it so one template overlaps with another. The Ungovernable Force 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement about the Cultural Phenomena section. In particular, whether only self-identifying anarchists should be included, or anyone who contributes significantly to anarchist cultural phenomena can be included. Currently, the section is inconsistent. Someone reverted to self-identifiers-only in the description, yet left such non-self-identifiers as Ursela Le Guin, Han Alfredson, Ward Churchill, and (possibly) Robert Anton Wilson among others on the list.
IMO anyone contributing to anarchist popular culture is a candidate for inclusion. Otherwise, let's change the section title to Self-labeled Anarchist Celebrities or something. A lot of anarchist cultural phenomena are put forth by non-anarchists, such as popular songs and groups, and authors with anarchist themes. It would be a shame to have to cut Le Guin or Heinlein. I don't think this section should have a purity test for inclusion. BillyBong 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In the latest mass revert, the Anarcho-capitalist section was fouled up. All the information explaining the justifications of ancap were deleted, and it went back to a version with ridiculously redundant reminders that ancap is controversial. I.e. twice in the first paragraph, all of the third paragraph, and a link at the end. The controversy should be pointed out, but the whole section shouldn't be dominated by repeated disclaimers. Once is enough, plus a link to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism at the end. So I'm changing the section back to the former version. BillyBong 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess not; it's been protected. Here's the improved version without the repeated disclaimers. It retains disclaimers in the first paragraph and the link at the end. Compare with current version. BillyBong 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that promotes an economic system of free market capitalism in which no authority would prohibit anyone to provide via the free market functions that are generally allowed by most current governments to be provided only by state monopoly such as defence of private property (police), legal/administrative institutions (courts) and environment conservation (e.g., U.S. Forest Service). Because anarcho-capitalism does not oppose profit, rent, interest or capitalism, many anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. [1]
Murray Rothbard's synthesis of classical liberalism and Austrian economics was germinal for the development of contemporary anarcho-capitalist theory. Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time). Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman. Some minarchists, such as Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein, have influenced anarcho-capitalism. But most anarcho-capitalists believe that anarchism without capitalism cannot exist, because in the absence of a state authority that would prevent it, capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop in any free society. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." [2]
Anarcho-capitalism is often based on the NAP ( Non-Aggression Principle), i.e. that the initiation of violence is morally wrong. This is analogous to Just War Theory, wherein aggression is wrong but retaliatory force (in proportion) is permissable. Proponents of this natural law basis for anarcho-capitalism point out that most people agree with the NAP on an individual level, but fail to apply it to governments, thereby giving them a super-moral status. Anarcho-capitalists insist on consistency when applying the NAP. Other anarcho-capitalists justify it instead on a utilitarian basis; monopoly states have the same drawbacks as other monopolies, e.g. expensive poor quality service.
Some anarcho-capitalists, along with some libertarian historians such as David Hart and Ralph Raico, considered similar philosophies existing before Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist, such as those of Gustave de Molinari and Auberon Herbert. [3] [4] Both Molinari and Herbert explicitly rejected the label of anarchist, associating it with the socialist factions prevalent in their time. Molinari called himself an economist, while Herbert coined the term voluntaryist.
For more on debate about the place of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Would you be so kind as to archive this talk page? Thanks. BillyBong 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I've moved the Criticisms of anarchism section to its own page to cut down the length of this one. Seems reasonable to have one page deal with what it is and another dealing with the criticisms / responses to it.
Chaikney 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on Wilson itself describes him as a libertarian, though his work certainly shows a strong left-leaning tendency. I didn't remove him from the list on this page, but added a note that he may be better described as a left libertarian. This is consistant with every interview and discussion of his politics I've seen, though if someone has something definative, I'm certainly open to concede the point.
Why did infinity0 remove Nozick from the passage about minarchists who have influenced a-c? — Tamfang 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Saw his page, it wasn't very big, so I thought he wasn't too notable. Two is enough anyway, we're not trying to provide a full list. -- infinity 0 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In Theory of Property, Proudhon writes: "In my System of Economic Contradictions, I reiterated and confirmed my first definition of property and then added another, quite contrary one based on considerations of quite a different kind. But this neither destroyed or was destroyed by my first argument. This new definition was: property is liberty. Property is theft: property is liberty: these two propositions stand side by side in my System of Economic Contradictions and each is shown to be true." (Edwards, ed. Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon. New York: Doubleday, 1969. p. 140.) See page 141 in the same source for the argument in favor of "property" "by its aims." But note that Proudhon, at this point, is also arguing for an "antinomic" balancing of anarchy and the aims of the State. I'll leave it to each to decide how to read these developments in Proudhon's thought, but this much is clear: the move in relation to "property" and "the state" is exactly the same move. So, either we read each move in terms of the irreducible dialectic and maintain Proudhon's original critique of property (though now in a complex tension with new thought), or we decide that Proudhon's anarchism is as abandoned as the notion of possession (although he denies the abandonment), and consider his embrace of property concurrent with an abandonment of anarchism. Libertatia 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Proudhon is absolutely clear, in Theory of Property, about maintaining both the original critique of property and advocacy of possession and the affirmation of property "by its aims." The question of whether he "distanced himself from anarchism" is open to interpretation, since "anarchism" as such was in its earliest stages of development, but Proudhon's own testimony about his thinking on property and possession are hard to argue with. Libertatia 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
RJII, while it is true that Proudhon changed his rhetorical strategy—as I have already mentioned above—and while that might be useful information in the Proudhon entry, or in an expanded discussion here, the trend has been to cut such explanations. And it remains clear that he did not change his basic ideas about property and possession. To mention the change in rhetoric without mentioning the antinomies, for example, presents a very deceptive picture. Libertatia 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I dispute that Proudhon opposed wage labor. That's one of the main reasons why the anarcho-communists don't like him. RJII 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. - under wage labour the employer takes sole ownership of the products. -- infinity 0 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely that "the idea" refers to "labour cheques", as it is the preceding noun??? -- infinity 0 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. You still think "wage labour" is the same as "wages for labour". -- infinity 0 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Kropotkin is refusing to acknowledge a significant difference between a system based on labor notes and wage labor under capitalism. That's understandable, coming from an advocate of communist anarchism. From that point of view, any system that makes access to goods contingent on specific quantities of labor falls short of the goal. But that doesn't mean that the labor note system actually is wage labor in the generally accepted sense. Kropotkin is critical of Proudhon because he's not a communist. We need to be a little more specifically critical, since the issue here seems to be how to distinguish between capitalist and mutualist labor-contingent systems. Libertatia 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better to try to keep to the actual words used by Proudhon and Kropotkin than for Wikipedia contributors to keep trying to put their own spin on what they wrote. Here is what Proudhon said about communism and wage labour in What is Property:
"In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the conscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be the duty of the strong to aid the weak, they prefer to do it out of generosity, — they never will endure a comparison. Give them equal opportunities of labor, and equal wages, but never allow their jealousy to be awakened by mutual suspicion of unfaithfulness in the performance of the common task.... Thus, communism violates the sovereignty of the conscience, and equality: the first, by restricting spontaneity of mind and heart, and freedom of thought and action; the second, by placing labor and laziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality in point of comfort. For the rest, if property is impossible on account of the desire to accumulate, communism would soon become so through the desire to shirk.... The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal."
All quotations can be verified at the following on line source: [3]
As these quotations show, Proudhon advocated two things opposed by anarchist communists: 1) an exchange economy; and 2) a wage system (equal wages, not the complete abolition of wage labor).
Lastly, I think it is unnecessary to include in this section the claim that "As such, communist-anarchism is based on the same distinction between possession and property as found in Proudhon's work." That is a matter of debate. As I indicated in a previous (now deleted) posting, Proudhon's notion of possession is different from the anarchist communists. The anarchist communists had no objection to people possessing something simply for the purpose of using it to satisfy their needs (in fact, that is what they advocated), and of course the actual means of production would have to be possessed by someone in the very limited sense that someone would actually be using the means of production to produce things that people need. But Proudhon's position was quite different. He advocated that people should be free to exchange their possessions for goods of equivalent value, and that in collective enterprises the workers in each enterprise would share in the profits and losses of the enterprise, and would be compensated for the labour they contributed to the enterprise. As Kropotkin and other anarchist communists have argued, this is a "wage system," even if it is supposed to be different from the capitalist model. In Proudhon's mutualist schemes, "possession" includes elements of more conventional notions of private property, such as the right to exchange one's possessions for commodities of equal value. So Proudhon's notion of "possession" provides the basis for a completely different kind of economic system, an exchange economy with remuneration based on labour (i.e. a wage system).
Let's quote Proudhon again (for all the good it does!). "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . he will become an associate." He stressed that "in the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" and "in the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." (The General Idea of the Revolution) I'm sure that RJII will ignore this quote as he has the others, but I live in hope! User:BlackFlag 09:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Proudhon's notion of possession is different from the anarchist communists." You misunderstand. Proudhon's vision of how a society based on possession would work *is* different from communist anarchism, but the underlying principles are the same. There would be no private property, just possession. Those who rejected communism would be free to utilise the land and tools they used and exchange the product as they saw fit. Communist anarchists argued that Proudhon's position was contradictory, advocating common possession for the means but not the product. Proudhon disagreed, of course, but the basic concept is the same. Use would be the key, not property. No one is arguing that the systems based on the principle of possession would be the same. User:BlackFlag 08:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the point. Let's deal with wage labor first: in the passage from What is Property quoted above, Proudhon says "the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal." He advocated equal wages, not the abolition of wages. Receiving wages for your labor is a form of wage labor. What you don't understand is that one can be opposed to capitalism without advocating the abolition of all forms of wage labor. Proudhon did not advocate the abolition of wages (or wage labor - i.e. remuneration for one's labor). Neither did most 19th century socialists.
Marx, despite his attack on Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy, was in favour of a wage system during the transition from socialism to communism (see his "Critique of the Gotha Program"). By the time Kropotkin was writing about anarchist communism in the 1880s, this was the position of virtually all Marxists. The Marxist position (which Kropotkin included in the "collectivist" category in his essay, "The Collectivist Wage System") entailed the payment of wages to workers for their work, with higher skilled workers receiving higher rates of pay, and individual ownership of consumer goods. Opposition to such schemes became a defining feature of anarchist communism, which advocated the immediate abolition of wage labor and all forms of private property, and the immediate implementation of distribution according to need, rather than "postponing" it to the distant future.
The collectivist anarchists, including the early Spanish anarchists such as Ricardo Mella, and Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume, adopted a position similar to Marx's. In Guillaume's essay, "Ideas on Social Organization,"(1876) he writes: "Whatever items are produced by collective labor will belong to the community, and each member will receive remuneration for his labor either in the form of commodities (subsistence, supplies, clothing, etc.) or in currency," i.e. wages. Only later will it be possible to progress to a communist system where distribution will be according to need: "When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste." [4]
Your refusal to acknowledge this point distorts the historical development of anarchist ideas, as well of the ideas of the anarchists you quote. As for the notion of "possession," while you may claim that it is the same for Proudhon and the anarchist communists, many others disagree. Thus, your statement, being a disputed one, should not be included in the article. Proudhon did not merely advocate possession for use; he also advocated being able to retain the products one produced and to exchange them with others. That is a concept of "possession" which incorporates elements of more conventional notions of property, something which Proudhon acknowledged when he later wrote that "Property is Freedom," not just theft (in The System of Economic Contradictions and in his posthumous Theory of Property),which is precisely why anarchist communists like Kropotkin rejected Proudhon's position. For a more recent critique of socialist schemes which retain some kind of wage system, see John Crump and Adam Buick's book, State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management (Macmillan, 1986). Robgraham
User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy - a few points we noticed about some issues and events on wikipedia. -- infinity 0 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Wage_labour#Suggestion_to_merge_this_with_wages. -- infinity 0 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of useful quotes from Marx (as RJII considers him an expert on "wage labour"). From Capital ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm):
That was why Proudhon argued for workers to form *associations,* as I have shown, in order to ensure the "abolition of the proletariat". Obviously, I'm expecting RJII to ignore his own expert in these matters, as Marx is obviously explaining why independent producers (who sell the product of their labour) are *not* wage workers, i.e. not subject to wage labour. BlackFlag 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems like we're tripping over semantics, rather than clarifying anything. Blackflag has presented plenty of evidence that "wages" would function very differently in a mutualist society than they do under the capitalist "wage system." I don't think anyone is really disputing that difference. Therefore, simply saying "wages are wages" seems likely to distort the account every bit as much as denying Proudhon's acceptance of "remuneration for labor" would. The distinction between "wage labor" and "labor for wages" is not really intuitive, so perhaps some clarifying language could be inserted. Libertatia 19:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. Many people (me, Jim6sch, Arthur Rubin, etc etc etc) have already explained why RJII is wrong on this point; it's time to move on and quit whipping a dead horse. -- infinity 0 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I will remember my own advice, and not respond. Instead, I point RJII to the various responses already given in many places more than which is enough to explain the difference. -- infinity 0 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You can say that all you like, but you need a source from Proudhon showing that he thought of them as the same thing, and that "wage labour is labour for wages" is the majority view. Also, to allay any accusations in the future, "don't feed the trolls" is a referral to your current behaviour on this point of wage labour, not your personality in general. -- infinity 0 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a total joke. This is what Proudhon wrote: "wage-labour abolished." Now, perhaps RJII will explain how this means anything other than what it says? But, obviously, what Proudhon thought seems irrelevant to RJII. As it stands, RJII has provided *no* evidence at all to support his claim while I have provided more than sufficient. This "dispute" is closed. That he continues to repeat the same disproved claim shows he is a troll (at least on this issue). BlackFlag 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not resist. RJII's denial of reality is becoming very funny (in a sad sort of way). RJII is denying that Proudhon opposed wage labour, arguing that he supported a system where a capitalist hires workers and pays them a wage the same as the full product of their labour. I note he has provided no evidence in support of this claim. I have presented plenty against. I just wonder how he explains Proudhon's continual call for "industrial democracy"? In "The General Idea of the Revolution" he argued that workers had two options, either be "the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter" (as now) or become "an associate" (in anarchy). "In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" (note, *obedience* so showing Proudhon's opposition to hierarchy in production *as well as* exploitation). "In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave." He stressed that "every" capitalist workplace must become an association and that *every* position "subject to election." For "we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers." Otherwise, there would be "subordinates and superiors" and "two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society" (Proudhon calls this the "wages-system" or "wage labour" and wants it "abolished"). I know, I know. He will ignore this like he ignores all facts, but it would be interesting from a pyschological point of view to see how he denies the obvious, namely that Proudhon (as he himself said) clearly opposed "wage labour" in favour of co-operatives. BlackFlag 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII your a damn liar and a cunt. You also have way to much time on your hands.--FinnMacCool
You know, it's interesting how much attention is being given to the exact wordings of guys who have been dead for over a hundred years. And the thing is, it doesn't matter exactly what they said or believed, but what others took away from them. You see, who would care what Proudhon or Bakunin wrote, unless they influenced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
I suggest shifting the focus of debate to how certain ideas were adopted by anarchists, not the particulars of those ideas. It is more interesting to see how the Spanish anarchists of the 1860's and the Parisian communards of 1871 largely embraced Proudhon's Mutualism, and that this idea was brought to Spain by Bakunin, actually. It is more interesting so see how certain ideas were applied (like the Makhnovschinka creating worker-run communes in 1917-1920) and how those ideas have changed (like the new form of "mutualism" which embraces alternative economic strategies).
The battle over semantical nuances is only a distraction from the greater things the article can do, and just another obsession of the fanatical-factionalists. -- albamuth 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not allowed to edit the main page (apart from minor edits) as per my agreement to be unblocked, but I don't think this edit is a good idea. Whilst the change to the first paragraph is good, the additional paragraphs bloat up the section - and one of the paragraphs is a complete quote, which is unnecessary. -- infinity 0 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This new stuff about Bakunin, Marx and Action Directe belongs, if anywhere, in the First International section. The quote from Aubron is way too long. This section isn't about the relation between anarchism and Marxist versions of "communism." It's about anarchist communism, as the previous heading and text made clear. Robgraham
I made several slight changes attempting to improve the neutral point of view in the anarcho-capitalism section. Because there is controversy about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, I removed the assumption in the first paragraph that it is not. My new phraseology is more neutral and, I hope, does not try to manipulate the reader into agreeing with one side of the argument. I also removed the slightly inflammatory reference to "right-wing" libertarian historians; the term is not in keeping with an encyclopedic style and readers are liable to interpret it (or "left wing", for that matter) in a variety of ways. Lastly I corrected an apparent misreading of David Hart's essay about Molinari. If you read the linked PDF, Hart describes not one "system" but an evolution of thought, the latter parts of which may well have supported "competing governments"; in Molinari's earlier work, however, Hart claims that what Molinari was calling government was not government at all, but more like an insurance or defense agency (of the sort anarcho-capitalists argue in favor of.) In that respect, Hart was certainly not admitting Molinari's "system" was one of competing governments, but rather he was trying to explain Molinari's confusing terminology. Go easy on me, I'm a new poster (and still too lazy to create an account!) -anon
Why is it being deleted that Proudhon favored "individual" possession. In What is Property he specifically says "individual possession." Proudhon wants to make it clear that he's not a communist. We should represent him as accurately as possible. RJII 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
We should find a way to incorporate the history of American anarchist participation in the First International. Individualist anarchists were prominent in the English-speaking New York Section 12 (Stephen Pearl Andrews) and the French-speaking Boston Section 1 (William B. Greene). The "Yankee" sections were censured and then finally expelled at the Hague Congress. Timothy Messer-Kruse' The Yankee International covers some of this, and the Address of the Delegates of the Boston section n° 1 (French) of the Working People’s International Association (mostly written by William B. Greene, and published by Ezra Heywood) gives a contemporary account.
I'm a little hesitant to mess with the flow of the section as it is now. Perhaps a paragraph at the end, noting this other lesser-known history would be appropriate. The facts are of considerable interest, as they link the individualists organizationally with the much broader movement. But the Yankee Internationalists' struggle with Sorge's group is perhaps still best presented as a sort of "side-show" to the Marx-Bakunin conflict. Libertatia 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I dispute that anarchists are necessarily against "government." They are not against self-government. For example, individualist anarchist James Lloyd says: "No Anarchist has any logical objection to a government to which all its members consent; only he carries the logic one step further and says that if the individual withdraws his consent, in that moment the just power of the government over him ceases." [5] And, Richard Slyvan, says in his article Anarchism "First, a variety of political arrangements and organization, inluding governments of certain sorts are entirely compatible with anarchy." I think Proudhon even says that anarchy is a "form of government" (I don't have the quote right now). RJII 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a joke, right? Is RJII arguing that "anarchy" which most people agree (at the minimal) means "no rulers" really means "voluntary rulers" and "no government" really means "voluntary government"? Is he *really* suggesting that Wikipedia change the meaning of a word so he can pursue his own pet little ideology? I'm not surprised, though. I saw it coming. And I can understand why, though. It ensures that "anarcho"-capitalists and people like Herbert can be more easily squeezed into the anarchist tradition. But, to be honest, it simply shows how far these people really are from anarchism (imho) User:BlackFlag 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
btw, people may find this essay of use here, "The Libertarian Case for Slavery" [6] by "J. Philmore." It is really David Ellerman, exposing the autocratic nature of classical liberalism and right-wing libertarianism. People may find it useful in understanding where RJII is coming from and why it really has *nothing* to do with anarchism. User:BlackFlag 09:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrore that anarchists are against rulers, not against leaders. // Liftarn
I agree with RJII. If voluntary, hierarchical relationships are not opposed to anarchism. Current definition is misleading. -- Vision Thing -- 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII is trying to prove that defining “anarchy” in terms of opposition to hierarchy is “communist” and inappropriate. To do so, he presents the case that anarchism is compatible with government. Given that Anarchy is defined as “no government,” the idea of ‘“no government” government’ is a contradiction. This is proof by contradiction and so he proves that “anarchy” *is* incompatible with hierarchy. Case closed. BlackFlag 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read the article which RJII points to. RJII states that Llyod is an "individualist anarchist" ("circa 1920") and quotes him as supporting "government." I would like to point out that by the 1920s Lloyd had become an *ex*-anarchist, a social democrat in fact. As the essay RJII references indicates. It *starts* by him saying many "may know me only as a Socialist, and may doubt my qualifications to explain Anarchism, I will say that for some 20 years or more I was a professed and active Anarchist." Near the end he states "I had no thought of becoming a real Socialist, but I studied the thought and the literature and in time came to feel that the Socialists had the best of the argument." So, just to stress the point, RJII claims that Lloyd was an "individualist anarchist" in the 1920s when, in fact, the essay he uses as proof states the opposite. Now, if RJII cannot even get this right, what hope is there?
As it stands, LLoyd's essay is riddled with inaccuracies ("Samuel" rather than Albert Parsons, Bakunin as a communist, and so on). I would also suggest that by "government" he was referring to social organisations rather than "private defence agencies". I would say this from the context and the example used (the US government). So the example is inconclusive, I think. I would also note that he thinks that Napoleon would be considered as a "Nietzschean Anarchist" and so if we use this essay as evidence of anarchist support for government we must use it for anarchist support for coercion, too. And I should note he admits that social anarchism has "largely outgrown the Individualistic-Anarchistic division in numbers and political importance." So, surely, any definition of anarchism should reflect this. User:BlackFlag 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, what is your reason for suggesting social hierarchy is acceptable in anarchism? BlackFlag has given plenty of sources but you are supporting your claim with only your words. -- infinity 0 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
YOu said, more or less, a voluntary government is anarchistic. Anarchism is anti-government. Your objection makes no sense.
Provide your opposing source. -- infinity 0 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It says anti-hierarchical. You're not disputing this. What's the problem, then? -- infinity 0 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't given any source that says supports your comment that a voluntary hierarchy is anarchistic. That's what the real point is. I have given one source with this definition. Many definition miss out a lot of things. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the definition. Anarchism is anti-hierarchical. -- infinity 0 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, those definitions all imply it severely.
As we all know, hierarchy is a euphemism for authority and control, whether voluntary or not. Burden of proof is on you. -- infinity 0 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The intro doesn't mention social anarchists. Neither does the wikiquotes. I just handed out 4 definitions to you on a plate showing that anarchism is anti-hierarchical. You haven't provided any sources stating the opposite. -- infinity 0 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Authority is synonymous to hierarchy. Those four definitions support the one source. Provide an opposing source, or else there is no dispute. -- infinity 0 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
But for others, it doesn't. So then, what's your problem? Bakunin quote? -- infinity 0 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Administrative functions" isn't hierarchy. Hierarchy involves controlling those further down the hierarchy. hi·er·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "hierarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rärk, hrär-) n. pl. hi·er·ar·chies
RJII, I don't want to waste space, so I point you to Libertatia's reply above explaining the flaw in your logic that dictionary definitions are total and absolute and a comprehensive, detailed and accurate source. -- infinity 0 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What was the line: "Some say yes. Some say no."? The slogans say "against all authority," which probably isn't exactly right. On the other hand, most anarchist appear to oppose more than just the state. It's likely that most actual anarchist activism is aimed targets other than the state per se: racism, patriarchy, environmental degredation, economic inequity, hunger, etc. It probably does come down to the question of "coercion," and the differences between anarchists largely break down according to there definitions of the coercive. Libertatia 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is simple. An-Archy, against *archy.* Hier-archy, a form of *archy.* Anarchy is against hierarchy. This does not mean that people cannot form hierarchical organisations, just that such organisations are not, by definition, anarchist. For example, if a religious cult creates a little community based on the worship and obedience to their leader then as long as they don't impose it on others, that is fine. It is *not*, however, an anarchist community. Similarly, if a group of Leninist form their own little "dictatorship of the proletariat" somewhere. That is the difference. BlackFlag 08:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Another perspective. Anarchism, as a political theory, was born when Proudhon wrote _What is Property?_ specifically to refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware that in such circumstances property "violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." He, unsurprisingly, talks of the "proprietor, to whom [the worker] has sold and surrendered his liberty." For Proudhon, anarchy was "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" while "proprietor" was "synonymous" with "sovereign" for he "imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control." This meant that "property engenders despotism," as "each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property." [_What is Property_, p. 251, p. 130, p. 264 and pp. 266-7] I've already noted Proudhon's opposition to wage labour and support for "industrial democracy", so suggesting that the father of anarchism would have agreed that anarchism is against hierarchy in the workplace). BlackFlag 09:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The idea that anarchism is against hierarchy is not one limited to "communists" (as RJII). As I've shown, Proudhon was against the concept. Not only that, he used the actual word (hierarchy). For example, we find him stating "As you cannot conceive of society without hierarchy, you have made yourselves the apostles of authority" He wonders "Is it, then, impossible that, in the present condition of society, the workshop with its hierarchical organization, and machinery, instead of serving exclusively the interests of the least numerous, the least industrious, and the wealthiest class, should be employed for the benefit of all?" He notes that the "workshop, after having degraded the laborer by giving him a master, completes his degeneracy by reducing him from the rank of artisan to that of common workman." He does indicate an alternative, association but "In order that association may be real, he who participates in it must do so, not as a gambler, but as an active factor; he must have a deliberative voice in the council . . . everything regarding him, in short, should be regulated in accordance with equality." (obvious links with The General Idea there, as quoted before) He also calls for "a war of labor against capital; a war of liberty against authority; a war of the producer against the non-producer; a war of equality against privilege" (System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery) I think we can safely say that opposition to hierarchy is a long standing anarchist principle, as shown by Proudhon. Moreover that he thought that "hierarchy" was a result of wage labour and he favoured workers' control (association) to end it. BlackFlag 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to track down RJII's article by Richard Sylvan. It was, to say the least, an interesting read. As well as the claim that anarchists are not opposed to government, I discovered that "hostility" to the state "is not a feature of anarchism." I think that we need to ensure that any definition of anarchism should read "anarchists are not opposed to government or the state", that seems very accurate!
In addition, I was impressed to discover that anarchism "is in fact the most recent and novel of political philosophies"! And there I was, under the impression it pre-dated Marxism by at least 8 years! Obviously 1840 comes *after* 1848, silly me. I was also impressed to discover that the "notion has recently been extended beyond political arrangements." Silly me, to have thought, for example, that Goldman and de Cleyre had "extended" the "notion" to attack sexism in the 1880s and 1890s! I suppose it all depends on what "recently" means! After all, Proudhon had "extended" the "notion" to attack wage labour in 1840 but, then, I forgot 1840 comes some time *after* 1848 so, maybe, it is more "recent" after all!
So, what to conclude? Well some may conclude that the article is pretty flawed and, consequently, not really a firm basis to change the definition of anarchism. After all, "no government" government is an oxymoron of the highest order. Moreover, if we accept that we need to accept that anarchists are also okay with the state. Which makes the definition of "anarchism" a bit tricky as it no longer means what most people (and anarchists) would think it means. Or we may conclude, with RJII, that based on this one article the definition of anarchism should be changed and, as a result, anarchism becomes compatible with government, state and numerous other "voluntary" arrangements (such as dictatorship, contractual slavery, and such like).
I would suggest that changing the definition of anarchism would be a mistake based purely on this article. BlackFlag 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If government is that which organizes and constrains human behavior, then it must include custom and contract as well as the coercive authority. Most people think of the latter as the source of all order, and thus it's natural that government is commonly a synonym for state. Natural but unfortunate. Now: to be a good anarchist, would I have to oppose custom and contract? — Tamfang 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think anbarchosocialism is when everyone owns something and then fights to see who gets to use it what abnout you? And i think this is a really great system because people are always fighting instead of everything being set up by THE MAN! what about you
AgreeToBe
I have tidied up Anarcho-syndicalism section:
Removed the following sentence: Because it does not oppose profit or capitalism, most anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, apropos the discussion above, as not only is it totally speculative (in terms of "most anarchists..." and utter nonsense, but it is also a total non-sequitur - anarchism has nothing whatever to say, per se, about profit or capitalism. ElectricRay 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Great, just what we need -- another zealot. -- AaronS 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
HAHA. Nozick, an anarchist! — no. -
FrancisTyers
16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
How I see it, anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of anarchism, but only after you take the anarcho-capitalist definition of anarchism ("the abolishment of the state"), which conveniently puts it at the very center. But seeing as only anarcho-capitalists use this extremely limited definition, the point is moot. Anarchism didn't begin as an opposition to "the state", it began as an opposition to domination, to authority, to governing of any sort. It's such a trap that people like RJ are now having to argue that anarchism doesn't oppose government to explain why "private defense agencies" (or "competing governments", as Molinari called them) and so-called "voluntary governments" are compatible with anarchism. So sure, anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, even the perfect anarchism, after it completely abandons anarchism and redefines the word around itself. Sarge Baldy 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
AaronS evidently didn't like my paragraph breaks, I think, so I will just reinsert the substance of my post (with apologies to AaronS if this amounts to "flamebait" - but I don't think it does, and it certainly isn't intended to). ElectricRay 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sarge, I don't think the world can grow forever, and so I don't think my conclusions are even remotely utopian - if anything they're nihilistic. the one problem we face, which none of us, by ourselves, can control, is consumption of resources. We can try to be as efficient as possible about how we consume them - how we get the best bang for buck - but I don't see how any form of anarchism can temper our demands and desires to be less desirous of resources altogether. If you don't compel people not to consume and breed, they'll consume and breed until equilibrium is reached. What is equilibrium? The point at which the additional person, or consumption, isn't possible. It can be reached either in the good old fashioned apocalyptic Malthusian fashion - ie there are no resources left, or it could be acheived by people taking control of all the resources, so no more are freely available. Once a resource is yours, you're incentivised to look after it (or exchange it for fair value) in a way you're simply not if it's communally owned (two examples: the fastest car in the world: the rental car, and the time-honoured teacher's cry of "would you do that at home?"). If a finite resource is free to everyone, then everyone will try to gobble up as much of it as is possible for themselves before it all gets eaten. Any account of societal organisation which denies or disputes this is practially useless. A society must be orginased consistently with the interests of the people in the society. The tragedy is not that there is private ownership, but that some really vital things aren't susceptible of private ownership. Air, for example.
Each of us tries to master (or dominate, perhaps) our environment, be it people, or trees, or insects, or viruses. And each of these organic things in our environment is trying to master the environment, too. The species who survive are the ones who are best at that. If your anti-humanism is inconsistent with that, you're welcome to it. But don't take malaria tablets next time you're off into the jungle - that wouldn't be fair on the malaria bugs.
If I were in your anarchy I wouldn't try to go it alone. Anarcho capitalism isn't about going it alone - if you think it is, I don't think you've grasped it. I have skills, I would offer them for some reward acceptable to me for the effort. And if my reward is more than I need to survive I would put the excess to use in creating more rewards, so that I didn't have to just survive, but thriving. I might even use some of them to buy the skills of someone else to help my enterprise. And so on. I don't see why this is such an outrageous idea, but it seems to send "textbook" anarchists into apopleptic fits.
Slavery is a the utter worst case example, but fine - let's deal with that: Yes, it's one way of getting people to cooperate with the grand plan. But consider how inefficient it would be: you would have to spend too much time, money and aggravation finding slaves, incarcerating them, guarding them, stopping them from running away, and supervising their work, and most likely at they'd not be especially skilled or productive because the slave would be resentful and disincentivised to turn out a good product. Another guy might make the same product with correctly incentivised, voluntary labour, paying them a lot more (he doesn't have to sink costs into finding, capturing, incarcerating, supervising and tracking down truants, after all). The slave owner would think, stuff this for a lark ... ElectricRay 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think this is getting to the end of the part where there's an valuable exchange of information or views, and down to fundamental perspectives, and like christians and atheists, we're not going to persuade one another, and so I'll pull up now. Let's agree to disagree. Nice talking to you, all the same.
ElectricRay
23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your tip, my friend, but can I suggest that what is important is biology, not anthropology. Try The Selfish Gene, or Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
I think the last iteration of this discussion was in archive 27, section 15. Also stuff on Nozick about then. Eternal recurrence of the same, eh. And even prisoners dilemma further down that archive. Bengalski 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, “most” is OR and “many” would be more neutral. Does anyone disagree? -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is kind of a tricky issue. There is nothing in the core tenets of anarchism that says it must be the syndicate style, and excluding anarcho-capitalism based on the predominant school of modern anarchist thought just causes a self fulfilling prophecy/no true scotsman fallacy. On the other hand, it's not really neccesary to throw anarcho-capitalism under the umbrella of anarchism at this point, as we already have libertarianism as an overriding philosphy that it could be considered a flavor of. Though if you do that, you better also consider whether or not Agorism should be thought of as anarchist thought. - Mike May 8, 2006
"As has been indicated, many writers about anarchism have taken opposition to government to be the most distinctive characteristic of the theory...However, there is further reason for questioning such a characterization: the distinction that some anarchists have themseleves made between government and state. While there runs through all anarchist writings an unmitigated contempt for the state, the anarchist position on government is far from unequivocal hostility." (What is Anarchism, John P. Clark) I think we need to note somewhere in the article that government is not necessarily incompatible with anarchism. It's only government that initiates coercion that is incompatible. RJII 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I’ve checked the essay. Guess what? RJII has hardly done it service. Take his quote. The part he misses out starts "This is, in fact, probably the means of defining the term.” Funny what a "…" can hide! Clark admits that "the use of the term ‘government’ is quite atypical of that of anarchism in general." And (surprise!) Clark is *not* talking about “private defence firms” but rather Nock’s ideas, noting that his use of the term "government" is "unusual" and a "limited sense of the term."
So, apparently, we should change the definition of anarchism based on an edited quote from an author who states clearly that it is "unusual" and "atypical" to use the term in this way! Clark also notes that "no government" is "probably the means of defining the term". Presumably RJII has read the article in question and so his doctoring of the quote is intentional, as is his ignoring of the relevant discussion and quotes Clark provides on the matter. I have to admit to being a bit sick of having to track down RJII’s sources in order to find the context of them.
Clark himself discusses the anarchist definition of anarchism, noting that anarchists use the term "no government" or "no authority" as a definition. He summarises that "Anarchism can be described not only as a theory that opposes such things as government, the state, authority, or domination, but also as a theory that proposes voluntarism, decentralisation, or freedom." He also says that "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism, saying "what they propose is a system in which the affluent voluntarily associate to use force and coercion against the poor and weak in order to maintain class privilege. The abuses of the state are thus perpetuated after the state is allegedly abolished." Needless to say, he draws a clear distinction between it and individualist anarchism. BlackFlag 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I see there have been several new debates over anarchist theory again. Please keep in mind that you are not obliged to answer someone's points. This is the talk page for the article anarchism, not for anarchism. Understand that not answering does not automatically make the other person right. Furthermore, if you think the opposing view is ridiculous, why bother dignifiying your opponent with a reply?
In short, these sort of debates are pointless, you can't win, they waste a lot of time and they aren't productive. Please don't start them, and please don't carry them on. -- infinity 0 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Infinity, a good anarchist would just leave everyone else to debate if they feel like it. If you don't want to debate, don't. ElectricRay 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A good anarchist also gives helpful advice to friends. -- infinity 0 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A good anarchist - and a good Wikipedian - also mentions on the talk page why he has reverted the patently stupid "most anarchists" comment, especially in light of the careful reasons - explaining the non-sequitur - set out on this talk page. How can you say with any sincerity or credibility that you know what most anarchists think? This is just plain daft. ElectricRay 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Prose is not mathematics. -- infinity 0 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And petulance is not a sort of air freshener. ElectricRay 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
More like a grumpy old man and a wise-guy teenager. Look, all I want to know is this: why is there so much resistance to saying "a number of prominent anarchists think" - which is a defensible assertion - and not "most anarchhists think" - which, even you now concede, isn't? ElectricRay 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"What most anarchists think" is not really relevant as to whether a philosophy is a true form of anarchism. It's all too common for someone to think their anarchism is the true anarchism. Does anyone really expect an anti-capitalist anarchist to grant that anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism? There are anarcho-communists who claim anarcho-syndicalism is not true anarchism. There are labor-value individualist anarchists that claim anarcho-communism is not true anarchism. And, so on. Anarchists can't really be relied on for this. Now, if an anarchist with a doctorate in political philosophy makes the claim in a peer-reviewed journal that's another story. That would be a credible source. But, it's best to reference non-anarchists, if possible, on this question. RJII 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
-- 88.155.0.123 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It's just a suggestion, but hasent there ought to be a section on the red scare, where anarchy was protested and communism was feared, with V.I. lenin asking the world to revert to communism, i have nither the time nor writing skils to write one, maby just a link to the red scare.-- Teh Teck Geek 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for a FAQ or contrives articles on the net anonymously then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him on the Auberon Herbert article, that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?" [12] that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy. [13] Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? I don't think so. He's been citing these things as sources on this article as well. Here is another article that magically appeared just a couple days after a dispute about Herbert for which he had no sources: [14]. It looks like BlackFlag is this "Anarcho" character. If what it appears to be true, is true (it appears to be too much of a coincidence to not be), then this is fraudulent. RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
RJ, there is a class chasm between u and the blackflag (the crimson one). The faq I have to see but other stuff is sourced.could do with one more. But at least he's not misquoting ehh? ---
max rspct
leave a message
22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2. If anyone has comments, please feel free to input. Thanks. -- infinity 0 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The RfC is only a comment. Its very nature is to be a consequent-free thing. As for your attitude, have you not even read what I wrote? Your attitude is exactly the problem. You think you're right all the time (in fact I have yet to see you admit to a mistake). You keep explicitly insisting your edits are NPOV and sourced, though many editors have found fault with them, and you have distorted policy to attack others' edits. -- infinity 0 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Unethical? You are on probation for being unethical. Even if BlackFlag wrote this specifically to piss you off, I see that as poetic justice. And, even if your accusations are true, that doesn't give you the right to attack An Anarchist FAQ like this. The editors may be assuming in good faith that BlackFlag is contributing content, which I'm sure has been checked for factual accuracy. -- infinity 0 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's just one example. Look for yourself at the rest of the content.
Here is an example of me requesting a source for weasal words/original research: [18] There is no source for him to cite until he gets it in the FAQ, then he comes back and puts it back in with a citation: [19] That part of the FAQ did not exist when he put the sentence in the Auberon Herbert article. (Again, that F7 section [20] has not been added to the mirror sites yet (at the time I'm writing this), such as at Infoshop [21]) There are many more examples. The F7 part of the FAQ was written directly as a result of my dealings with him in the Auberon Herbert article, and used for citations. It's clearly a scam. RJII 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As RJII has "proven" that supporting governments and states (aka Auberon Herbert) is compatible with anarchism, I was wondering why Ayn Rand is listed as a minarchist in the "anarcho"-capitalist section. Like Herbert, she supported an elected "central agency" to define and combat crime. Like Herbert, she was in favour of limited government and the state. Like Herbert, she was in favour of free market capitalism. Like Herbert, she was in favour of voluntary taxation. Like Herbert, she was against "the initiation of force". And, like Herbert, she explicitly denied being an anarchist. It seems highly illogical that one should be listed as a "minarchist" while someone with identical politics should be classed by RJII as an "anarchist." It suggests one of two things. That Rand should be classed as an anarchist or that RJII is wrong. Obviously, the latter is not possible so perhaps people could explain why Rand should not be re-labelled as an anarchist. BlackFlag 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't possible for all coins to be counterfeits. Why? Because counterfeiting has significance only as an effort to imitate something else. Anarchists, including the anarcho-cap kind, would create a world in which "all coins are counterfeit" which (since that is impossible as just explained) means a world in which the idea has lost its significance. So the remaining problem would be ... what? If I make a deal with you to build you a house in return for an ingot of gold, I build the house, and you give me a brick painted yellow ... that's just garden variety fraud, isn't it? -- Christofurio 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Baldy, what's the hint of coercion in an insurance or pyramid scam
I suppose you've looked at Albania and decided that in "anarcho-capitalism" there would be no irrational human beings, or alternatively blame it all on the government. - FrancisTyers 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
State 1. (historical) the organization of legitimized plunder (Oppenheimer) 2. (legalistic) an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area (Max Weber) 3. (Rothbard) that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive geographical monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a feature of all governments; as well, historically speaking, it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services rendered but by coercion.
Comment: 3 is basically conjoining 1 and 2.
government
1. State
2. an organization intended to secure the rights of individuals
3. the person or persons who organize and lead and/or exert a guiding influence over an organization.
Comments: The distinction between 1 and 2 is discussed by Albert Jay Nock in chapter 2 'The Origins of State and Class' in Our Enemy the State (whole book online!!!).
Definition 2 is practically synonymous with PDA (private defense agency) Definition 3 is rarely used in political discussion except perhaps to obfuscate, as Tetra aptly noted.
This should resolve the verbal arguments re "state" and "government." Anarchists are (by def) against all states in principle. Anarchists are not necessarily against government in the sense of definitions 2 or 3.
Another confusion I saw: Someone pointed out that Herbert used the term "state" in his writings. Also, Proudhon and Bakunin did so. Of course, none of these used it in the modern sense. In context, we see that these guys were using "state" to mean government(def 2). Please realize that meanings of some words (e.g. state, socialism, capitalism) were different back then. Max Weber had not yet precisely defined "state." - An Observer
I’m not sure how anything coming from infoshop concerning anarchist theory and practice can be considered credible. On theirs forum they are censoring all topics on anarcho-capitalism and banning all anarcho-capitalists writings 1. I guess that is how their anarchism would work in the real world, very much like Stalinism. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I hardly believe that stuff about BlackFlag, The FAQ doesn't update that often; when it does, it's not in response to Wikipedia.
I am the founder and main coordinator of Infoshop.org. The person who claims that Infoshop censors people in our forums doesn't have a clear understanding of censorship or why websites have a right to moderate and control discussions. Every website which runs forums and discussion boards has some kind of moderation policy. Even the boards which look like they have no rules will moderate posts which may put the site in trouble with the authorities. Websites like Infoshop have a right to set moderation policies because this is part of free speech and freedom of association/disassociation. You would be laughed out of the room if you demanded that some magazine publish your words and then screamed censorship.
Infoshop has a variety of moderation policies for forums on our website. We have a set of guidelines for our popular Infoshop News forum (which have been copied by other websites). We have very few rules for some of the boards on our Infoshop forums and more rules for other boards. We don't allow anarcho-capitalists to post to the website because we've found that many of these people are simply ignorant about basic political and economic theories. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron and we feel that anybody who pushes this nonsense is just confusing people about anarchism. People who are interested in "anarcho-capitalism" really should familiarize themselves with mutualism and the works of Kevin Carson. Mutualism is a much more sophisticated take on capitalism which also overlaps with anarchism. If you really, really love capitalism and want to exploit working people, you might want to join the American Libertarian Party or the GOP.
Infoshop mirrors "An Anarchist FAQ" on our site. We work closely with Iain, in fact, he just sent me an update tonight. It's not true that the FAQ is just a rebuttal to anarcho-capitalists. Many people have helped with the FAQ over the past 10 years and many more have offered their feedback. I've sent Iain more than a few emails taking issue with various parts of the FAQ. Overall, the FAQ is a pretty good overview of anarchist theories, albeit one with a few serious problems. Chuck0 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, Libertaria, but there is a significant flat-earther element amongst the "current" anarchist community (being the ones who hotly dispute the inclusion of anarcho-captialism). Saying that the "the mechanisms at work in the academy and in the publishing industry are hardly value-neutral" might be right, but I doubt it, frankly, and it sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory to me: that is certainly the simpler explanation at any rate. I didn't know much about Socialist Anarchism before getting involved in discussions on these pages, but it strikes me as being not especially coherent a philosophy, and to the extent it is coherent, it's not materially different from anarcho-syndicalism, which is only really championed these days by Chomsky, whose political philopsophy is (quite fairly) taken much less seriously that his linguistics, and which in turn isn't materially different from good old fashioned Marxist-theoretical communism. An-Cap, on the other hand, has its own problems (revolving around the moral justification and natural law), but at least has a more recent credible academic track record than an-socialism. Neither has a good answer to the problems posed by relativism, other than highhandedly wishing them away. What I've surmised from all this is that "anarchism" as a serious political movement, however you define it, is a bit of a dead-letter these days, for all the enthusiasm of the contributors (including myself) on these pages. Like creationism it's strictly an amateur pursuit, and the reason it doesn't get much academic attention is, frankly, because it doesn't deserve it. ElectricRay 10:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
@Chuck0 I'm not saying that you don't have the right to censor and ban other people from writing on your forum. I'm just saying that censoring and banning practice makes you a hypocrite because you are claiming that the anarchism is opposed to social hierarchy. Allowing anarcho-capitalists to present their views on certain subjects wouldn't get your site into trouble with the authorities anymore than allowing social anarchists to present their views. Or do you think that AC viewpoints are greater threat to the authorities than SA viewpoints? -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
List of anarchism web resources is up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchism web resources. I doubt many of you know this, so here is the news. -- infinity 0 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Requested by Sarge Baldy, even though they've already been discussed extensively.
Oh yeah, some idiot thinks that anarchism is not against rulership, but only competition in rulership. I reverted that. Hogeye 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction imo. Since capitalism by definition means head of state or head of government, any relation between anarchism and capitalism is very suspect. [27] -- 88.152.120.125 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What a loaded vocabulary you have. I don't buy into the typical ideology of development being "good", or "civilization" and "advances in technology" good, so they don't quite work as selling points.
That's nonsense. You're on the internet. Of course development is good, of course advances in technology are good, civilisation is a loaded word. How the hell else are we going to get off this planet ? Having said that, I think in most civilised countries both running water and medicine are subsidised for those who can't afford to pay. Having clean drinking water is not a luxury.- FrancisTyers 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are assuming far too much about what my preconceptions are, and what my beliefs are. I don't subscribe to Rothbard or Nozick, for example, and I certainly don't believe my preferred society is the right one - mny whole patter, if you'd trouble yourself to read it, is that there is NO right one, and my view is no more valid than yours, or anyone else's. What appeals to me about what I see as anarchy is the complete dissolution of concentrated societal power. In a statist environment an individual gives up his ability to act on his values irrevocably to the state. In capitalism he doesn't. I always have the ability to quit my job, sell my stock, go live in a forest, not buy your stuff, buy his stuff, save my money, spent it foolishly, and my small action can have a small impact on any social hierarchy you might have created. But no greater (nor less) an impact than my total value in the grander scheme of the community. Now it might be that everyone in the community sees the world as you do, Sarge, in which case your view and mine are identical: without a state, our interests will be aligned anyway and we'll live in peace and harmony and at one with nature, because that's what each of us values and how each of us acts (but wouldn't that be the case if everyone agreed even with a state?). But frankly, I'm extremely skeptical about that. This is not a theoretical point but an empirical one. For your view to work, everyone has to share your view. Everyone. It can't work if there are a core of dissenters, because they'll exploit the rest. All I am saying is, if those conditions of unanimity aren't met (and I've been around long enough to know they won't be - indeed 5 minutes on this talk page should be all you need to understand that!) your vision won't work. Now you can call me names and put this failure down to my capitalist brainwashing if you like, but I'd be more persuaded if you'd explain how you'll get all these selfish, greedy, disagreeing people to buy your vision. ElectricRay 23:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is, if you defect, in anarcho-capitalism, it's nobody's problem but yours. Anarcho capitalism doesn't need a state to gang up on you to keep you in line (as, with respect, anarcho socialism does), indeed it doesn't care whether you're "in line" or not; in any case, because of how the interests are aligned, the blind algorithmic processes will take care of that. Defector strategies (be they of the oppressive or tree-hugging variety) will eventually wither. In Anarcho socialism, the defector (be he an oppressor, a capitalist building a dam upstream, or even the member of the community who wants a bit more water than his fair share) gets a positive advantage by defecting, hence, as you suggest A-S is unstable; in A-C, the defector is at a disadvantage over time, hence it isn't. In the limit, in the short term, A-C is susceptible to domination by a single agency which is so successful it can afford the "expenditure" of repressing everyone else to the point where it is a dictatorship. But only in the short term, unless it leavens itself with a pretty good story to the people about how it is really doing what the people want, and the people, on the whole, buy it - that's called democracy. A-C is also susceptible to the tragedy of the commons, as I have said frequently - but because under A-C the "commons" will tend to be minimised by private ownership (rather than being maximised, as in your account, it is about as good as any strategy for dealing with that conundrum. The part I think you're ignoring is that your account is susceptible not just to cartoon style big bad capitalists, but to the evoluntionary impulse everyone of us has to eat a bit more, breed a bit more, and live in just a bit more comfort. ElectricRay 06:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Biiiiiig dilemma... What you've described is the Dodo, or the Moa ... fine, and absolutely perfect for its environment ... until someone bigger and smarter, with a different set of values, arrives. You can't provide for a community where there are conflicting values. HUGE problem. And your vague and somewhat euphemistic "non anarchist means of accomplishing an anarchist solution" - "anarchist solution" in particular has an extremely unpleasant ring to it - must involve the inculturation of everyone in the community with the same set of values (and surpirse surprise ... they're YOUR values!). Also, did you not say "elder" of the tribe... sounds like some form of social hierarchy, no? ElectricRay 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See if you feel the same way in 15 years, Sarge. I hung out with a lot of wild-eyed political idealists when I was at university - they're mostly running their own businesses now, 15-20 years later. Conversely, I don't know too many MBA students who are now living in communes. For what it's worth, I think the fallacy you're falling into is directly analogous to the "group selection" one - that people somehow act on the basis of what they perceive to be the best for their group as a whole. It appears that way, but no adaptation that didn't have a predominant personal benefit for the adapter would survive the evolutionary process. This "tyranny of the selfish gene", as Richard Dawkins puts it, and it's a trait we share with animals, trees and microbes. I recommend Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) and Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea; Breaking the Spell) - note that neither of these authors is even remotely capitalistic in outlook (Dawkins in particular is famously a fairly wet Lib Dem), but what they have to say has a direct bearing on any political philosophy which assumes people will see the common sense in acting in the best interests of everyone else over their own interests. Also - and I know he's anathema to you lot, but still: a lot earlier than Proudhon et al, Adam Smith had this to say, and this remains (with Darwin's dangerous idea) one of the cleverest observations in modern philosophy:
Yes, the cited FAQ page is amazingly weak. We've covered this many times before - just look up "dildo" in the Talk archives. Why dildo? Because the main argument on that FAQ page is: [b]A dildo is whatever traditionally has been considered a dildo.[/b] IOW it uses a totally illegitimate "definition." A good definition needs to have a genus and a differentia. A circular appeal to past usage doesn't hack it. We even used to have a template for this:
Libertatia> "It strikes me that the an-cap vision being presented here makes the freedom of the market primary, and the freedom of individuals secondary." No, you have it backwards. Freedom of individuals is the primary; freedom of the market is simply the application of freedom of individuals with respect to production and trade.
Hogeye
20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Libertatia> "Anarchism has never been whatever remains in the absence of the state" Right. Anarchism is the philosophy with the goal absense of State. Of course, anarchists can have other values, too. E.g. We have various additional values which we want in addition to no state. But statelessness is the primary and defining value of anarchism. Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Libertatia> "No capitalist I know of espouses capitalism on a moral basis ..." ??? Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, hell, just about every anarcho-capitalist I know bases it on the NAP (non-aggression principle) except Friedman and Narveson.
Libertatia> "... on the basis it "knows" what is best for everyone." Right. We generally abhor utilitarianism, but of course that is not the only moral basis. We tend to prefer Natural Law rather than utilitarian moral justifications.
Libertatia> "Capitalism, like evolution, is nothing more than a blind algorithmic process, which tends to have a certain effect in terms of efficient allocation of resources. It is entirely agnostic, of itself, to "what's best for the society", or even whether there is a society..." Right on. We see society more as an ecosystem with emergent order, as opposed to the statist view of society as a machine to be fixed by some imposed planned order.
Hogeye 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it gives any village idiot the ability to create a yellow box and put the dumbest arguments into it. It's common for people who are ignorant about anarchism and who want it to mean something they make up to cite some dictionary definition of anarchism to justify their new take on the idea. The fact is that anarchism is much more than a dictionary definition. It describes a global movement of millions of people with a history that goes back over a century. There is a significant body of anarchist works which explain the ideas of anarchism. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, which is a logical extension of the anarchist hostility to the state. While it may be possible to have trade or a "free market" without the state, capitalism requires the state in order to exist. Chuck0 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant singular, of course. — Tamfang 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to fix links that go to the disambiguation page Radical. I cannot find a suitable article to redirect 'radicals' to from here. In anarchism, 'radical' usually means other anarchists, right? The nearest to this is probably Far-left. All there is on radicalism is Radicalism (historical). If I've not missed it, is there any point in starting a new page about radical activism in the anarchist sense, in opposition to liberalism and conservatism? Any suggestions appreciated. -- Cedders tk 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism? Yes or no? There is a significant difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism? Yes or no?
The point of the poll above is to find out if there is really consensus that schools of anarchism do not exist. That is the rather absurd claim of the assholes who keep deleting the AnarchismSchools chart. Of course, the real reason they don't want the chart is probably more like: 1) they want anarchism to appear to naive Wiki readers as some kind of unified doctrine, and/or 2) they want to hide/sandbag the schools they don't agree with. - Hogeye
The slashes are caused by Hogeye using a broken open proxy to evade his ban. - FrancisTyers 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hogeye, have you even noticed that you're using the wrong syntax for the image? An unexplained link is nearly pointless. — Tamfang 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed that 88.152.120.125, whose contributions usually amount to "boo capitalism," should insert a link to that a-c Bryan Caplan! — Tamfang 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the sense of the sentence in the entry is that, since Proudhon understood "anarchy" as a kind of unreachable limit, and came to privilege justice over any of the things that would be balanced to achieve it, he is "more distant" in the later writings, where this is clear, than he is in the writings where he will boldly say, "I am an anarchist!" Since all of Proudhon's work was written before "anarchism" really existed as a movement, there's a bit of anarchronism here, but the phrase is at least intelligible and not particularly inaccurate. I'm not sure the dispute tag is necessary. Libertatia 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no basis for this objection. In The Principle of Federation, Proudhon concedes that anarchy is an unrealizable ideal (i.e. a "perpetual desideratum"). Consequently, as footnote 16 already indicates, in that same work he advocated a confederation of "sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees." That's a direct quote, not a paraphrase. I think it's fair to say that someone who regards anarchy as an unrealizable ideal and who advocates a confederation of sovereign states has clearly distanced himself from anarchism. If you want a secondary source tracing Proudhon's political evolution in this regard, you can read Robert Graham's introduction to the 1989 Pluto Press edition of Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, now posted on the Anarchy Archives website (under "Proudhon Commentary"). Proudhon began to distance himself from anarchism (i.e. a doctrine that espouses anarchy as an ideal) as early as 1852, when he called upon the new dictator, Napoleon III, to continue the work of the 1848 French Revolution in his book, The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d’Etat of the Second of December (extensive selections from The Social Revolution are reproduced in December 2, 1851: Contemporary Writings on the Coup d’Etat of Louis Napoleon, ed. John B. Halsted (New York: Anchor Books, 1972), pp. 236-310). In his 1857 work, De la Justice dans La Revolution et dans l'Eglise, Proudhon wrote what he described as a "decisive concession" in his lengthy section on the state: as history has proven witness, anarchy "has no more reason for being in human society than disorder in the universe" (Proudhon, Oeuvres, nouvelle édition, vol. 8 (Paris: Rivière, 1930), vol. ii, p. 160). If you read Stewart Edwards' Selected Writings of Proudhon, you will see that by the 1860s Proudhon no longer identified himself as an anarchist, recognizing that his theory of federation was based on the continued existence of sovereign states. Robgraham 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you're not disputing the accuracy of the citations or the above comments regarding Proudhon's theory of federalism being based on the continued existence of sovereign states, then I think you should remove your "disputed" tag. Some people would go further than the current statement and say that Proudhon had completely abandoned anarchism, not simply distanced himself from it. Liberals, some conservatives, and some Marxists (i.e. those who have given up on anarchy as an achievable goal) would all agree that some kind of anarchy would be an ideal situation. What distinguishes them from anarchists is precisely their view that anarchy is a utopian and unrealizable ideal. To describe them as anarchists would deprive the term of any meaningful descriptive content. Robgraham 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a definitive discussion on the qualities of the "anarch" missing in this discussion of anarchy. I would like to define the anarch as "that which is the determining drive inherent within the individual." Can anybody come up with a better definition of the anarch than that? I'll wait a few days to change it.
Fight Back!
jedi
I thought the anarch was simply the absense of an arch. -- Christofurio 00:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The abscence of an arch, is a good way of explaining it, but it isn't the whole explanation of it. The internalized ideological and social constructions of the capitalist state is the "arch", and the negation of this is the "an" + "arch". As the internalized state is negated, the natural potential within man comes forth. In other words, without the inhibition of the internalized capitalist state, the full potential of an indivdual can be met, and since the internalized social control of the state is that which inhibits social development, then the "anarch" is the "determining drive inherent within the individual." Maybe I should add the term "uninhibited" to the definition of the anarch, thus making it "that which is the uninhibited determining drive inherent within the individual."
Fight Back! Jedi
Unless you can find an original or scholarly source that would show that the concept of the "anarch" as you define it has even been expressed or used by someone (other than yourself) expressing anarchist views, I don't see why this definition should be added.18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it was either Kropotkin or Malatesta that used the term anarch as such. It just requires me finding the passage. I'm sure it exists, since I did have to read it somewhere, so I'll wait until I find it to make the edits. Should I put the source in the article itself, or should I just quote it here? I don't want to clutter an already exhaustive article.
Jedi
Okay, I'm back. I found the anarch in, of all places, wikipedia!
"The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist..." Ernst Jünger. So, based upon this assertation of Junger, I simplified it to be the determining drive inherent within the individual, because the monarch is the determining drive of the state. Now, before I get jumped on, I'm not saying that the monarch was the ONLY determining drive of the feudal state, as there was class struggle there as well. But, the anarch is the determining drive of the individual. This concept would fit with the concept of the individual struggling against society inherent in anarchism.
Good enough?
Jedi
I hear ya bro, but check it. I would prefer to use a fascist source such as Junger due to the fact that anarchy does NOT need to prove itself since it exists naturally in the social order, world around us, and is the basis of the organic universe within which we all dwell. Those who attempted to use and abuse the inherent truth of anarchy, in many ways only validated its essence as truth. I think that Junger's quote is quite succinct.
Having said that, I do understand your apprehension of using an outright fascist source to verify such an integral aspect of anarchist theory as the anarch. Makhno advanced the idea of the individual aspect of anarchism in much of his polemical defence of the platform. The whole argumentation of anarchism provides a great synthesis of much of the streams of anarchist thought coalescing during the movements height. So, what I'll do is use the quote, give the explanation, and then verify the quote with Makhno. Is that cool?
Fight Back!
Jedi
Makhno never used the concept of the "anarch", nor did any other anarchist. They called themselves "anarchists" and did not postulate some kind of superanarchist archetype. You can't verify a quote from a one time Nazi sympathizer by citing something by Makhno which in no way relates to Junger's statement. The concept of the "anarch" simply has no currency in the history of anarchist thought.
I commend those who are participating in this discussion on anarchy for their anarchist principles. Let's analyze your assertation using anarchist principles. I will synthesize the "superarnarchist" idea you are putting forward, and say that the "anarch" isn't the super of, but the essence of anarchy.
Makhno said that anarchy is inherent in people today, and that only (libertarian) communism can bring it out. Malatesta and Kropotkin both said that anarchy exists within the people but that the state inhibits it. All of these said numerous times that anarchy does not need experts, a rational, nor method of analysis since it exists naturaly and only needs to be brought out by directly attacking the state.
A person who is outside of the anarchist thinking and objectivelly states that "anarch is to the anarchist what the monarch is to the monarchist" is making an objective statement as to what the primacy of anarchy is. Anarchy would be a society wholly dedicated to unleashing the latent drive and potential of each anarchists anarch. The sovereign individual will only create a community that has everybody as soveriegn individuals.
How about this for an addition? I'll clean up the language a bit first, but this is the essence of what I propose for an addition.
"Ernst Jünger, a one time Nazi sympathizer remarked that the "The Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist..." meaning the determining drive inherent within the individual. Further advanced by Nestor Makhno when he said that "It is on the basis of the will of the individual that the libertarian [anarchist] teaching can be embodied in real life and clear a path that will help man to banish all spirit of submission from his bosom...could only be, for him, a means through which to achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst continuing to develop. " So, in effect, the goal of anarchists was and will be the emancipation of the anarch through the principles, struggle, and eventual creation of anarchy.
I believe that this paragraph should encompass the various streams of anarchist thought, and should easily fit into the introduction.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/ourtimes.htm for the source material
Fight Back! Jedi
I am so happy that you pointed out a serious potenial misreading of the concept of the "anarch" to be a person that replaces an anarchist. I thought I made it explicitly clear that the anarch is not a person, thing, or station, but the "inherent potential living within all of us." Malatesta reffered to the "spirit of revolt", but this requires anarchists to fire up through struggle against the state. The monarch is an exterior, hiearchical, state of coercive control embodied in a cult of personality. The anarch is the uninhibited driving desire within a human being. It is implied by the term "id" within Freudian psychology, but only if we interpret "ego" and "superego" to be internalized conscious aspects of the social state.
So, a state of anarchy, I hate using this term to conceptualize anarchy, would be based on the internal drive, the "anarch" being primary to the motivation of all to meet the needs of all. whereas, a state of hiearchy requires an executive to carry out the aspirations of the ruling class to meet the needs of the ruling class.
I should abstain from using "sovereign individual" since it implies bourgeois individualism -- the ideal that you are your own god and all should bow to your will. I meant it in purely anarchist terms as someone who has seized control of their conscious and is able to percieve the state in all its forms and desires to struggle against it.
Does this discussion clear up what I mean by anarch?
Fight Back
Jedi
I'm going to put in a few paragraphs from "The Platform" on anarchist communism. I find that it is completely divorced from this vital aspect of Anarchism.
Fight Back! Jedi
All that is necessary in the "Anarchism" page would be a short reference to Makhno. If you want to add a few paragraphs on Makhno, the Platform, and their relationship to anarchist communism, then you should add that to the "Anarchist Communism" page. 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How about a short reference to both Makhno, the makhnovschina, and the platform. I would suggest using that here since it did illustrate a form of anarchy in action, and was a document based upon that experience. After I type it, I'm sure that you'll guys will make sure that it's unbiased, but I fully believe that it is integral to understanding anarchy as a whole.
Is it time to trim the intro again? Putney debates, Polish nationalists ... really needed in the intro? Also the Proudhon section. Bengalski 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I made some more cuts to the intro:
I changed:
To:
I thought the first version had unnecessary repetition (we also have 'coercive structures' in the sentence above). I cut 'balanced reciprocity' because I don't think it's a concept used by many anarchist writers. All this about 'voluntary association', 'mutual aid', and 'self-governance' is a bit vague and abstract, but at least these three are common themes in the history of anarchist thought: you could find them or synonyms in anyone from Proudhon to today. Balanced reciprocity I think is rather less central.
In the last para I cut the quote: "total communism to zealous individualism. In between are found sundry recipes, from anarcho-syndicalism to anarcho-capitalism."[3] Everyone who has ever edited this page knows that the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism is controversial. I am not saying the article should deny that a-c is a form of anarchism. But given that so many dispute it, we shouldn't have it featured in the intro. Also, the quote really didn't add anything substantial.
I'm still concerned about the Cromwell etc. quotes - these reference 'anarchy' not 'anarchism'. Bengalski 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel the removal of the piece about the Wielkopolska Uprising was a little presumptory. It clear links up with Bakunin subsequently becoming such an ardent anarchist. Of course once one has a grasp of Bakunin's pan-slavism, it is easier to see how Aryan Anarchism could arise. Harrypotter 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here\'s an essay from Spunk Library by L. Gambone: Proudhon and Anarchism. Gambone takes the opposite viewpoint from RobGraham - that Proudhon was consistent in his anarchism and never wavered from anarchism. (Although he did change his terminology.) After reading both RobGraham and Gambone, I agree with the latter.
One point of contention is in the interpretation of \"perpetual desideradum.\" Literally, it means \'\'permanent primary goal\'\'. If someone asserts that their primary goal is anarchism, it is rather absurd to claim they\'re rejecting anarchism. Yet RobGraham does just this. Gambone emphasizes that Proudhon was \'\'anti-utopian\'\' - he wanted a practical anarchism. Thus Proudhon wrote about transition programs rather than what things might be like if the State magically disappeared. Contrary to RobGraham, an anarchist can talk about transition programs without losing his anarchist credentials.
RobGraham gives a partial contextless Proudhon quote when Rob writes: \"he advocated a confederation of \'sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees.\'\" The question here is whether Proudhon was writing about the anarchist ideal, or about a practical transition program. While Rob tries to spin it as a final goal, it\'s pretty clear to me that Proudhon is talking about a transition program. Why else would he emphasize that it is not the ultimate goal (\"perpetual desideradum\") but merely a program for the real world.
Unfortunately, I don\'t have a copy of \'\'Principle of Federation\'\', so I cannot judge for myself first-hand. (If someone has a copy, would you scan it in, OCR it, and put it on the web, please? Or send it to me and I\'ll put it on my site.) But my present take is that Proudhon was writing about a transition program, and being anti-utopian, recognized the fact that States exist and will continue to exist for some time. So if I ever get unblocked, I intend to delete the claim that Proudhon abandoned or distanced himself from anarchism.
Another claim made by Rob that I would contest is that federalism is (somehow) contrary to anarchism. Most Proudhon fans would say the opposite, that Proudhon\'s federalism is an essential part of his anarchism. Again, the fact that Proudhon wanted decentralization and federalism before States magically disappeared should not be construed as an endorsement of States. It is merely recognizing reality - shit happens and States exist. Get used to it, and plan accordingly.
Anyhow, I recommend the Gambone essay for those interested in Proudhon. - Hogeye
A much more complete reading of Proudhon which emphasizes his consistency and development, is Robert Hoffman's Revolutionary justice; the social and political theory of P.-J. Proudhon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972). I haven't seen anything that deals as fully with the untranslated sources. Libertatia 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How anti-authoritarian to simply remove the link to my essay on Proudhon because some people disagree with it! My essay has numerous references to original sources that clearly demonstrate that Proudhon was never a consistent anarchist and that by the time he wrote The Principle of Federation and On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes he had ceased to identify himself as an anarchist and no longer advocated anarchy as a viable alternative to the state. For an assessment of Proudhon as a democratic socialist rather than an anarchist, with extensive references to the original sources, see Steven Vincent's Proudhon and The Rise of French Republican Socialism. For those of you who read French, the introduction to the Riviere edition of Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century is very instructive. For those of you who don't, try reading Richard Vernon's introduction to his translation of The Principle of Federation (University of Toronto Press, 1979). Robgraham 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so what's up with this new section? I've never heard of this, it seems way to obscure to be mentioned in this article, especially considering that we are trying to find ways to decrease article lenghth. I mean, I thought we were compromising enough just to have an-cap in here, but what is up with this? Am I just missing something? I'm going to delete this section within 24 hours if there is no objection here. The Ungovernable Force 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
One article on non-western anarchism: [ [32]} Also Britannica has an article on east asian anarchism if anyone has access to that. And a reference to a book: Doctor, Adi Hormusji (1964): Anarchist thought in India, Bombay; New York: Asia Pub. House. Bengalski 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Jason Adam's article on non-Western anarchisms doesn't refer to "aryan anarchism." I doubt the other references do either. I think it would be better to include a section on non-Western anarchisms rather than this obscure entry with so far unsubstantiated factual claims.
Please do not remove this claim -- backed-up in the bottom-up democracyarticle -- without some kind of counter-argument.
Skovoroda 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you just say "Noam Chomsky says it's bottom-up democracy?" Preferably lower down in the article. Bacchiad 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This article comes up as 69Kb. Ideally articles shouldn't be more than 30kb (although WP:SIZE allows exceptions, but 69kb is really pushing it). As parts of this article are well referenced, I propose removing all unreferenced claims to the talk page (or a sub page thereof) this could enable the article to even gain featured article status. Comments, ideas, objections (please don't bite my head off, I am proposing this on the talk page rather than just doing it unilaterally :)). Captainj 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Posted on User: Harrypotter's talk page by User:Captainj: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
Also, if I may make a suggestion? The term Aryan Anarchism does seem non-notable, but perhaps some of the content you added may be notable. Is there no where else you can put this content such as a new article (but please avoid the word "anarchism" in the title). The anarchy page is too long, and adding content which has at best a very tenous link to anarchism isn't helpful. Captainj 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This maybe replying to two discussions in one but I hope it makes sense. (Harry, honestly I take your points very seriously and I agree with much of your general approach):
My impression from what I've seen so far (and not having access to the books either on the Ghadar party or on Indian anarchism, I admit I don't have much to go on): Hardayal was involved in anarchist movements in the USA, he was a leading figure in the Ghadar Party and there's every reason to believe that anarchist ideas will have influenced his contribution there. This would be interesting for the article on the GP, and maybe a wider discussion of anarchist influences on other political movements.
However, I don't see anything to say that the GP itself was an anarchist movement. It being anti-white or anti-english isn't the issue. None of your sources Harry say that it "very clearly is a variant of anarchism".
On the particular quotes you provided:
1) as we have discussed before, the IWW itself wasn't a purely anarchist movement. Also, as above, H's anarchist involvement doesn't necessarily translate into GP being an anarchist movement.
2) as also has been discussed before, propaganda of the deed is not a uniquely anarchist concept.
3) 'heterogenous democratic, syndicalist and anarchist notions' - indeed, maybe a movement influenced by anarchism ...
4, 5) again, I'm not questioning that H at least at one point was involved with anarchism. this is some way from being 'as much an anarchist as Proudhon and Bakunin' - anyone can point to texts by P and B that are cornerstones of anarchist theory and major influences on all subsequent anarchists - though maybe you've got a point about Stirner. My view is Stirner wasn't an anarchist, but he needs mentioning for the influence he had on anarchists.
On your two forces a and b these are both good points.
Still, without more evidence I'd peg the Ghadar Party as a movement with anarchist influences (at least from one founder - I don't know about the other leaders), but not itself explicitly advocating anarchism, and with many of its central tenets (eg. universal suffrage) very non-anarchist.
Which leads to CaptainJ's points - this article is already too long for us to start including 'movements partially influenced by anarchists'. Yes. We should maybe create another page (or category?) for that. Including fascist movements with anarchist influences.
I agree with Harry there is a load of other shit in this article that could be cut or moved elsewhere. The detail on amarican individualism and anarcho-capitalism shouldn't be here - but it's here because of edit warring not because of its intrinsic merits. Similarly all this US post-left and 'small a' stuff is overdone. This whole article is far too skewed to the US - even as for US versus much bigger and more notable European movements, and when we come to "non-Western" movements ...
Yes the article needs cutting, but actually there should be more on India, China, Latinamerica etc. All in all I can't really see it going much below 60K, and I don't think that's necessarily a big problem - the emphasis on the USA and anglophonia in general is a bigger issue. As I understand it the 30K idea comes from when there were browsers that couldn't handle more. I think many featured articles now are some way over, and on a topic like this I'm doubtful we'd ever get it down that low. For my browser at least I don't have a problem with the article length - though if genuinely there are people who still have technical problems with the length then yes we should make more effort. Bengalski 00:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Somalia is anarchic, but not an anarchy. It is anarchic because competing claimants to sovereignty and thus to governance are each trying to stake their claim. A society would become an anarchy properly speaking only if and when a sizeable majority ceased to believe in sovereignty as a premise, so no organization could plausibly claim to be the government. -- Christofurio 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Should he really get his own section, and so far up at that? I mean, he didn't even consider himself an anarchist. And he shows up before Bakunin!!! The American Indivualist Anarchist section already lists him as an influence on Tucker - who seems to be the only important thinker he influenced. Isn't that enough? Bacchiad 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Somalia an example of various forms of anarchy (no central government, completely free market) although it has many problems and abuses?-- Exander 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't trust western mass media regarding Somalia. (Or much else, for that matter.) It may well be that people are fighting for the right to join the arbitration/legal system of their choice (Xeer, Sharia, or whatever). Note that, as in Iraq and elsewhere, the USEmpire is managing to make terrorist factions of Islam more popular by intervening militarily - military aid to the non-Muslim faction in the recent Mog fighting. - H
User:AaronS keeps reinserting the claim "(Anarchism) has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist, and is to this day" and cites the Encarta article as the source. [34] This article's only mentions of capitalism are: anarchism's rise during the rise of large-scale industrial capitalism; Proudhon describing an alternative to capitalism, and the mention of A/C. It does not support what he posted there. See his post on my talk page. Note that this isn't new for AaronS. In the past, he claimed that an article, clear from its title that it was a critique of anarchy, was written by an anarcho-capitalist. He also thinks "strawman" is a generic catch-all for "argument I deem to be flawed". MrVoluntarist 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the "traditional" thing. Isn't something that's been around since at least the 1960's or 1970's (anarcho-capitalism) traditional? RJII 05:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The MS Encarta articles are clear and leave little to subjective interpretation. The Microsoft Corporation could hardly be considered to be a source biased in favor of socialism or anarchism. It would be an unimaginably mysterious feat of semantic voodoo to claim that the articles do not clearly state that anarchism was traditionally socialist and that anarchism is not "basically anticapitalist" today. And MrVoluntarist, you seem to be confused. I have made it clear which articles I have been citing since the beginning. The UK article establishes the traditional socialist relationship, and the US article establishes that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist" to this day. That's quite clear in the notes section of the article. -- AaronS 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The old version of the article claimed that anarchism is "a manner of organizing society." Anarchism is the opposite - it opposes a planned order in favor of emergent decentralized ("spontaneous") order. Anarchism is a political philosophy, not a planned or imposed order. If there's something anarchists vehemently disagree about among themselves, it's the manner of organizing society. - anon
Will you please stop reverting this article back and forth. It's hard to tell what the reverts are about and its getting silly. I can't even work out who's reverting and why (there are a lot of anonymous IP edits are they all from one person?). If this carries on I think the page should be temporarily protected, or semi-protected until we agree on content. At the moment, I can't even work out what the discussion is about. Incidentally, if someone has nothing else to do, this talk page really could do with archiving... CaptainJ ( t | c | e) 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
by Murray N. Rothbard
This article first appeared in The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.
Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.
Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.
And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.
It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.
Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.
If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.
They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.
Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence – all of which are corollaries of each other – anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."
The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.
Or would they?
Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.
Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.
On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.
Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.
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.
Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice – all this in the name of "freedom." The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.
Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.
Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources – labor, land, and capital goods – to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about – in vain – to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.
The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.
It is no accident that it was precisely the economists in the Communist countries who led the rush away from communism, socialism, and central planning, and toward free markets. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of anarcho-communism.
The same comment can be made on the widespread belief, held by many New Leftists and by all anarcho-communists, that there is no longer need to worry about economics or production because we are supposedly living in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems do not arise. But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man, we are still living in a world of pervasive economic scarcity.
How will we know when the world has achieved "post-scarcity"? Simply, when all the goods and services that we may want have become so superabundant that their prices have fallen to zero; in short, when we can acquire all goods and services as in a Garden of Eden – without effort, without work, without using any scarce resources.
The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown, one of the gurus of the new "counter-culture":
The great economist von Mises tried to refute socialism by demonstrating that, in abolishing exchange, socialism made economic calculation, and hence economic rationality, impossible … But if von Mises is right, then what he discovered is not a refutation but a psychoanalytical justification of socialism … It is one of the sad ironies of contemporary intellectual life that the reply of socialist economists to von Mises' arguments was to attempt to show that socialism was not incompatible with "rational economic calculation" – that is to say, that it could retain the inhuman principle of economizing. (Life Against Death, Random House, paperback, 1959, pp. 238–39.)
The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.
If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:
In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.
It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization – you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
From the US version of MS Encarta: "...in 1872 the anarchists were expelled from the International. Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." Stop removing the sourced claim that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist" from the article. I note that anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the 20th century, so it is NPOV. -- AaronS 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone feel the need to revert the article as currently written? If so, why? Please give specific complaints. BTW, I finally registered. BillyBong 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the second time today I accidentally hit save before finishing an edit summary. I just reverted sarge's last edit because the way you did it made it so one template overlaps with another. The Ungovernable Force 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement about the Cultural Phenomena section. In particular, whether only self-identifying anarchists should be included, or anyone who contributes significantly to anarchist cultural phenomena can be included. Currently, the section is inconsistent. Someone reverted to self-identifiers-only in the description, yet left such non-self-identifiers as Ursela Le Guin, Han Alfredson, Ward Churchill, and (possibly) Robert Anton Wilson among others on the list.
IMO anyone contributing to anarchist popular culture is a candidate for inclusion. Otherwise, let's change the section title to Self-labeled Anarchist Celebrities or something. A lot of anarchist cultural phenomena are put forth by non-anarchists, such as popular songs and groups, and authors with anarchist themes. It would be a shame to have to cut Le Guin or Heinlein. I don't think this section should have a purity test for inclusion. BillyBong 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In the latest mass revert, the Anarcho-capitalist section was fouled up. All the information explaining the justifications of ancap were deleted, and it went back to a version with ridiculously redundant reminders that ancap is controversial. I.e. twice in the first paragraph, all of the third paragraph, and a link at the end. The controversy should be pointed out, but the whole section shouldn't be dominated by repeated disclaimers. Once is enough, plus a link to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism at the end. So I'm changing the section back to the former version. BillyBong 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess not; it's been protected. Here's the improved version without the repeated disclaimers. It retains disclaimers in the first paragraph and the link at the end. Compare with current version. BillyBong 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that promotes an economic system of free market capitalism in which no authority would prohibit anyone to provide via the free market functions that are generally allowed by most current governments to be provided only by state monopoly such as defence of private property (police), legal/administrative institutions (courts) and environment conservation (e.g., U.S. Forest Service). Because anarcho-capitalism does not oppose profit, rent, interest or capitalism, many anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. [1]
Murray Rothbard's synthesis of classical liberalism and Austrian economics was germinal for the development of contemporary anarcho-capitalist theory. Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time). Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman. Some minarchists, such as Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein, have influenced anarcho-capitalism. But most anarcho-capitalists believe that anarchism without capitalism cannot exist, because in the absence of a state authority that would prevent it, capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop in any free society. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." [2]
Anarcho-capitalism is often based on the NAP ( Non-Aggression Principle), i.e. that the initiation of violence is morally wrong. This is analogous to Just War Theory, wherein aggression is wrong but retaliatory force (in proportion) is permissable. Proponents of this natural law basis for anarcho-capitalism point out that most people agree with the NAP on an individual level, but fail to apply it to governments, thereby giving them a super-moral status. Anarcho-capitalists insist on consistency when applying the NAP. Other anarcho-capitalists justify it instead on a utilitarian basis; monopoly states have the same drawbacks as other monopolies, e.g. expensive poor quality service.
Some anarcho-capitalists, along with some libertarian historians such as David Hart and Ralph Raico, considered similar philosophies existing before Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist, such as those of Gustave de Molinari and Auberon Herbert. [3] [4] Both Molinari and Herbert explicitly rejected the label of anarchist, associating it with the socialist factions prevalent in their time. Molinari called himself an economist, while Herbert coined the term voluntaryist.
For more on debate about the place of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Would you be so kind as to archive this talk page? Thanks. BillyBong 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)