Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 29 March 2006

Philosophy Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Nozick

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. -- infinity0 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon on "property"

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)

on wage labor

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. -- infinity0 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage labor just means being paid wages for labor. Proudhon supported that. RJII 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, RJII do you really need to inflict your ignorance of anarchism on to us? What have we done to deserve this? Have you actually *read* any Proudhon? I have. Proudhon thought that "all accumulated capital is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to rescue the working masses from capitalist exploitation." Or, "In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy." How about when he argued his ideas aimed for the "abolition of the proletariat"? And I haven't even quoted from his "The General Idea of the Revolution" yet. Or the numerous indepth studies of Proudhon which point out that he was against wage labour and in favour of co-operatives!

Yes, he was in favour of workers being paid for their work but that is *not* automatically wage labour! An a co-operative labour is not a cost and so any "profit" is a wage income to be distributed between those who produced the goods. In a capitalist firm, labour is a cost and profit is owned by the capitalist (and so is a non-labour income). As Proudhon argued, repeatedly.

Being paid for labor is wage labor. RJII 08:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Read some Proudhon, he explains the difference well. Or read something on the economics of co-operatives, if you cannot bring yourself to read Proudhon. BlackFlag 09:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The mutualists do not oppose wage labor. They oppose profit being deducted from wages. Communists are the ones that oppose wage labor. Tucker explains it here criticizing Kropotkin for opposing wage labor. RJII 08:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and keep it simple. Proudhon was not Tucker. Tucker was not Proudhon. European mutualism is not identical with American individualist anarchism. That is obvious if you read Proudhon and Tucker. Tucker's support for wage labour is in direct contradiction to Proudhon's arguments on this matter. Quoting Tucker in support of a claim about what Proudhon thought is a joke. As is failing to even mention the numerous quotes I provided from Proudhon himself. I could provide even more quotes by Proudhon on the matter, reference numerous secondary studies of his ideas, but I really fail to see why I should given that you have presented absolutely *no* evidence to support your "dispute." What you have provided is references to two articles by two *other* people, one of which (Kropotkin's) you obviously do not understand and the other is not even about Proudhon's version of mutualism. BlackFlag 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what the problem here is. We have someone who seems to be ignorant of anarchism and the anarchist tradition trying to bolster his own specific ideology by clutching at any straws he can find. I can see why this webpage is constantly changing as even the most elementary ideas of anarchism are put up for "dispute" by people who don't know enough about the subject to know better. BlackFlag 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin criticized Proudhon because, among other reasons, he supported wage labor. You don't know much about the conflicts between Proudhonism and communism, do you? RJII 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for basis of claim? -- infinity0 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"It is the same with the wages system; for after having proclaimed the abolition of private property, and the possession in common of all means of production, how can they uphold the wages system in any form? It is, nevertheless, what collectivists are doing when they recommend labour-cheques. It is easy to understand why the early English socialists came to the system of labour-cheques. They simply tried to make Capital and Labour agree. They repudiated the idea of violently laying hands on capitalist property. It is also easily understood why Proudhon took up the idea later on'. In his Mutualist system he tried to make Capital less offensive, notwithstanding the retaining of private property, which he detested from the bottom of his heart, but which he believed to be necessary to guarantee individuals against the State...But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?" -Kropotkin RJII 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely that "the idea" refers to "labour cheques", as it is the preceding noun??? -- infinity0 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. You still think "wage labour" is the same as "wages for labour". -- infinity0 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wages for labor and wage labor are the same thing, yes. RJII 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested

User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy - a few points we noticed about some issues and events on wikipedia. -- infinity0 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that all seems fairly obvious. Consider how long it took before we introduced a section on criticism. Not many people who aren't anarchists feel safe coming in here, partly by a lack of interest, partly by a lack of knowledge, but also in part because it just isn't a welcoming place to be. I know I make it a point to stay out of articles like anarcho-capitalism for that reason. It's pretty obvious who's going to take the effort to edit that article. And I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing hanging around here. Although considering that less than 1% of my edits have been to this page I don't think it's too problematic. The only real way I've found to avoid POV editing is to do most of it through the random page function, and that's often very boring. Sarge Baldy 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be interesting if you could only edit pages randomly? In other words, instead of an "edit this page" button, an edit button that just opens up a random page? There would be huge downsides, of course, but it would be interesting nonetheless. --AaronS 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage labour is not "labour for wages"

Please see Talk:Wage_labour#Suggestion_to_merge_this_with_wages. -- infinity0 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles